What's wrong with the rich getting HUGE tax breaks?

[west3man]

No one's ever accused me of being a conservative, but I occasionally wonder about something:

Why is it "fair" for the wealthy to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, but it's not fair for them to get huge (disproportionate) tax breaks?

[Shellhead]

No one's ever accused me of being a conservative, but I occasionally wonder about something:

Why is it "fair" for the wealthy to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, but it's not fair for them to get huge (disproportionate) tax breaks?

I wish there was a way to set two tax brackets for the rich, one moderate percentage for the hard-working entrepeneurs who really worked for their money, and another, much higher tax bracket for lazy heirs to existing fortunes. Parasites like Paris Hilton doesn't need or deserve a huge tax break.

[Jeff Brady]

No one's ever accused me of being a conservative, but I occasionally wonder about something:

Why is it "fair" for the wealthy to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, but it's not fair for them to get huge (disproportionate) tax breaks?

Because they make such a disproportionate amount of money. Especially CEOs who award themselves with multi-million dollar bonuses while laying off bottom-rung workers to maintain the bottom line.

[west3man]

I still don't see how it's "fair."

If I got my money because my parents worked really hard and gave me some (or passed away and bequeathed it to me) that doesn't mean I'm lazy. And even if I *am* lazy, I don't see how that entitles the government, the taxpayers, or the Iraqi citizens to a higher percentage of MY money.

[Michael P]

Because in comparison with the poor, the rich can afford to pay higher taxes, and don't need as many tax breaks. (Although they still get plenty of them; it's not like without Bush's tax cuts, the wealthy would be scraping to make ends meet.)

Take a guy who makes $20,000 a year, and a guy who makes $20,000,000 a year. Taxing them both at ten percent, you take $2000 from guy A and $2,000,000 from guy B. Guy A is left with $18,000; guy B, $18,000,000. The difference between them is, guy A is struggling to meet the cost of living, while guy B has a very comfortable margin. You could raise guy B's taxes to 20%, and he'd still be OK.

[Michael P]

I still don't see how it's "fair."

If I got my money because my parents worked really hard and gave me some (or passed away and bequeathed it to me) that doesn't mean I'm lazy. And even if I *am* lazy, I don't see how that entitles the government, the taxpayers, or the Iraqi citizens to a higher percentage of MY money.
It's fair in terms of the whole society, not in terms of the individual. No taxation is fair in terms of the individual.

[west3man]

Because in comparison with the poor, the rich can afford to pay higher taxes, and don't need as many tax breaks. (Although they still get plenty of them; it's not like without Bush's tax cuts, the wealthy would be scraping to make ends meet.)

Take a guy who makes $20,000 a year, and a guy who makes $20,000,000 a year. Taxing them both at ten percent, you take $2000 from guy A and $2,000,000 from guy B. Guy A is left with $18,000; guy B, $18,000,000. The difference between them is, guy A is struggling to meet the cost of living, while guy B has a very comfortable margin. You could raise guy B's taxes to 20%, and he'd still be OK.If we're gonna judge "fair" strictly by whether someone will still be "okay," after we take their money, I'm buying a ski mask when I get off of work.

[Shellhead]

Because in comparison with the poor, the rich can afford to pay higher taxes, and don't need as many tax breaks. (Although they still get plenty of them; it's not like without Bush's tax cuts, the wealthy would be scraping to make ends meet.)

Take a guy who makes $20,000 a year, and a guy who makes $20,000,000 a year. Taxing them both at ten percent, you take $2000 from guy A and $2,000,000 from guy B. Guy A is left with $18,000; guy B, $18,000,000. The difference between them is, guy A is struggling to meet the cost of living, while guy B has a very comfortable margin. You could raise guy B's taxes to 20%, and he'd still be OK.

When tax accountants and tax attorneys discuss tax policy, they refer to taxes that fall more heavily on the rich as "progressive" and the opposite as "regressive." While the rich may disagree, it's better to live in a country where there is a large middle class than to live in a country where most people are poor and a few people are obscenely wealthy.

[Drew Van T.]

Because they don't need that extra money. What's a few thousand dollars more or less to a millionaire? Is he ever going to suffer from being in a higher tax bracket? Hell no.

Whereas to those on the lowest rung of society, just a hundred dollars can be the difference between life and death (in a medical situation, for instance). One single buck can mean the world to someone in that world.

In order to continue to function as a society, you need a thing called social responsibility, and it mandates that wealth be redistributed to a certain degree. Public schools for instance are an excellent example of redistribution of wealth, providing a service (albeit a highly emaciated and underfunded one in America's case) to society as a whole.

[Joe Rice]

Fair does not mean equal.

[Dreadstar]

Fair does not mean equal.

Ding!


Although, I'm pretty much against the INCOME tax, especially the way it's evolved. I don't know that a flat tax would necessarily be better, I've had people preach both good and bad about that to me. I'd be more for a consumer tax, a sales tax, personally.

[west3man]

Fair does not mean equal.
What I'm suggesting isn't equality, so I don't see how the above applies.

[Slam_Bradley]

Define "HUGE tax breaks."

[Michael P]

Ding!


Although, I'm pretty much against the INCOME tax, especially the way it's evolved. I don't know that a flat tax would necessarily be better, I've had people preach both good and bad about that to me. I'd be more for a consumer tax, a sales tax, personally.
A consumer tax would make sense in a consumer economy. Of course, it would also be less feasible for the wealthy to write themselves loopholes into such a plan, which somewhat lessens the chances of it ever being made law.

[west3man]

Ding!


Although, I'm pretty much against the INCOME tax, especially the way it's evolved. I don't know that a flat tax would necessarily be better, I've had people preach both good and bad about that to me. I'd be more for a consumer tax, a sales tax, personally.
While I am in favor of a flat tax, that's not what I'm suggesting here. I'm sorry if I've given you that impression (although I don't really see how I did).

If anything, suggesting that the rich and the poor should get equal tax break (which is what the question is about), either in flat amounts or flat percentages, is what I'm questioning.

[Ed Cunard]

If we're gonna judge "fair" strictly by whether someone will still be "okay," after we take their money, I'm buying a ski mask when I get off of work.

Stop typing crazy, West. Ski instructors don't make that much money.

[Dreadstar]

While I am in favor of a flat tax, that's not what I'm suggesting here. I'm sorry if I've given you that impression (although I don't really see how I did).

If anything, suggesting that the rich and the poor should get equal tax break (which is what the question is about), either in flat amounts or flat percentages, is what I'm questioning.

Yes, I know.

[Dreadstar]

A consumer tax would make sense in a consumer economy. Of course, it would also be less feasible for the wealthy to write themselves loopholes into such a plan, which somewhat lessens the chances of it ever being made law.
Cynic.


Not that there's anything essentially wrong with that.

[west3man]

Stop typing crazy, West. Ski instructors don't make that much money.
How'd you know I was typing with my toes?

Seriously, I think I've gotten my answer: "Because they can afford it." It's not one that I agree with, but thanks for the responses.

[Michael P]

Cynic.

Not really. Cynicism, to me, denies the idea that things can change for the better. I'm an idealist who's aware of the obstacles.

[Wesley Dodds]

It depends on how much they're paying relative to everyone else, of course. I'm fine with them paying a little more but have a big problem with them paying less (as a percentage) than other groups.

[Dreadstar]

Not really. Cynicism, to me, denies the idea that things can change for the better. I'm an idealist who's aware of the obstacles.

Pessimist.

[Tom]

"Because they can afford it" isn't quite how I see it. It all comes down to what kind of society Americans want and value. If you institute tax breaks that benefit the wealthy disproportionately, then you create a society that's almost entirely made up of a small aristocracy and a large lower class. If you tax the rich at a rate greater than other classes, you create a small upper class, a huge middle class and a small(er) lower class.

[Matt Algren]

(Had this all typed out once and the darn computer crashed. Let's see if I can do it again.)Because they don't need that extra money. What's a few thousand dollars more or less to a millionaire? Is he ever going to suffer from being in a higher tax bracket? Hell no.It isn't 'extra' money, it's just more than I have. Why should that mean that someone else should have to pay a disproportionately higher amount of money than I do? If someone wants to give to those 'on the lowest rung of society', there are loads of ways to do that without taking the money by force.
Whereas to those on the lowest rung of society, just a hundred dollars can be the difference between life and death (in a medical situation, for instance). One single buck can mean the world to someone in that world.I totally agree with you, but I also think it's irrelevent to how much more taxes we should take from someone else.
In order to continue to function as a society, you need a thing called social responsibility, and it mandates that wealth be redistributed to a certain degree. Public schools for instance are an excellent example of redistribution of wealth, providing a service (albeit a highly emaciated and underfunded one in America's case) to society as a whole.Social responsibility is a great thing, and it's greater when someone gets to spend her charitable dollars where they want to instead of where they're told they have to.

I don't think the public school example is a good one, because taxpayers decide on a local basis how much money is needed and where. This keeps 'redistribution' to a minimum.

[BlairH]

Because in comparison with the poor, the rich can afford to pay higher taxes, and don't need as many tax breaks. (Although they still get plenty of them; it's not like without Bush's tax cuts, the wealthy would be scraping to make ends meet.)

But then there has to be someone drawing the lines. Someone to decide how rich one has to be before they can "afford" to contribute a higher proportion of their income to the public purse. I'm not sure whether or not I can trust that someone (however apparently uncorruptable they may be) to redistribute wealth in a fair manner.

