Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 (Movie)

[werepossum]

Unless that high wage earner owns a business they are getting raped like anyone else on taxes. This is what people don't understand. I pull in a high income, but only have my home interest ($11k), school loans ($1k), and whatever I give to charity to write off. Outside of that I get the same deductions.

Once someone owns a corporation and ties their income to it, it's very easy to play games with income vs business expenses.

My point was that someone earning $300,000 in wage income might well be earning $30,000,000 in capital gains, thus providing an overall low tax rate. I think that everyone above the poverty line should be paying the same percentage of income, if we have to use an income tax, as a matter of basic fairness.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Good theory but doesn't work so well as robber barrons proved when we had practically no government. We just ended up with private tyranny and that was a time when any white man could get free land and mineral rights.. Would be infinitely worse today in our job/debt to property society. Now they just co-opted government and the FED but all that's required is people to wake up and take back their government for the people by the people.

IMHO (as an outsider) there are several reasons:

I think the problem is you do not have old rich.
In the EU it is exactly the same but with a difference. People with a lot of money can have a lot of control about what is going on economically. But the old rich also understand what they had to loose or have to loose if they push it to far.

For example :
Centuries ago in Great Britain, It was not the poor or some liberal who started up social security for the "poor". It where actually the (if i remember correctly the conservative if you can speak of that title in those times) rich who started a socially security system because they released that the stability social security creates also benefits them(No hungry and angry mob) and the same people back with experience and trustworthy . Of course the system was set up that as soon as there was work, people had to work. Also the mindset of the people was to work if there was work. That as when there was no work, there was the "social security". I give this example because here the old aristocrats or old rich are a very important factor and have a lot to gain by controlling and stabilizing the economy. Of course to profit from it but also to make sure that if people around them are happy and hopeful of a future, they are also more willing to sacrifice for that very same system.

I think the main problem the US has is that you have to much "Nouveau riche"
who have become rich by for example wall street practices or oil. By this i mean not setup a company and hard work( I do not mean all wealthy people but some of course), But by easy money making by use of trading and other value paper trading. This disconnects totally the responsibility one has to the money earned. If it is your flesh and blood, you have to gain more by economic stability than when you made a quick buck trading. When you have something like a family fortune for generations, you want to keep it that way.
Especially if you are dependent on other not related people.

Then you have outside managers and share holders who do not care about the long run but about the short term profits. They just want their money back as fast as possible. The externally hired manager or executive has no feeling for a company or it's employees and does not care what happens when he leaves with his bonus.

Another reason i think is :
Because the US had the cold war, the US had to gain a lot from technological advancements. Here people like Frederick Emmons Terman and William Shockley had seen opportunities to use the drive for technological advancement. Partially because of personal ideals and also to some degree because of the cold war. The army needed a technological advancement over the USSR. This is no longer really the case and thus there is less drive for cash injections for future technologies.

Then of course there is the competition from competing countries who also want to produce.

Then the problem is that every 4 or 8 years, the US has a different government that wants to do things radically different then the former government. Be it because of profit or just because of idiotic personal views while not looking at the whole picture.

Then you have a free market that with idiotic forms of regulation or no regulation at all must try to keep stable while responding allergic to any kind of chance or set back. Add that "the market" is really made up of several different markets in different fields where some directly affect the people.

I mean if a producer of televisions goes bankrupt, that is to bad. If a public transport system goes bankrupt or an energy company, that can be a very serious matter because it can create and avalanching effect on the market.
It may all separately not be enough, but failure stacking after failure will create a grinding halt.

It is not strange that stability is a real issue.

I have to watch that episode again about the quants of wallstreet.

Found it :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2FWNWwE3I

 

[alkemyst]

My point was that someone earning $300,000 in wage income might well be earning $30,000,000 in capital gains, thus providing an overall low tax rate. I think that everyone above the poverty line should be paying the same percentage of income, if we have to use an income tax, as a matter of basic fairness.

Well capital gains is a separate issue. The idea behind it is to give a break to those investing in our country more or less. The tax break is only for long term investments though. Short term ones get dinged just like regular income.

Also at 15% I am willing to bet that is still a higher actual tax rate than those at lower incomes.

Same percentage of income IMHO is not fair at all especially if you think about it as money going towards purchasing shared-government services.

This is why sales tax systems are a great way to go. People cry in one breath that the wealthy have all the toys and gadgets and then in the other breath that they really don't spend their money.