The individual knows their own personal monetary situation best, not some distant Chancellor in Downing Street. So why should he get to decide whether or not "I can afford it"?

From a purely ideological point of view I am in favour of a universally flat income tax. That's the "ideal" for me. From a practical, project-oriented point of view however, I don't think the UK is ready for a flat tax, so the next best thing is to gradually make the progressive taxes a bit less progressive.

[Ray R.]

Well, since we're discussing proportionality, why don't we mention regressive taxes as well.

As a proportion of income, poor and middle class pay more taxes through sales taxes, liquor taxes, cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes, car taxes, telephone and cellphone taxes, cable and satellite taxes, tolls, meters, and the like.

And since the state and federal states don't necessarily use that money that disproportionately comes from the poor and middle class to benefit the poor or middle class. Sometimes it goes into the general fund, sometimes it's specifically ear-marked. God knows where the bullshit taxes like the cellphone and telephone federal taxes go. In any case, as a percentage of total income, they drill those with lower incomes much more heavily than those in the top 20% who contribute much less. Fair or unfair?

And generally local public education comes from property taxes, so if you own a home and don't have any kids, you're helping somebody else's kid get a free education on your dime. Is that unfair?

Taxes are inherently unfair. But I'm not about to shed any tears for the rich just yet. The richest 1% only pay about 6-7% more of their yearly income in federal income tax than me, and I'm far from rich. Very far. And that's without tax shelters, off-shore accounts, and various other loopholes available to those who can hire a Big 6 accounting firm. So fuck them.

[Matt Algren]

“A tax loophole is something that benefits the other guy. If it benefits you, it is tax reform.”

Russell B. Long

[Charles RB]

I'm not sure whether or not I can trust that someone (however apparently uncorruptable they may be) to redistribute wealth in a fair manner.

I'm more worried about whether or not they can do it in a competent manner, which the government sucks at. The thing is though, the way the country works means we need people to pay their taxes in order for the country to continue running; we can and should make the government more efficient & cost-effective, but even then we'll still need to pay tax. I don't see why richer citizens should get a comparatively easier ride when it comes to tax than everyone else.

And let's remember quite a few really rich people and large corporations in the UK actively work to find loopholes in tax laws and get away with it; Shell stashed its profits in tax havens in order to avoid paying tax at all. (Revenue and Customs are moving to make sure nobody can do that again, but they're allowing Shell to keep doing it since they dun it before the new legislation came in) Doesn't sound like they're severely inconvinienced by taxation, but it does sound like their basic objection is having to pay tax at all. OK, nobody likes paying tax and most people would probably dodge doing it if they could afford to, but tough shit.

[GozertheGozarian]

Many of the second generation millionares also get much of their money off of trust funds, which do not generate income tax.

[Dreadstar]

Truth be told, if I could figure out a way to screw you all out of my taxes, I'd do it in a stone cold second.

[Bouncing Boy]

The problem I have with huge tax breaks for the rich is that it doesn't work the way it's supposed to. In theory, as far as I can tell, they give tax breaks to the rich so that they can pay their employees more and pass the money back to the little guy, through charity and stuff. The problem is that people on the whole are generally greedy, they want more stuff for themselves so they would still pay their employees as little as they possibly can get away with.

[macul]

I don't like the idea that wealthy are taxed at a different percentage rate. I'd rather a different solution be found. Maybe it's the flat or fair tax. I dunno.

My objection isn't anything over the top. I just take the stance that it isn't my money. I've no right to expect them to do any more than I do. I don't care if they worked or inherited it. It ain't mine, so I shouldn't act as if I'm owed anything.

I also have concerns about where the line of "wealthy" is drawn.

[Loren]

I saw on Jane Galt (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005766.html) a great post recently about allegations of whether a tax cut is "disproportionate" or not:

The basic problem is that there is no single way to gauge changes in progressivity. As a result, people can take the same set of numbers, look at them from different angles, and reach very different conclusions.

Consider a simple example. There are two people. A rich guy earns $200,000. A poor guy earns $20,000. At first, the rich guy pays $50,000 in taxes, and the poor guy pays $1,000. Then a new President takes office and cuts the rich guy's taxes to $48,000 and the poor guy's taxes to $800.

Who is getting the better deal?

- You could say the rich guy gets the better deal: The rich guy gets an extra $2000 in take-home pay, while the poor guy gets only $200. After the tax cut, the difference in take-home pay between the two guys is larger.

- You could say the deal is evenly balanced: Everyone gets to keep an extra 1 percent of his income.

- You could say the poor guy gets the better deal: The poor guy gets a 20 percent tax cut, while the rich guy gets only a 4 percent tax cut. After the tax cut, the rich guy pays a larger share of the total tax burden.

Food for thought.

[Iangould]

Why is it "fair" for the wealthy to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, but it's not fair for them to get huge (disproportionate) tax breaks?

Because they get a disproportionate share of the benefits from government services?

[Iangould]

It depends on how much they're paying relative to everyone else, of course. I'm fine with them paying a little more but have a big problem with them paying less (as a percentage) than other groups.

1. Remember too that most consumption taxes. like sales taxes, are charged at a flat percentage rate meaning that the poor pay a much higher percentage of theri income in such taxes. A progressive income tax, in part, offsets the regressive impact of consumption taxes.

If it weren't for progressive incoem tax, the poor would pay a HIGHER percentage of their incme in tax than the rich.

2. Somebody needs to find the updated figures on what perventage of US Federal income tax is paid by people in the different income brackets.

A few years ago, the US right was quoting those figures incessantly - and using 2001 as the year to quote since it marked the peak of capital gains from the share market boom.

[Tages]

I still don't see how it's "fair."

If I got my money because my parents worked really hard and gave me some (or passed away and bequeathed it to me) that doesn't mean I'm lazy. And even if I *am* lazy, I don't see how that entitles the government, the taxpayers, or the Iraqi citizens to a higher percentage of MY money.
...marry me.

[Slam_Bradley]

Because they get a disproportionate share of the benefits from government services?


Really? How so?

[Shellhead]

1. Remember too that most consumption taxes. like sales taxes, are charged at a flat percentage rate meaning that the poor pay a much higher percentage of theri income in such taxes. A progressive income tax, in part, offsets the regressive impact of consumption taxes.

If it weren't for progressive incoem tax, the poor would pay a HIGHER percentage of their incme in tax than the rich.

2. Somebody needs to find the updated figures on what perventage of US Federal income tax is paid by people in the different income brackets.

A few years ago, the US right was quoting those figures incessantly - and using 2001 as the year to quote since it marked the peak of capital gains from the share market boom.

I like the idea of a modified sales or consumption tax, where the necessities (like food and medicine) are not taxed, and everything else is taxed on a sliding scale, effectively imposing a graduated luxury tax on bigger ticket items.

[Shellhead]

Really? How so?

Rich people have more land and stuff, so they benefit more from national defense than the poor, who have little to lose in the event of an invasion. And rich and middle-class people benefit more from decent roads than poor people who don't have vehicles.

[Loren]

Really? How so?

I was curious about that too. I've heard the claim before, but are there any numbers to back it up?

[Spackling Compound]

Rich people have more land and stuff, so they benefit more from national defense than the poor, who have little to lose in the event of an invasion. And rich and middle-class people benefit more from decent roads than poor people who don't have vehicles.
The poor benefit more from welfare programs, public schools,medi-care and medic-aid..so maybe a tie?

[Ray R.]

The poor benefit more from welfare programs, public schools,medi-care and medic-aid..so maybe a tie?

Welfare = federal insurance, services and protections of your multi-millions in currency, stocks and securities and local and federal protection of your palatial estate (oh, and maybe Coast Guard protection of your yacht).

Yeah, call it a tie.

[macul]

Rich people have more land and stuff, so they benefit more from national defense than the poor, who have little to lose in the event of an invasion. And rich and middle-class people benefit more from decent roads than poor people who don't have vehicles.

Don't they pay taxes on that land and stuff?

[Shellhead]

The poor benefit more from welfare programs, public schools,medi-care and medic-aid..so maybe a tie?

The rich indirectly benefit from those, too. Welfare means that the poor are less likely to steal from the rich. Public schools mean lower corporate training costs and higher employee productivity. Medicare is actually for all old people regardless of wealth, and medicaid, the program for the poor people, keeps them somewhat healthier and thus less likely to harbor and spread diseases to the rich.

[Shellhead]

Don't they pay taxes on that land and stuff?

Property taxes don't go towards underwriting national defense or the national highway system.

[LordKaos]

Rich people have more land and stuff, so they benefit more from national defense than the poor, who have little to lose in the event of an invasion.

If you don't count their lives.

[Spackling Compound]

The rich indirectly benefit from those, too. Welfare means that the poor are less likely to steal from the rich. Public schools mean lower corporate training costs and higher employee productivity. Medicare is actually for all old people regardless of wealth, and medicaid, the program for the poor people, keeps them somewhat healthier and thus less likely to harbor and spread diseases to the rich.
Ok...
Then the poor benefit from the poor roads because the rich won't come down their streets and throw old Heineken bottles or leftover shrimp in their yards.
By keeping the cops busy in rich neighorhoods, it means the poor are less likely to be harrassed by them.

I vowed never to use the eye-rolling avvy...

[Loren]

The poor benefit more from welfare programs, public schools,medi-care and medic-aid..so maybe a tie?

Most of which come out of the Department of Health and Human Services, and this federal budget breakdown (http://www.federalbudget.com/) offers a quick glimpse of how much of our national spending goes to that department (which, I recognize, does more than just income redistribution programs), as compared to other departments.

[Loren]

Property taxes don't go towards underwriting national defense or the national highway system.

But they do fund the states' public education systems, which benefit the poor (who otherwise might not be able to afford education) more than the rich (who often forego public education anyway, despite funding it).

[Ray R.]

Don't they pay taxes on that land and stuff?

Yup. And they get to deduct the mortgage interest from their overall income. Something poor people who have no hope of getting a lease for a motor scooter, let alone a house will ever get. And they pay no capital gains taxes on the sale of any property until the profit hits $250,000.

Meanwhile, they keep upping the maximum interest rates on credit cards, eliminating the option to declare bankruptcy, and legalizing usury rates with APRs as high as 250% per year on check-for-cash and auto deed-for-cash shops in places like Florida.

Let's all pull out a crying towel for those who pay property taxes.....

[Spackling Compound]

Most of which come out of the Department of Health and Human Services, and this federal budget breakdown (http://www.federalbudget.com/) offers a quick glimpse of how much of our national spending goes to that department (which, I recognize, does more than just income redistribution programs), as compared to other departments.
I was pretty much aware of that. Didn't see the chart before, thanks.

The bit about "a tie" was me being a smartass...

[Shellhead]

But they do fund the states' public education systems, which benefit the poor (who otherwise might not be able to afford education) more than the rich (who often forego public education anyway, despite funding it).

That's a fair point. But a high school diploma alone doesn't open the door to a middle-class lifestyle for most people, and the cost of a college education is too high for most poor people, unless they land a scholarship.

[Ray R.]

I was pretty much aware of that. Didn't see the chart before, thanks.

The bit about "a tie" was me being a smartass...

Who you, Spack? Smartass?


Say it ain't so....

[Shellhead]

I was pretty much aware of that. Didn't see the chart before, thanks.

The bit about "a tie" was me being a smartass...

At just a quick glance at that chart, "a tie" is not a bad description... it looks like approximately a three-way tie between defense spending, health & human services spending, and debt service, with relatively modest amounts spent on all the other categories.

[Harlock]

Because they don't need that extra money. What's a few thousand dollars more or less to a millionaire?
A few thousand dollars. Really. To a rich person that few thousand dollars could be worth exactly what it is to you and me; a down payment on a car, his comic book allowance, his children's school. Just because someone has more of it, doesn't mean they cannot or do not value their money as much as an average Joe.

[Spackling Compound]

That's a fair point. But a high school diploma alone doesn't open the door to a middle-class lifestyle for most people, and the cost of a college education is too high for most poor people, unless they land a scholarship.

Well, the quality and role of public education is a topic for another day. However, to the point, many "millionaires" who benefit from the tax break aren't necessarily those who went to college. A good lot of them are in the "service industries" or "construction industries". I know a lot of millionaires who didn't go to college but are in a higher income bracket than some of the highly educated barristas at Starbucks.

[Dreadstar]

I think the rhetoric is gonna be deep on this 'un. I best get my hip-waders.

[Slam_Bradley]

Well, the quality and role of public education is a topic for another day. However, to the point, many "millionaires" who benefit from the tax break aren't necessarily those who went to college. A good lot of them are in the "service industries" or "construction industries". I know a lot of millionaires who didn't go to college but are in a higher income bracket than some of the highly educated barristas at Starbucks.


This argument really doesn't help your case at all. There is always going to be anecdotal evidence of "millionare high school dropouts."

So what? The fact is that the difference between what a dropout makes, on average, and what a person with a high school diploma make is about $800 a month.

For every Bruce Willis there are 10,000 dropouts making minimum wage.

[Slam_Bradley]

Rich people have more land and stuff, so they benefit more from national defense than the poor, who have little to lose in the event of an invasion. And rich and middle-class people benefit more from decent roads than poor people who don't have vehicles.


You're not seriously suggesting that "the rich" have a greater interest in national defense than others, are you?

[Ray R.]

I think the rhetoric is gonna be deep on this 'un. I best get my hip-waders.

I love the smell of class warfare in the morning.

Smells like victory.....

[Ray R.]

You're not seriously suggesting that "the rich" have a greater interest in national defense than others, are you?

Well, I think the argument is that in the highly improbable case of an armed invasion by a foreign power, they have more to lose.

Might have held more weight in the 18th century, but I can see it being possibly a concern with separatists in Idaho and Montana who "annex" land into their small but plucky backyard republics.

[Tom]

For myself, it's not class warfare. I love rich people. Really. A capitalist society requires rich people to fuel it. But a capitalist society also needs a massive middle class to support it as well and the only way to cultivate and support a massive middle class is to tax the rich at a higher rate than the lower classes while still allowing them to remain filthy rich. A society with less than 5% of the population wealthy and more than 25% percent of the population living in poverty is a society headed for collapse.

[Shellhead]

You're not seriously suggesting that "the rich" have a greater interest in national defense than others, are you?

Yes, I am.

In the event of an invasion, the poor man stands to lose his life.

The rich man could lose his life, his mansion, his fleet of cars, his yacht, his plane, his art collection, his trophy wife and her breast implants, his real estate holdings, his money, his investments, and more. And realistically, the looters are going to be more interested in the rich man's stuff than the poor man's stuff.

I am not suggesting that the poor man's life is worthless compared to the rich man's life, just that both of them have lives to lose, plus the rich man has lots of stuff to lose to the invaders.

Also, for the poor man, there is a possibility that a major change in the social order may benefit him. He has little to lose and potentially much to gain. The rich man has nowhere to go but down if there is an invasion.

[Grazzt]

And if the society is capitalistic, why shouldn't the government be too? So if the government wants to make as much money as possible without losing its business (ie. people emigrating) it has to take the money from where its missed less (ie. the uber rich).

[Dreadstar]

That's a fair point. But a high school diploma alone doesn't open the door to a middle-class lifestyle for most people, and the cost of a college education is too high for most poor people, unless they land a scholarship.

Hello! I'm a poor person who went to college. Glad to meet you! Yeah, I got a scholarship. All of $500. No, not per quarter. Total. And I did qualify for the BEOG, so there's that. Oh, you had to be below a certain level of income to get that one, though, so... I think it lasted me all of... well, no, "lasted" isn't exactly the word I'd use. "Helped me out my freshman year," would be better. Let's see, between freshman and sophomore, I worked in a slag plant, during sophomore I worked at a steak house, and drove a truck over Christmas break. Between sophomore and junior I worked shopveling asphalt on an asphalt crew. During Junior I worked as a bartender, a bouncer, a cook and a waiter. Sometimes double shifts. I took a year off, and worked labor, then drywall, then worked my way up to the IBEW, for a 4 month apprenticeship. Decided to go back to college, where I worked nights driving a cab and bartending. I begged for a student loan somewhere in there, and got it and eventually 10 years later paid it off. Supplemented my cash with few bootlegging runs and some on the side tutoring and the ocassional shady job.

Don't tell me the cost of education is too high for "most poor people" unless you qualify it as "most poor people who give up on it because it's too hard." And personally? Fuck them.

[Paul McEnery]

Not a lot of historical thought here.

Your original taxation system was the Roman one: People at the top of the pile employed the Roman army to steal money from people at the bottom of the pile.

Other kings have done pretty much the same; doubly when they wanted to get the money to pay for a bigger army to go steal some land and stuff from someone else.

Your progressive tax plan comes from the working classes banding together to resist this nonsense, acquire decent health and education for themselves, and not so much redistribute wealth as redistribute power.

There's no way on God's earth that anyone actually earns 20 million smackers. How many man-hours does that equal? Effectively, you get that 20million not by working but by manipulating the system in your favour. The rest of us have the right to manipulte the system right back at you.

[Tom]

Hello! I'm a poor person who went to college. Glad to meet you! Yeah, I got a scholarship. All of $500. No, not per quarter. Total. And I did qualify for the BEOG, so there's that. Oh, you had to be below a certain level of income to get that one, though, so... I think it lasted me all of... well, no, "lasted" isn't exactly the word I'd use. "Helped me out my freshman year," would be better. Let's see, between freshman and sophomore, I worked in a slag plant, during sophomore I worked at a steak house, and drove a truck over Christmas break. Between sophomore and junior I worked shopveling asphalt on an asphalt crew. During Junior I worked as a bartender, a bouncer, a cook and a waiter. Sometimes double shifts. I took a year off, and worked labor, then drywall, then worked my way up to the IBEW, for a 4 month apprenticeship. Decided to go back to college, where I worked nights driving a cab and bartending. I begged for a student loan somewhere in there, and got it and eventually 10 years later paid it off. Supplemented my cash with few bootlegging runs and some on the side tutoring and the ocassional shady job.

Don't tell me the cost of education is too high for "most poor people" unless you qualify it as "most poor people who give up on it because it's too hard." And personally? Fuck them.
I agree with this mostly, but it bears pointing out that you are a member of the post-war baby boom, a time when the middle class grew at an enormous rate and the availablility of unskilled labor for young people was much higher. That simply isn't true today with the rapidly shrinking middle class and a much lower pool of available jobs for young people.