Wealthy people spend a lot esp on the things overlooked like eating out, services and clothing/maintenance items.

All these things would generate the tax.

It's also much fairer in the sense you are not getting taxed once on your income and then again on your purchases.

It breaks down because in the end it's not about people wanting to be FAIR, they want to punish those above them.

This is also one of the big fights in the whole modification deal. When new buyers were buying at inflated rates the old home owners saw money flashing before their eyes. Once these people moved in it was the local 'chuckle' to say how much they over-paid (and via that gossiping set a lot of the stage for consumer fear of also buying a home)...once the cards all fell and the old homeowners saw those potential money bags go away, they blamed the new homeowners for it.

Now they are under the belief that when these homeowners that paid too much get out of their mortgages they are all going and buying mansions. I literally had a conversation just like this with someone from the neighborhood. They are probably paying $700-800 a month for a similar house to mine that I pay $2300 a month on. Now my house is much improved and far nicer, but it's still in this neighborhood and nothing like what a $2300 home is really like. However, my motivation is not so much getting something nicer but rather a payment that is more managable and out from under $200k+ that I will never get back.

That's a big part of living in a Capitalist nation. We have rules that allow one to bail themselves out of bad financial choices. Bankruptcy, Foreclosure, etc. However, getting back to my thoughts that we are moving to a socialist country and one of slackers that are fearful and seek revenge for their self-caused plight; we have changed the laws rather than punish those that abused them. Many of these people that were so hardup on bankruptcy limitations declared bankruptcy themselves under the old rules. Many that are so against foreclosure and walking away have done so themselves. Doing any of this has rules in place that prevent doing certain things for a period of time (like at least 3 years to finance more property and 7 years for clean credit)...however the lowbrows look at this and say "I already have bad credit so how is that a penalty!"...It's freaking nutty.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Then again, I guess nobody wants to believe they are average.

It's called "the Lake Woebegone Effect"

 

[alkemyst]

It's called "the Lake Woebegone Effect"

And sadly those people will vote and protest in a way that directly undermines them.

 

[werepossum]

Well capital gains is a separate issue. The idea behind it is to give a break to those investing in our country more or less. The tax break is only for long term investments though. Short term ones get dinged just like regular income.

Also at 15% I am willing to bet that is still a higher actual tax rate than those at lower incomes.

Same percentage of income IMHO is not fair at all especially if you think about it as money going towards purchasing shared-government services.

This is why sales tax systems are a great way to go. People cry in one breath that the wealthy have all the toys and gadgets and then in the other breath that they really don't spend their money.

Wealthy people spend a lot esp on the things overlooked like eating out, services and clothing/maintenance items.

All these things would generate the tax.

It's also much fairer in the sense you are not getting taxed once on your income and then again on your purchases.

It breaks down because in the end it's not about people wanting to be FAIR, they want to punish those above them.

This is also one of the big fights in the whole modification deal. When new buyers were buying at inflated rates the old home owners saw money flashing before their eyes. Once these people moved in it was the local 'chuckle' to say how much they over-paid (and via that gossiping set a lot of the stage for consumer fear of also buying a home)...once the cards all fell and the old homeowners saw those potential money bags go away, they blamed the new homeowners for it.

Now they are under the belief that when these homeowners that paid too much get out of their mortgages they are all going and buying mansions. I literally had a conversation just like this with someone from the neighborhood. They are probably paying $700-800 a month for a similar house to mine that I pay $2300 a month on. Now my house is much improved and far nicer, but it's still in this neighborhood and nothing like what a $2300 home is really like. However, my motivation is not so much getting something nicer but rather a payment that is more managable and out from under $200k+ that I will never get back.

That's a big part of living in a Capitalist nation. We have rules that allow one to bail themselves out of bad financial choices. Bankruptcy, Foreclosure, etc. However, getting back to my thoughts that we are moving to a socialist country and one of slackers that are fearful and seek revenge for their self-caused plight; we have changed the laws rather than punish those that abused them. Many of these people that were so hardup on bankruptcy limitations declared bankruptcy themselves under the old rules. Many that are so against foreclosure and walking away have done so themselves. Doing any of this has rules in place that prevent doing certain things for a period of time (like at least 3 years to finance more property and 7 years for clean credit)...however the lowbrows look at this and say "I already have bad credit so how is that a penalty!"...It's freaking nutty.