[Dreadstar]

I agree with this mostly, but it bears pointing out that you are a member of the post-war baby boom, a time when the middle class grew at an enormous rate and the availablility of unskilled labor for young people was much higher. That simply isn't true today with the rapidly shrinking middle class and a much lower pool of available jobs for young people.

That's a fair cop, I admit.

On the other hand, I can't walk on campus without seeing some bar with a "help wanted" sign in the window, and the fast-food joints are parctically BEGGING for warm bodies. Yeah, rough chance of getting on at the slag plant and asphalt crew, and forget the truck-driving job. But you'd still have a shot at the cab driving, bartending, waiting. I don't know how the manual laborpool is right now, either so can't comment on that.

[Shellhead]

Hello! I'm a poor person who went to college. Glad to meet you! Yeah, I got a scholarship. All of $500. No, not per quarter. Total. And I did qualify for the BEOG, so there's that. Oh, you had to be below a certain level of income to get that one, though, so... I think it lasted me all of... well, no, "lasted" isn't exactly the word I'd use. "Helped me out my freshman year," would be better. Let's see, between freshman and sophomore, I worked in a slag plant, during sophomore I worked at a steak house, and drove a truck over Christmas break. Between sophomore and junior I worked shopveling asphalt on an asphalt crew. During Junior I worked as a bartender, a bouncer, a cook and a waiter. Sometimes double shifts. I took a year off, and worked labor, then drywall, then worked my way up to the IBEW, for a 4 month apprenticeship. Decided to go back to college, where I worked nights driving a cab and bartending. I begged for a student loan somewhere in there, and got it and eventually 10 years later paid it off. Supplemented my cash with few bootlegging runs and some on the side tutoring and the ocassional shady job.

Don't tell me the cost of education is too high for "most poor people" unless you qualify it as "most poor people who give up on it because it's too hard." And personally? Fuck them.

I had a similar experience to yours. I worked hard as a teenager and managed to save up $8,000 for college, plus I got $1,500 in scholarship money and a work-study job that paid minimum wage. I worked hard every summer to scrape together some more money, plus my parents kicked in $1,000 per year. I graduated with only $3,000 in student loans to pay, and paid them off right on schedule.

But times have changed. Double-digit hikes in tuition every year for too many years has brought us insane costs for college. A four-year degree at a public university costs about $22,000 these days, while the comparable degree at a private school is closer to $85,000.

(http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html)

[BlairH]

You're not seriously suggesting that "the rich" have a greater interest in national defense than others, are you?
http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Sep-09-Mon-2002/photos/cheney.jpg







Euch. I felt like such a dirty liberal there. Excuse me whilst I go and punish myself!

[Ray R.]

http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Sep-09-Mon-2002/photos/cheney.jpg







Euch. I felt like such a dirty liberal there. Excuse me whilst I go and punish myself!

You go on wit your bad self, Blair.

"Halliburton, white courtesy phone. Mr. Halliburton, white courtesy phone."

[Tages]

Not a lot of historical thought here.

Your original taxation system was the Roman one: People at the top of the pile employed the Roman army to steal money from people at the bottom of the pile.

Other kings have done pretty much the same; doubly when they wanted to get the money to pay for a bigger army to go steal some land and stuff from someone else.

Your progressive tax plan comes from the working classes banding together to resist this nonsense, acquire decent health and education for themselves, and not so much redistribute wealth as redistribute power.

There's no way on God's earth that anyone actually earns 20 million smackers. How many man-hours does that equal? Effectively, you get that 20million not by working but by manipulating the system in your favour. The rest of us have the right to manipulte the system right back at you.
Not more of this Marxist Labor Theory of Value horseshit. That's just bad economics, Paul.

Or, to put it this way, if I put in 2000 man hours digging a hole in the middle of the desert and filling it with milk, and my neighbor spends 20 man hours sitting on his ass, eating cheetos and watching old episodes of "Ozzie and Harriet," then formulates in his head a cure for cancer, whose work is more valuable?

Value is not based on the amount of work put into something, it is based on what other people are willing to give up to get it.

[BlairH]

Value is not based on the amount of work put into something, it is based on what other people are willing to give up to get it.
"Everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it" has served us well for centuries, and I believe it has been almost perfected in the last few decades.

[Shellhead]

"Everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it" has served us well for centuries, and I believe it has been almost perfected in the last few decades.

I think that's a good a point, but I thought of an odd tangent. Do black markets represent the purest form of capitalism? In theory, they should, as they are free from taxation and regulation.

[Tages]

I think that's a good a point, but I thought of an odd tangent. Do black markets represent the purest form of capitalism? In theory, they should, as they are free from taxation and regulation.
In a way, yes. In addition, they're also subject to the laws of supply and demand and the whims of the consumer. But without the involvement of legal institutions they resort to actual wars instead of price wars to protect their product.

Which is a good reason to decriminalize a lot of things.

[BlairH]

I think that's a good a point, but I thought of an odd tangent. Do black markets represent the purest form of capitalism? In theory, they should, as they are free from taxation and regulation.

Black markets only exist because of excessive taxation and regulation present in "white markets".

[Tom]

Value is not based on the amount of work put into something, it is based on what other people are willing to give up to get it.Paul's point was that the people who determine its value are the people who benefit most from it.

[Noah Johnson]

As this thread demonstrates, you can argue endlessly about what's "fair" or "just" on this subject. Nobody can quite pin down what those terms mean, and the answers tend to be awfully slippery, except for the absolutists on both sides.

Me, I don't give a crap what's "fair". I only care what works better, and I know exactly what I mean by "works". A government system is working if it reduces the net human suffering in society.

So we have the data on this. We've tried it different ways, here and abroad, and it turns out that a system of progressive taxation with a strong social safety net and heavy investment in education produces societies that are prosperous and where the overwhelming majority of people don't suffer too much.

Sure, the libertarians might kick a little, but who cares? We know what works in the real world. Anything else is ideological whining.

[Tages]

Sure, the libertarians might kick a little, but who cares? We know what works in the real world. Anything else is ideological whining.
This comment is almost its own retort.

[BlairH]

Me, I don't give a crap what's "fair". I only care what works better, and I know exactly what I mean by "works". A government system is working if it reduces the net human suffering in society.

Remove the suffering: Remove an important part of the human condition.

Suffering is nature's way of strengthening us.

[Tom]

Remove the suffering: Remove an important part of the human condition.

Suffering is nature's way of strengthening us.
Blair, we're not talking about "everybody gets everything they want all the time." We're talking about "Everybody gets access to healthcare, education and a social safety net as well as municipal services, infrastructure support and a strong military." No one's talking about removing suffering.

[Noah Johnson]

Remove the suffering: Remove an important part of the human condition.

Suffering is nature's way of strengthening us.
Poverty doesn't build character, Blair, it destroys it. Try it sometime.

[Charles RB]

Suffering is nature's way of strengthening us.

It's also nature's way of crippling and killing us or changing us into extremely vicious sods. If we're talking suffering as in "unemployed people have no welfare money coming in and can't eat", that's not going to strengthen anyone. That's going to starve, malnourish, screw over and possibly kill someone,or force them to get an extremely shady job because there's no legitimate ones they're qualified for, because we don't have enough jobs for everyone all of time (excepting short-term situations like total war economies).

There's a lot of poorer nations with a lot of suffering going on in them, and most of it's not resulting in people being stronger, it's resulting in people being dead.

EDIT: And "nature's way"? Nature isn't a sentient entity. It's not bothered or capable of bothering whether you're strengthened, weakened or being gutmunched by the evolved cavemen from The Descent.

[BlairH]

Poverty doesn't build character, Blair, it destroys it. Try it sometime.

Oh we've tried it...

My father says that if it weren't for the poverty years of the coal miner strike, he wouldn't be where he is today (nice cosy job, etc). He'd still be working away doing some shit job in an underground mine shaft.

He needed "the fear" to lift a phrase from "Friends".

[Charles RB]

My father says that if it weren't for the poverty years of the coal miner strike, he wouldn't be where he is today (nice cosy job, etc). He'd still be working away doing some shit job in an underground mine shaft.

And in a lot of nations, people's fathers have gone through the poverty years and ended up dead or crippled by illness long before their time because they lacked the money for food or water. They didn't get stronger, they got deader than tank tops.

[Paul McEnery]

Value is not based on the amount of work put into something, it is based on what other people are willing to give up to get it.
So what? That doesn't address what I said.

And what I'm saying is: nobody's work is worth 20 million.

[Paul McEnery]

Remove the suffering: Remove an important part of the human condition.

Suffering is nature's way of strengthening us.
Clearly you haven't suffered enough. :p

[Slam_Bradley]

So what? That doesn't address what I said.

And what I'm saying is: nobody's work is worth 20 million.


Many would disagree with you.

[BlairH]

And what I'm saying is: nobody's work is worth 20 million.
I will be bombed back to the stone age for this.

Bill Gates deserves his cash.

Think about it. In addition to his work in helping to bring computing into the mainstream, he's like the world's biggest philantropist. The amount of money he donates to various charities is simply astronomical. Definately deserves whatever crazy amount he's worth.

The above also goes for his wife. I have nothing but respect for the Gates family.

[Charles RB]

And what I'm saying is: nobody's work is worth 20 million.

Though I'd happily pay the Black Eyed Peas 20 million to never work again.

[Cei-U!]

You will never, ever convince me that, left to their own devices, the rich would contribute enough to charity to pay for the necessities currently provided by the gummint. One has only to look at America a hundred years ago to know better.

Cei-U!
I summon human nature!

[Tages]

So what? That doesn't address what I said.

And what I'm saying is: nobody's work is worth 20 million.
If someone's willing to pay that much for it it is.

I'd pay 20 million for the cure to cancer.

[Tages]

You will never, ever convince me that, left to their own devices, the rich would contribute enough to charity to pay for the necessities currently provided by the gummint. One has only to look at America a hundred years ago to know better.

Cei-U!
I summon human nature!
Yes, when such stingy assholes as Carnegie, Hearst and Rockefeller most definitely didn't donate billions of dollars in today's currency to charitable efforts.

This belongs with Noah's earlier comment in South Park's "Smug Alert!" episode.

[Tom]

Yes, when such stingy assholes as Carnegie, Hearst and Rockefeller most definitely didn't donate billions of dollars in today's currency to charitable efforts.This willfully ignores the appalling conditions that the poor lived in at the time and the extremely high percentage of people who lived under the poverty line.

This belongs with Noah's earlier comment in South Park's "Smug Alert!" episode.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear this was parody. You're deciding that other people are smug because they have a different point of view than you and you're responding by...being smug.

[Tom]

I will be bombed back to the stone age for this.

Bill Gates deserves his cash.

Think about it. In addition to his work in helping to bring computing into the mainstream, he's like the world's biggest philantropist. The amount of money he donates to various charities is simply astronomical. Definately deserves whatever crazy amount he's worth.

The above also goes for his wife. I have nothing but respect for the Gates family.
Which is ironic, because Gates does not support the repeal of the estate tax.

[Cei-U!]

Yes, when such stingy assholes as Carnegie, Hearst and Rockefeller most definitely didn't donate billions of dollars in today's currency to charitable efforts.


I love our local Carnegie-financed library but it doesn't change the horrifying levels of poverty in America at that time or the shameless exploitation of labor that made those mens' millions in the first place.

As for being "smug," don't assume my disbelief in the virtues of the rich means I believe in the virtues of the poor.

Cei-U!
I ditto my last summoning!

[DarkBlade]

Rich people have more land and stuff, so they benefit more from national defense than the poor, who have little to lose in the event of an invasion. And rich and middle-class people benefit more from decent roads than poor people who don't have vehicles.

Cause, y'know, poor people don't need to eat or have clothes or anything that's grown or made more than a mile away..

[Slam_Bradley]

Cause, y'know, poor people don't need to eat or have clothes or anything that's grown or made more than a mile away..


Thank you. I still cannot parse his point on this in any way.

[Tages]

This willfully ignores the appalling conditions that the poor lived in at the time and the extremely high percentage of people who lived under the poverty line.
Well, yes. But they had a much higher standard of living than before the Industrial Revolution. The creation of wealth and advancement of technology are what really lifted the poor up and created a huge middle class.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear this was parody. You're deciding that other people are smug because they have a different point of view than you and you're responding by...being smug.
It's not that they have a different point of view. It's that both Noah and Cei have remarked that they "know better" than the rest of us because of the opinions they hold. That's smugness.

[Tom]

It's not that they have a different point of view. It's that both Noah and Cei have remarked that they "know better" than the rest of us because of the opinions they hold. That's smugness.
I'll grant you that about Noah's, but I don't see anywhere in Kurt's post where he claims to know better than anyone else.

[Tages]

I'll grant you that about Noah's, but I don't see anywhere in Kurt's post where he claims to know better than anyone else.
Then we've reached a compromise.

[Tom]

You have a strange definition of compromise.

[Tages]

You have a strange definition of compromise.
Everything about me is strange, Tom. Even the normal stuff. Especially the normal stuff.

[Iangould]

Really? How so?

Not having read the whole of the rest of thread, I see that the issues of national security and (I assume) public order have already been mentioned.

Who do you think derives the bulk of the benefits from corporate welfare and farm subisidies?

Employers beenfit from the welfare system because it allows them to lay off workers in economic downturns and be reasonably confident they'll still be around to re-employ when the economy recovers.

They benefit from road spending and public transport spending because it makes it easier for people to get tow work, therefore increasing the pool of potential employees.

They benefit from programs which benefit children such as education and health because they lead to a better educated, healthier, more productive workforce.

They tend to consume more than their poorer compatriots in absolute as opposed to perceentage terms so they get more of the benefits from government subsidies.

[Iangould]

Just because someone has more of it, doesn't mean they cannot or do not value their money as much as an average Joe.

So you wouldn't value water more after a week in the Sahara?

[Iangould]

Remove the suffering: Remove an important part of the human condition.

Suffering is nature's way of strengthening us.

So how about I come round your house while you're out, steal your shit and then torch the place?

I'm sure you'll thank me for "strengthening" you.

[Iangould]

Oh we've tried it...

My father says that if it weren't for the poverty years of the coal miner strike, he wouldn't be where he is today (nice cosy job, etc). He'd still be working away doing some shit job in an underground mine shaft.

He needed "the fear" to lift a phrase from "Friends".

How old were you at the time?

[Iangould]

And in a lot of nations, people's fathers have gone through the poverty years and ended up dead or crippled by illness long before their time because they lacked the money for food or water. They didn't get stronger, they got deader than tank tops.

My father left school at the age of twelve to help support his invalid father and 15 siblings. He worked his guts out until the outbreak of World War II, signed up, was wounded, captured and contracted malaria.

I'm sue he was greatly "strengethened" by the resulting lifelong bouts of fever.

[Iangould]

Yes, when such stingy assholes as Carnegie, Hearst and Rockefeller most definitely didn't donate billions of dollars in today's currency to charitable efforts.

This belongs with Noah's earlier comment in South Park's "Smug Alert!" episode.

Tel me during the period when this largesse was flowing and there's was far less of that inefficient, intrusive government welfare, were living standards higher or lower than today?

[Iangould]

Cause, y'know, poor people don't need to eat or have clothes or anything that's grown or made more than a mile away..

Who do think eats more, eats more food transported long distance and spends more on clothing?

[Tages]

Tel me during the period when this largesse was flowing and there's was far less of that inefficient, intrusive government welfare, were living standards higher or lower than today?
They were lower everywhere. Like I said, the creation of wealth and advancement of technology was what raised the standard of living.

[BlairH]

So how about I come round your house while you're out, steal your shit and then torch the place?

I'm sure you'll thank me for "strengethening" you.
That would be infringing upon my property rights and you'd rightly get sent to jail, but in the long term I'd probably benefit from the experience.

[MacQuarrie]

I wish there was a way to set two tax brackets for the rich, one moderate percentage for the hard-working entrepeneurs who really worked for their money, and another, much higher tax bracket for lazy heirs to existing fortunes. Parasites like Paris Hilton doesn't need or deserve a huge tax break.
Problem is, people like the Hiltons and the Kennedys don't have income. They have dividends from investments and trust funds. People with inherited wealth often have zero taxable income.

[BlairH]

How old were you at the time?
I wasn't born at the time, but we were very poor for a long time. We probably lived in the worst council house in the worst council scheme in Ayrshire.

[DarkBlade]

Remove the suffering: Remove an important part of the human condition.

Okay.. to a degree, maybe...

Suffering is nature's way of strengthening us.

As someone who's in pain just about all the time every day, you've really got no clue.

[Paul McEnery]

They were lower everywhere. Like I said, the creation of wealth and advancement of technology was what raised the standard of living.
Yes, but not equitably.

Also, by creation of wealth, you mean murder and theft, because a very great deal of the "wealth creation" was actually colonialism -- not to mention the aforementioned taxation of the poor.

[MacQuarrie]

Tel me during the period when this largesse was flowing and there's was far less of that inefficient, intrusive government welfare, were living standards higher or lower than today?
Living standards for the middle class were much higher in the US. Middle class families were able to own a home and send their kids to college while livign on a single income.

Taxes have increased at a rate more than 10 times the rate of inflation since the 1950s.

[Paul McEnery]

I wasn't born at the time, but we were very poor for a long time. We probably lived in the worst council house in the worst council scheme in Ayrshire.
Council house, huh?

So, that's interesting. Without this taxation and redistribution of wealth, you'd actually have been living in poverty. You know, homeless.

[MacQuarrie]

As someone who's in pain just about all the time every day, you've really got no clue.
You're absolutely right.

I think suffering is nature's way of teaching the non-suffering the art of compassion.

[macul]

Yup. And they get to deduct the mortgage interest from their overall income.

I'm not wealthy, but I'm able to do the same thing, so I have to ask, "so what?" Do you want to take that away from them?


Something poor people who have no hope of getting a lease for a motor scooter, let alone a house will ever get. And they pay no capital gains taxes on the sale of any property until the profit hits $250,000.

Not sure what you are proposing to do about this. Do you want to buy them a house maybe? But then they wouldn't be able to deduct interest from those mortgage payments...


Let's all pull out a crying towel for those who pay property taxes.....

Strawman. I was merely pointing out to shellhead (though he was already well aware of it) that property isn't owned in a void. A millionaire who owns 500 acres pays property taxes on that land. That money goes towards state roads, education, libraries, defense, et cetera.

[Tages]

Yes, but not equitably.
Some people advanced faster than others, but everyone benefitted.