I agree with much of that, and I'm a big supporter of the FairTax plan even while realizing that realistically it has zero chance of being implemented. I doubt that the really wealthy pay a higher percentage of income as tax though, as I'm paying about 18% of my income as federal taxes. Even with no deductions and no tax-free income like munies, they would be paying a lower rate than am I.

 

[alkemyst]

I agree with much of that, and I'm a big supporter of the FairTax plan even while realizing that realistically it has zero chance of being implemented. I doubt that the really wealthy pay a higher percentage of income as tax though, as I'm paying about 18% of my income as federal taxes. Even with no deductions and no tax-free income like munies, they would be paying a lower rate than am I.

Well getting back to the argument chances are that the wealthy that are not business owners will also be paying 30%+ on other parts of their income and that will still be the lion's share of their taxes.

It's really only a small group that have capital gains as their sole income, yet people like to think of everyone in the upper group like that.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So Americans are the only ones that should be considered in the calculation of whether or not a policy benefits society?

When determining American economic policy, yes. Why should America's economic policy be designed to benefit people in other countries? If the purpose of the government is not to protect the rational self interest of the American people then what good is it?

I thought the entire point of anti-free market policies were to help society as a whole. I also thought that people were people, regardless of which side of the pond they happened to be born on - or is that only true when we're blowing them up? Either people are people or some people are more important than others, so choose your position carefully. If people are people, then Americans have no claim to a higher standard of living unless they're willing to do what is required to achieve it.

The problem is that Americans cannot control other nations' government and economic policies. How should American economic policy respond to a communist nation that is willing to use slave labor to produce goods and services at very low prices? In essence, unrestrained free trade ends up merging America's economic and governmental policies with those of other nations--you can suffer the ravages of communism without being a communist nation.

Regardless, I think the purpose of the American government should be to protect the rational self interest of the American people, and that would preclude enacting government policies that would average out the American standard of living with that of the third world.

If you want to say, "I think Americans should live in third world poverty" and/or "I think Americans' standard of living should average out with that of the third world", then go right ahead.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

In truth I believe it is Ayn Rand's wholly consistent adherence to protecting individual's rights via her support of capitalism which makes her the devil incarnate to those on the left who espouse a socialist (aka, progressive) and/or communist ideals. However Ayn Rand was no big fan of political social conservatism based on "faith" either. In fact she thought it to be a complete anathema to her views on the protection of individual rights and her pro-individualism philosophy as a whole. She also had no kind words for anyone else that consider themselves "Libertarian". Furthermore she never made mention or associated herself as a "Libertarian" in her life. Her main concerns and self identification in public for her ideas were always as a ardent supporter of "capitalism" and "individual rights".

It isn't that people on the left oppose the concept of individual rights, it's just that many think that what she advocates would result in an effective and de-facto decrease of people's individual rights. (If you're impoverished and have all sorts of de jure economic "freedoms" but you are, in reality, a slave, what good are they for you?)

Like you said, people on the left could elevate Rand and use her as an advocate for legalizing marijuana and abortion, advocacy of atheism, etc., and ignore her economic advocacy just as people on the right seem to ignore those things they don't like.

 

[alkemyst]

When determining American economic policy, yes. Why should America's economic policy be designed to benefit people in other countries? If the purpose of the government is not to protect the rational self interest of the American people then what good is it?



The problem is that Americans cannot control other nations' government and economic policies. How should American economic policy respond to a communist nation that is willing to use slave labor to produce goods and services at very low prices? In essence, unrestrained free trade ends up merging America's economic and governmental policies with those of other nations--you can suffer the ravages of communism without being a communist nation.

Regardless, I think the purpose of the American government should be to protect the rational self interest of the American people, and that would preclude enacting government policies that would average out the American standard of living with that of the third world.

If you want to say, "I think Americans should live in third world poverty" and/or "I think Americans' standard of living should average out with that of the third world", then go right ahead.

This is where tariffs come into play. What you do is say an American Widget is $5 USD, but the Chinese copy American Widget gets imported at $1 USD. Tax it to $5 USD too if equivalent...if slightly subpar tax it to $3-4 and let the people decide.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Anyone ever seen the objectivist forums/dating sites? It's a bunch of nerdy dudes saying that they're Howard Roark and looking for their Dominique. Really pathetic stuff.