Also, by creation of wealth, you mean murder and theft, because a very great deal of the "wealth creation" was actually colonialism -- not to mention the aforementioned taxation of the poor
Taxes do not create wealth, they only redistribute it from taxpayers to tax consumers.

And what colonialism? I didn't mention colonialism.

[BlairH]

Council house, huh?

So, that's interesting. Without this taxation and redistribution of wealth, you'd actually have been living in poverty. You know, homeless.

Without conservative right-to-buy legislation we'd still be in that shithole. (thank you very much Maggie Thatcher)

[macul]

I think it would do good to keep in mind that most of us, despite our political leanings, are willing to accept compromise and might even be for certain measures that seemingly clash with our outlook. Just keep that in mind when you try to paint the person you are talking to as an extremist.

[Paul McEnery]

And what colonialism? I didn't mention colonialism.
Why no, you didn't.

But if you think that, for instance, English industrialization wasn't capitalized by the likes of the Dutch East India Corporation, you're very much mistaken.

When Rousseau said property is theft, it wasn't just a figure of speech.

[Paul McEnery]

Without conservative right-to-buy legislation we'd still be in that shithole. (thank you very much Maggie Thatcher)
Hmm.

And every council house that was sold was sold at market rate, was it?

[Charles RB]

And what colonialism? I didn't mention colonialism.

You mentioned "the creation of wealth", and a lot of that was historically done via colonialism for a lot of the bigger nations (see Britain). And despite that creation of wealth, historically the lower classes in those nations (see Britain) lived in absolute shit. In the height of the British Empire, millions were in poverty. The welfare system in this country wasn't invented in a vacuum, it was invented because many poorer people had crap standards of living.

And while the welfare & taxation system is certainly not perfect, standards of living are generally better overall in modern-day Britain than they were pre-welfare. Yes, the creation of welfare (and colonialism) helped bring that about, but so did welfare.

Without conservative right-to-buy legislation we'd still be in that shithole. (thank you very much Maggie Thatcher)

And Paul's point is that without it, you wouldn't have even had the shithole; and you can't do the whole "pull myself up by my jockstraps" thing very easily without, say, a house, running water and being able to afford food & healthcare.

[BlairH]

Hmm.

And every council house that was sold was sold at market rate, was it?
They were sold at the prices the inhabitants were willing to pay.

[Tages]

Why no, you didn't.

But if you think that, for instance, English industrialization wasn't capitalized by the likes of the Dutch East India Corporation, you're very much mistaken.
I'm not sure exactly what this has to do with the topic. Of course industrialization wasn't perfect, but it, not social programs, was the primary reason for the standard of living increase. And capitalism can be accomplished without colonialism.

When Rousseau said property is theft, it wasn't just a figure of speech.
Proudhon. Not Rousseau. And that quote is taken completely out of context.

[Iangould]

[QUOTE=Tages
Taxes do not create wealth, they only redistribute it from taxpayers to tax consumers.

And what colonialism? I didn't mention colonialism.[/QUOTE]

Funny, taxes is exactly where colonialism comes into it.

The industrial revolution was financed by extortionate taxes on the poor of India and the Dutch East Indies.

[Loren]

Who do you think derives the bulk of the benefits from corporate welfare and farm subisidies?

This is why I provided the link to the budget graph earlier in the thread. I did a quick look for some numbers, and corporate welfare appears to cost the federal government about $5 billion a year, while farm subsidies cost the feds about $15 billion a year. HHS, on the other hand, cost about $580 billion last year, nearly 30 times the combined value of the other two.

That's why I was hoping you'd have some numbers to back up your claim. Because as much as I too dislike corporate handouts, they're pocket change compared to what the federal government spends on income redistribution programs.

Employers beenfit from the welfare system because it allows them to lay off workers in economic downturns and be reasonably confident they'll still be around to re-employ when the economy recovers.

They benefit from road spending and public transport spending because it makes it easier for people to get tow work, therefore increasing the pool of potential employees.

They benefit from programs which benefit children such as education and health because they lead to a better educated, healthier, more productive workforce.

These, combined with Shellhead's earlier suggestion that the rich are better off when the poor commit fewer crimes, are my favorites in this thread. They manage to turn the whole "Who benefits more" question upside down. If a policy favors the rich, then the rich benefit. If a policy favors the poor, then the rich benefit because then the poor will be healthier/more employable/less criminally-inclined. Apparently, the rich win no matter what.

[Iangould]

This is why I provided the link to the budget graph earlier in the thread. I did a quick look for some numbers, and corporate welfare appears to cost the federal government about $5 billion a year, while farm subsidies cost the feds about $15 billion a year. HHS, on the other hand, cost about $580 billion last year, nearly 30 times the combined value of the other two.

Yes but how many people are receiving those subsidies, per capita they receive far more than the welfare recipients.

you also need to factor in the cost to consumers of import tariffs and other forms of protection which also primarily benefit the rich.

[Tom]

Apparently, the rich win no matter what.Well...yeah.

[Loren]

Yes, I am.

In the event of an invasion, the poor man stands to lose his life.

The rich man could lose his life, his mansion, his fleet of cars, his yacht, his plane, his art collection, his trophy wife and her breast implants, his real estate holdings, his money, his investments, and more. And realistically, the looters are going to be more interested in the rich man's stuff than the poor man's stuff.

I am not suggesting that the poor man's life is worthless compared to the rich man's life, just that both of them have lives to lose, plus the rich man has lots of stuff to lose to the invaders.

Also, for the poor man, there is a possibility that a major change in the social order may benefit him. He has little to lose and potentially much to gain. The rich man has nowhere to go but down if there is an invasion.

First off, I think defining our military expenditures as being nothing more than anti-invasion is rather narrow. We've only been invaded twice, and offhand, I can't recall any instances in the past century where our military has had to fend off an attempted invasion.

I think Ray was right when he said this argument would've had more weight in the 18th century. There's a very 'landed gentry' feel to it. That in the event of invasion and conquest, the rich would stand to lose their land and possessions. And that they're so materialistic that *that's* what they'd be concerned about losing.

I would imagine that what a person cares about in the event of invasion are the same things they care about in the event of natural disaster. Saving their own life, saving the lives of the people they care about, and maybe saving treasured personal items that can't be replaced, like journals and photo albums and family heirlooms. When enemy forces are marching across America, those are the things people care about, and the things that matter most if they're lost. Unless you want to put a person's desire to save their wealth on nearly the same level as their desire to save their children, the two just can't compare in terms of who benefits most from the military.

In fact, it reminds me of the old Jack Benny bit where he's being held at gunpoint, and his abductors tell him "It's your money or your life." And Jack says he'll have to think about it. Sure, the rich man may have more stuff to lose in the event of an invasion, but it doesn't make much difference if he himself ends up dead. I know I'd much rather be the poor man who survives an invasion with nothing than the rich man who's killed and leaves an intact estate.

[Loren]

Yes but how many people are receiving those subsidies, per capita they receive far more than the welfare recipients.

That's why I liked the example from Jane Galt about progressivity. On the one hand, 'the poor' appear to receive oodles more money than 'the rich.' On the other hand, the individual poor person certainly isn't getting a $10 million grant. So who benefits more? The group that the government spends far more money on, or the group whose individual members receive far more on average?

you also need to factor in the cost to consumers of import tariffs and other forms of protection which also primarily benefit the rich.

Ah, now there's a prime example of what I was looking for. Do import tariffs create a cost for consumers? Yes. And who tends to be among those fighting the hardest for such tariffs? Labor unions. On the theory that keeping the price of foreign goods high helps to ensure American working class jobs. Thereby benefitting the poor.

This is, again, why we need some numbers. What is the cost to the poor in higher prices as compared to the benefit in employment? Or more abstractly, what is the benefit to the rich in terms of a healthier workforce as compared to the benefit to the poor in terms of not being personally sick? Have the rich benefitted more from a more mobile workforce due to our transportation infrastructure, or have the poor benefitted more from the opportunities provided by the mobility that that infrastructure offers?

[Shellhead]

First off, I think defining our military expenditures as being nothing more than anti-invasion is rather narrow. We've only been invaded twice, and offhand, I can't recall any instances in the past century where our military has had to fend off an attempted invasion.

I think Ray was right when he said this argument would've had more weight in the 18th century. There's a very 'landed gentry' feel to it. That in the event of invasion and conquest, the rich would stand to lose their land and possessions. And that they're so materialistic that *that's* what they'd be concerned about losing.

I would imagine that what a person cares about in the event of invasion are the same things they care about in the event of natural disaster. Saving their own life, saving the lives of the people they care about, and maybe saving treasured personal items that can't be replaced, like journals and photo albums and family heirlooms. When enemy forces are marching across America, those are the things people care about, and the things that matter most if they're lost. Unless you want to put a person's desire to save their wealth on nearly the same level as their desire to save their children, the two just can't compare in terms of who benefits most from the military.

In fact, it reminds me of the old Jack Benny bit where he's being held at gunpoint, and his abductors tell him "It's your money or your life." And Jack says he'll have to think about it. Sure, the rich man may have more stuff to lose in the event of an invasion, but it doesn't make much difference if he himself ends up dead. I know I'd much rather be the poor man who survives an invasion with nothing than the rich man who's killed and leaves an intact estate.

Good point about our military expenditures representing more than just anti-invasion forces. Today, much of our military spending is spread around the world, not in a traditional empire, but as protection of our economic interests, especially acquiring certain natural resources that we require, like oil. Since the rich consume a disproportionate share of resources (in a per capita sense), that is another reason why they benefit more from military spending.