The problem is that the male-to-female ratio amongst Objectivists is probably 5 to 1 or 10 to 1. I'm not sure it's much better for people who are merely atheists.

The other thing they don't realize is that deeply devout people don't always get along well with one another because they'll end up having disagreements over petty issues or one party might not live up to ideal expectations.

My first real girlfriend was an Objectivist dogmatist type and while I loved her deeply, she was a real pain-in-the-ass. One day while chatting on the phone and discussing some issue or other I said something to the extent that I thought it might be possible to romantically love a rational, secular Christian woman (who is Christian in name only). She then freaked out and dumped me for that comment (and also my overall failure to live up to Objectivist ideals). I was crushed, but in retrospect I realize that living with her long-term would have been hellacious. Who wants to spend life walking on eggshells and living like a religious zealot, always having to say the right things and like the right kind of art and live according to a dogma?

I think those Objectivist horndog guys would be better off seeking atheists or secular free thinkers, but of course I'm sure they don't realize that. On the other hand, Objectivist women can enjoy their picks of the litters.

 

[manimal]

It's called "the Lake Woebegone Effect"

I dont want to belong to a club that would have me as a member..


marx..


no the other one

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And sadly those people will vote and protest in a way that directly undermines them.

aka most of the Republican base, especially the Joe the Moronic Plumber types.

 

[CycloWizard]

When determining American economic policy, yes. Why should America's economic policy be designed to benefit people in other countries? If the purpose of the government is not to protect the rational self interest of the American people then what good is it?

The problem is that Americans cannot control other nations' government and economic policies. How should American economic policy respond to a communist nation that is willing to use slave labor to produce goods and services at very low prices? In essence, unrestrained free trade ends up merging America's economic and governmental policies with those of other nations--you can suffer the ravages of communism without being a communist nation.

Regardless, I think the purpose of the American government should be to protect the rational self interest of the American people, and that would preclude enacting government policies that would average out the American standard of living with that of the third world.

If you want to say, "I think Americans should live in third world poverty" and/or "I think Americans' standard of living should average out with that of the third world", then go right ahead.

Can you name a single nation, "communist" or otherwise, that is using slave labor to produce goods for the US? I can't. I don't think the American standard of living should be anything. I think that the standard of living of individuals within the US should be based on their contributions rather than being born in the right corner of the world. If the purpose of a government is to look out for its own and screw everyone else, then we wouldn't belong to the UN and would simply nuke/carpet-bomb Iran and southeast Afghanistan. Either people are people or they aren't.

 

[werepossum]

Can you name a single nation, "communist" or otherwise, that is using slave labor to produce goods for the US? I can't. I don't think the American standard of living should be anything. I think that the standard of living of individuals within the US should be based on their contributions rather than being born in the right corner of the world. If the purpose of a government is to look out for its own and screw everyone else, then we wouldn't belong to the UN and would simply nuke/carpet-bomb Iran and southeast Afghanistan. Either people are people or they aren't.

That's where I disagree. I think a country's government should look out first and foremost for its citizen's interests, not to the level of attacking of cheating other nations' citizens but certainly enacting and enforcing policies that produce maximum benefit for its own citizens. Other nations' citizens have their own nations' governments to look out for their interests.

 

[Steeplerot]

Can you name a single nation, "communist" or otherwise, that is using slave labor to produce goods for the US? I can't.

Easy, private prisons all across the land and a good part of manufacturing and agriculture. You don't even cross a ocean.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Can you name a single nation, "communist" or otherwise, that is using slave labor to produce goods for the US? I can't. I don't think the American standard of living should be anything. I think that the standard of living of individuals within the US should be based on their contributions rather than being born in the right corner of the world. If the purpose of a government is to look out for its own and screw everyone else, then we wouldn't belong to the UN and would simply nuke/carpet-bomb Iran and southeast Afghanistan. Either people are people or they aren't.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Now we know that you couldn't care less if Americans end up living in third world poverty if that's what worldwide free market forces dictate.

What you fail to realize is that people's incomes and standard of living are not necessarily based on their contributions. For example, if the market dictates that a business owner should be able to keep 98% of the value of a worker's contribution to the act of wealth production as a profit, leaving all of his employees impoverished with their meager 2% return, that's what's going to happen regardless of their contributions. When you merge the U.S. labor market with the billions of poor people in the third world, that's what would happen to Americans, too.