As for my earlier example, think of it in terms of the cost of protection, if using private security forces instead of our armed forces. The poor man just needs a bodyguard, compared to the rich man who needs a whole security force to protect all of his real estate, investments and other valuable assets, as well the bodyguard. The cost is not simply for protecting his life, but for deterring action against anything he values.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm not sure exactly what this has to do with the topic. Of course industrialization wasn't perfect, but it, not social programs, was the primary reason for the standard of living increase. And capitalism can be accomplished without colonialism.


Proudhon. Not Rousseau. And that quote is taken completely out of context.
Oh, duh!

Nonetheless, my point stands.

Almost all major fortunes come from one of two places:
1) Historical, or not so historical, theft and murder.
2) Manipulation of a system set up by thieves and murderers.

The example of Bill Gates is excellent. The man had other people back-engineer other people's work. He used anti-competitive practices to corner the market. He's done such utterly contemptible things to try to own the Brazilian market that they've tossed him out and gone open source.

The late in the game giveaway does nothing to change the fact that he basically bought his way out of the US anti-trust suit -- which should have taken the entire company to pieces -- and still is in hot, but not hot enough, water in the EU.

[Iangould]

Ah, now there's a prime example of what I was looking for. Do import tariffs create a cost for consumers? Yes. And who tends to be among those fighting the hardest for such tariffs? Labor unions. On the theory that keeping the price of foreign goods high helps to ensure American working class jobs. Thereby benefitting the poor.


The problem with your arguemnt here is that you assuem there IS a pay-off to the poor in terms of higher employment.

There's about 150 years of theoretical and applied economic work that says protection destroys more jobs in other sectors than it creates or preserves.

You may have noticed that I'm ferocious in my criticism of trade barriers.

There are two basic reasons unions support protection:

1. a genuine but mistaken beleif that it is in their members interests; or

2. cynical pandering ot their members' mistaken beliefs.

(Actually in some cases it makes sense (in a very nsty way) for union bosses to support protection in their own industry since that preserves THEIR jobs - at the expense of unemployment elsewhere in the economy and lower wages for their members.)

One pf the msot interesting devleopments in Asutralia and New Zealand in the lst twenty years has been the emergence from the union movement of economically literate politicians prepared to argue the case that lower protection was ctually in the interests of the working clss - Bob Hawke in Australia and Michael Moore (who went on to lead the WTO) in New Zealand are prime examples.

A final digression - the amounts of revenue collected by tariffs are often quite small relative to the overall size of the economy. But that direct impact is only a small part of the total economic impact of tariffs and other forms of protection such as quotas.

Triff force up the price of imported goods allowing domesticproducers ot increase their prices as well. If, for exmple, improts have 10% of the market for a good and 10% tariff is imposed, the price off ALL goods of that type not just the imported ones will rise.

[Loren]

Hey, I'm all for lower tariffs. You don't need to convince me of the benefits of free trade.

But that doesn't change that a lot of the lobbying force that exists to create and maintain tariffs is done on behalf of 'the poor'. It may not actually work, but then, I'd argue that a lot more of the government's efforts to help the poor don't work either.

[Loren]

By the way, what definition of 'the rich' are we tending toward here? When I polled folks here some time back about what they thought made a person rich, I was rather surprised how high a lot of people set the bar.

So when it's said that 'the rich' benefit, exactly what kind of wealth or income level are y'all thinking of?

[Dreadstar]

So when it's said that 'the rich' benefit, exactly what kind of wealth or income level are y'all thinking of?

The level where they turn from right thinking liberals to greedy eat-the-poor bastards, of course.

OK, I haven't had breakfast, some snark was bound to escape.

[Dreadstar]

Another interesing question to me is: I wonder how many folk here at CBR make it to the upper class cut-off, whatever it is? 6 figures a year, say.

[Slam_Bradley]

Another interesing question to me is: I wonder how many folk here at CBR make it to the upper class cut-off, whatever it is? 6 figures a year, say.


Not me. I'm just a poor corrupt public servant.

[Loren]

Not me. I'm just a poor corrupt public servant.

Corrupt AND poor? That doesn't sound right. Clearly, you need some tips on corruption.

[Dreadstar]

Corrupt AND poor? That doesn't sound right. Clearly, you need some tips on corruption.

The badge makes him stupid. All goody-goody. It's pathetic.

[cactusmaac]

Some degree of progressive taxation is probably just given that many of those who are rich - or upper middle-class - are favoured by simple chance, luck and happenstance to be born in the right families.

[Ray R.]

Some degree of progressive taxation is probably just given that many of those who are rich - or upper middle-class - are favoured by simple chance, luck and happenstance to be born in the right families.


Maac, who logged into your account and pretended to be you?

[Tom]

Maac, who logged into your account and pretended to be you?
I was thinking the exact same thing. I was surprised at Jim MacQ's responses too.

[Michael P]

First off, I think defining our military expenditures as being nothing more than anti-invasion is rather narrow. We've only been invaded twice, and offhand, I can't recall any instances in the past century where our military has had to fend off an attempted invasion.

Does Pearl Harbor count?

[Dreadstar]

Does Pearl Harbor count?

Hawaii wasn't part of the U.S. If you're going by territories, wouldn't that then have made the occupation of Guam an invasion? Or was Guam not yet a U.S. protectorate at the time? I can't recall.

[Loren]

Problem is, people like the Hiltons and the Kennedys don't have income. They have dividends from investments and trust funds. People with inherited wealth often have zero taxable income.

When I watched the West Wing live debate last year, there was a line of Matt Santos' that struck me:

"I'd like to propose raising taxes by 1% on incomes over a million. I want to raise taxes another 2% on incomes over ten million and another 2% on incomes over 100 million dollars."

And my immediate thought was: nobody, or virtually nobody, makes a taxable income of over $100 million a year. If anyone's capable of pulling in that kind of wealth annually (like Trump or Gates), they're pretty much guaranteed to be doing it through investments. Which would mean that their uber-income would be subject to capital gains taxes, but not to the federal income tax. And outside of famous celebrities and certain major CEOs, I daresay the same applies to just about any income above $20 million.

[Joe Rice]

Trump doesn't make anywhere near that much. His net worth is greatly exaggerated.

However, excellent refutation of a fictional character's policy! Carry on.

[Loren]

Trump doesn't make anywhere near that much. His net worth is greatly exaggerated.

That's what ABC News and Parade Magazine (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WaterCooler/story?id=124545&page=1) reported it as being.

[Joe Rice]

That's what ABC News and Parade Magazine (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WaterCooler/story?id=124545&page=1) reported it as being.

Puff piece celebrity "journalists" often take Trump's word for it. His personal wealth isn't anywhere near that. It's a big snow job, a PR thing. New Yorker had some interesting stuff about it recently. I know they're no Parade magazine, but they'll do.

[macul]

Another interesing question to me is: I wonder how many folk here at CBR make it to the upper class cut-off, whatever it is? 6 figures a year, say.

My wife and I are close (combined income). It only seems like a lot to us because we have no kids and no debt outside of our mortgage and a bit left on a vehicle. Toss in average household debt and a kid or two and we could get by, but we'd have to cut back on quite a bit.

[Ray R.]

My wife and I are close (combined income). It only seems like a lot to us because we have no kids and no debt outside of our mortgage and a bit left on a vehicle. Toss in average household debt and a kid or two and we could get by, but we'd have to cut back on quite a bit.

I'm usually over six figures, but not by too much. Sure doesn't feel like I'm rich if that's the criteria.

Still, college tuition for my two kids looks absolutely frightening, so I'm hoping for athletic or artistic virtuosos. I make too much for financial aid, and not enough to not consider second mortgages.

"Son, even if you are three, I want you to post up hard and sharpen up your elbows....."

We've been over this before. Depending on where you live, six figures is either Scrooge McDuck money or right smack-dab in the middle class. In Washington, New York, Boston, San Francisco, L.A., Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, etc., it's not life-changing money at all, particularly if you took out a hundred thousand or so in student loans to get to six figures. If you're a paycheck or two from serious trouble, then you're either not managing your money right and living beyond your means, or you're in a place with a high cost of living, or you're like forty million other Americans.

Waa.....where's my crying towel. At least me or my kids don't want for food, clothing, housing, etc. It can ALWAYS be worse, too. I don't feel sorry for myself, and don't expect anyone else to, either.

[cactusmaac]

Maac, who logged into your account and pretended to be you?

The kind of tax rates I'm thinking of would be 5% for the ordinary joe and 10% for the uber-rich plutocrats :D

Seriously though, it does seem pretty obvious that good fortune plays a pretty important part in how much you end up earning.

[Noah Johnson]

Seriously though, it does seem pretty obvious that good fortune plays a pretty important part in how much you end up earning.
Heck, just that's more of an acknowledgment than I'm used to expecting from economic righties. Props for intellectual honesty, man.

I think that one of the unacknowledged issues in life is that EVERYONE'S wealth is dependent on luck. Even among those who worked their ass off for it, a look at their history always finds the break, the chance meeting, the lucky guess, the happy accident, the metaphorical coin-toss that went their way and made all their work actually pay off. In life, you find a great many people who work just as hard as those guys, but who haven't ever caught a break.

This is not to say that hard work isn't valuable, useful, and a good bet. It means that when the break does come along, you're ready for it and can take full advantage. I'm just saying that, Horatio Alger myths aside, it's insufficient in and of itself.

[Iangould]

Some degree of progressive taxation is probably just given that many of those who are rich - or upper middle-class - are favoured by simple chance, luck and happenstance to be born in the right families.

Arguably that could be addressed via estate taxes and wealth taxes (like property tax) rather than the income tax system.

[Paul McEnery]

Hey, I'm all for lower tariffs. You don't need to convince me of the benefits of free trade.
.
Just as a point of information, protectionist measures are often necessary for fostering an industry in a developing nation, so it's not as clear cut as you think. (And there's lot's of sneaky tariff quota stuff that comes in with the agreements, not to mention that thing the US did with the banana trade when the EU was trying to back particular countries to get them off their knees.)

Which is not to say that it isn't a goal worth aiming for. Just that America's FTA's are premature and arm-twisty in the current situation.

[Iangould]

Just as a point of information, protectionist measures are often necessary for fostering an industry in a developing nation, so it's not as clear cut as you think. (And there's lot's of sneaky tariff quota stuff that comes in with the agreements, not to mention that thing the US did with the banana trade when the EU was trying to back particular countries to get them off their knees.)

Which is not to say that it isn't a goal worth aiming for. Just that America's FTA's are premature and arm-twisty in the current situation.


The first uniform external tariff impsoed by Australia was on textiles, clothing, footwear and autmobiles.

The rationale was that these were infant industries which needed temporary support to develop.

80+ years later the most highly protected industries in Australia are TCF and automobiles.

If the EU wantd to make amends for their previous fucking-up the countries that were covered by the Lome Convention they should acknowledge their repsonsiblity and do it with aid not by a backdoor trade deal which assists those countries at the expense of EU consumers and of other equally poor banana-producing countries.

[Paul McEnery]

The first uniform external tariff impsoed by Australia was on textiles, clothing, footwear and autmobiles.

The rationale was that these were infant industries which needed temporary support to develop.

80+ years later the most highly protected industries in Australia are TCF and automobiles.

If the EU wantd to make amends for their previous fucking-up the countries that were covered by the Lome Convention they should acknowledge their repsonsiblity and do it with aid not by a backdoor trade deal which assists those countries at the expense of EU consumers and of other equally poor banana-producing countries.
That's a bit of a short-sighted and partial view isn't it, Ian?

I mean, this stuff goes all the way back to the wool tariffs to give the British a shot at competing with the Belgians back in, what the 13th/14th Centuries.

The same thing applies with, say, Central and South America (or Africa) trying to build manufacturing and processing industries rather than simply supply resources and labour. Of course, building local factories and what have you cost money. And as things stand, EU and USA tariff schedules penalize developing countries that get uppity and make their own stuff rather than buy back what we've bought from them and then processed.

Which is Belgium and the wool all over again, except we're forbidding them from utilizing tariff protection.

[Iangould]

The EU's so-called Free Trade deals are a disgrace - I'm tempted to call them "evil".

The US' are generally better but not by a whole hell of a lot.

Tariffs can be effective in soem circumstances in building up specific industries - but generally they do so by retarding the development of other industries.

Tariffs on wool may have helped British sheep farmers but they probably harmed British weavers more.

[Paul McEnery]

The EU's so-called Free Trade deals are a disgrace - I'm tempted to call them "evil".

The US' are generally better but not by a whole hell of a lot.

Tariffs can be effective in soem circumstances in building up specific industries - but generally they do so by retarding the development of other industries.

Tariffs on wool may have helped British sheep farmers but they probably harmed British weavers more.
Nah, not at all.

The tariffs were pretty much directed at Belgian weaving, raising the price on their stuff. Which may, in the short term, have harmed the sheep farmers, actually; but it all worked out in the end.

[Loren]

This fact seems relevant to the thread:

According to the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1410.html), in 2006, 41% of households will pay *no* federal income tax at all. This is apparently about as high a percentage as the nation's ever seen.

I think it makes a pretty good case for offering tax cuts when 2/5 of the country is already paying nothing.

[fly on the wall]

This fact seems relevant to the thread:

According to the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1410.html), in 2006, 41% of households will pay *no* federal income tax at all. This is apparently about as high a percentage as the nation's ever seen.

I think it makes a pretty good case for offering tax cuts when 2/5 of the country is already paying nothing.

The coverage of these tax cuts in the news is so one-sided. Over and over again they stress that the Super Rich save the most in taxes. They NEVER mention that the rich pay almost all the taxes in the first place; if you don't believe me go google it before you bitch about tax cuts. The rich get the biggest tax cuts but still pay the lion's share of the taxes.

And by giving the rich tax breaks they hire more people, which has good long-lasting effects on the economy. Give the big tax breaks to the middle class and you'll get a splurge of spending and then the economy will sink back down.

Of course I could be wrong.

[Iangould]

This fact seems relevant to the thread:

According to the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1410.html), in 2006, 41% of households will pay *no* federal income tax at all. This is apparently about as high a percentage as the nation's ever seen.

I think it makes a pretty good case for offering tax cuts when 2/5 of the country is already paying nothing.

Bear in mind that the definition of "household" includes any single adult living alone - including those in aged care accommodation; retired and living off their savings; studying at university and those in prison.

[Solaris]

Taxes are supposed to support necessary functions which the society needs. Examples of this include police, fire, road construction and maintenance, inspectors for food quality/contamination, clean water, waste water and garbage management, etc. All the stuff that, if you had to do it yourself, would leave you no time to do the work you do to support yourself (and your family). Services, basically, that benefit the community.

Unfortunately, our tax system here in the U.S. has become oppresive: way too many things are taxed, and the politicians in charge of designating where the money is spent are mostly looking for how they can use their influence to fatten their own purses... whether it's by lobby kickbacks, or creating laws to ease things for large corporations etc. at the expense of the general population, etc.

Taxes *are* inherently fair, in terms of what they're supposed to be used for: societal protection, maintenance, and improvement. All those people who fight fires or work the courts, etc., have to be paid for their work, in the services they provide for *you*.

As for "rich man/big corp. loopholes," that's part of the problem, IMO. I also favor more of a flat percentage tax approach... or, going strictly with things like a sales tax (which also gets foreign company purchasers, who often elude income taxes).

We need taxes. We just need a better system for drawing them, and for administering them. Our current system is horribly abused on both ends.

[howyadoin]

They already get everything else. Why should they get the tax breaks, too?

[Tages]

Just as a point of information, protectionist measures are often necessary for fostering an industry in a developing nation, so it's not as clear cut as you think.
Hong Kong for decades has had no quotas or import duties. Hong Kong is also a very wealthy section of the planet with a quite respectable standard of living.

Protectionism, whether from the right or the left, is bullshit.

[west3man]

Just sharing something somebody pasted on the blog. He said it's old, but relevant. Despite fast-forwarding through some parts, I agree:

' Suppose that every day, 10 men go out for dinner. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.

The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So, now dinner for the 10 only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "paid" to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid $5 instead of $7 (28 percent savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25 percent savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22 percent savings). The 10th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16 percent savings). Each of the six was better off than before, And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man, "but he got 10 times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next night the 10th man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill. '

[Iangould]

You miss the bit where the tenth guy owns the restaurant, eats ten times as much as everybody else and generously allows the guys who aren't paying to work it off washing dishes for him at 10 cents an hour.

[Shellhead]

You miss the bit where the tenth guy owns the restaurant, eats ten times as much as everybody else and generously allows the guys who aren't paying to work it off washing dishes for him at 10 cents an hour.

Another problem with the restaurant analogy is that it presumes that everybody eats the same quantity and quality of food. In real life, the rich man is enjoying a significantly higher standard of living than the poor.

[cactusmaac]

Just as a point of information, protectionist measures are often necessary for fostering an industry in a developing nation, so it's not as clear cut as you think. (And there's lot's of sneaky tariff quota stuff that comes in with the agreements, not to mention that thing the US did with the banana trade when the EU was trying to back particular countries to get them off their knees.)

Which is not to say that it isn't a goal worth aiming for. Just that America's FTA's are premature and arm-twisty in the current situation.

Too many times tariffs are used as a tool by politically well-connected industrialists to avoid competition with cheaper and higher quality imports.

[Naldo]

You miss the bit where the tenth guy owns the restaurant, eats ten times as much as everybody else and generously allows the guys who aren't paying to work it off washing dishes for him at 10 cents an hour.

If the 10th man owns the restaurant, then he has all of the risk of the restaurant losing money. Compensation for risk incurred is fair. Why should someone that takes no risk be compensated equally as the risk taker?

[Naldo]

I still don't understand this whole "hate the rich" mentality.

At what level of income does this disdain begin? Is the location of the income taken into consideration? (For instance, $100,000 annual income in Los Angeles county is about equal to $60,000 in Tyler, TX.)

I work very hard to better myself and my life, I don't count on the government or "luck" (which doesn't exist). I avail myself of some opportunities and miss others. I take financial risk, sometimes I lose, more often I win. I have created jobs, very good paying jobs. With enough hard work I'll be able to do quite well as I continue to work hard, invest and diversify.

It seems to me that this "hate the rich" mentality is born of either jealousy or laziness.

Please correct me or explain to me the reasoning of such thinking.

[Tom]

I don't understand how progressive tax policy equates to "hating the rich."