Perhaps there aren't any nations that are enslaving their people, but they have such huge amounts of labor relative to capital that the end result is the same. Some nations even have child labor. A number of employees at a computer components manufacturer (Foxconn) felt they were so overworked and underpaid that they even committed suicide. Is that what we want for the U.S. standard of living?

 

[Zorkorist]

I doubt that's true at all. Most on the left that I know are very open to other points of view. I bought Atlat Shrugged last year to read it. Unfortunately I realized shortly after purchasing it that the version I bought has a print size so small I found it hard to read. And now I no longer take mass transit to work so my main read time is gone. I still have the intent to read it eventually, but who knows when.

I have read up on objectivism and know I pretty much entirely disagree with it. I personally feel the only path to true happiness is putting the well being of other before yourself, and her philosophy is pretty much put yourself before others if you even care about others to begin with (perfect Republican philosophy). I'll probably give the movie a shot, but redbox it or something. Or maybe stick it to her and download it bypassing capitalism

Randian, and Objectivist Philosophy, is that by putting yourself above all others, others will benefit. There is no hate, or ill will towards others, simply the knowledge that your success is what is most important.

If you put together a whole society that believes that only their personal success is important, then you have a healthy and vibrant society.

-John {I, ego}

 

[Zorkorist]

Government, Lawyers, and Insurance, all limit or "spread the wealth" of an individual whom is only striving to be his best, and by his nature "Create Wealth."

They artificially, and some may say criminally, steal the benfits of what the person is doing.

One thing is known as Freedom, the other thing, Government.

They are mutually exlusive.

-John {I, ego}

 

[Steeplerot]

If you're impoverished and have all sorts of de jure economic "freedoms" but you are, in reality, a slave, what good are they for you?

You can find this idea of Liberty against all forms of slavery all the way back to the 1800s folk songs from the working class of the USA if you scratch the surface of our history a bit.

Sung by our forefathers who toiled and died on the railroads and mines that built this country:

Don't cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing if you have no rights
The State oppresses and the law cheats
Tax bleeds the unfortunate
No duty is imposed on the rich
The rights of the poor is an empty phrase
Enough languishing in custody
Equality wants other laws:
No rights without duties, she says,
Equally, no duties without rights

Sadly Libertarian righties have forgotten the very history of their grandfathers and their struggle against slavery of all forms in our society of the privileged.

 

[Zorkorist]

Link, please.

-John

 

[CycloWizard]

Thank you for clarifying your position. Now we know that you couldn't care less if Americans end up living in third world poverty if that's what worldwide free market forces dictate.

What you fail to realize is that people's incomes and standard of living are not necessarily based on their contributions. For example, if the market dictates that a business owner should be able to keep 98% of the value of a worker's contribution to the act of wealth production as a profit, leaving all of his employees impoverished with their meager 2% return, that's what's going to happen regardless of their contributions. When you merge the U.S. labor market with the billions of poor people in the third world, that's what would happen to Americans, too.

Perhaps there aren't any nations that are enslaving their people, but they have such huge amounts of labor relative to capital that the end result is the same. Some nations even have child labor. A number of employees at a computer components manufacturer (Foxconn) felt they were so overworked and underpaid that they even committed suicide. Is that what we want for the U.S. standard of living?

I never stated my position one way or the other - only the logical consequences of your position. You think that working a call center for $1/hour in India is equivalent to slave labor without recognizing the alternative: that the same worker could be out in a rice paddy somewhere making absolutely nothing and doing real backbreaking work. You also fail to realize that $1 an hour in parts of India is actually pretty good. Are engineers there also slaves, since they only pull in $10k a year (equivalent to $5/hour)? That's less than minimum wage here, so it must be equivalent to slavery!!!1!one! Or, the worker has made the best choice he can and taken the best job he can find. The labor/capital disparity has been a huge driving force for capital influx, raising the standards of living very rapidly.

I'll also note that the market doesn't dictate the percentage of revenue kept by a business owner: he pays his employees what the market (or government) dictates and keeps the rest. He keeps as much as he can just like the worker negotiates the best wage he can. The owner also keeps costs as low as possible to maximize his take-home pay. If he does his job well, he stands to do well for himself, but he also assumes all of the risk and will lose his shirt if things go badly, whereas the employee stands only to cease gaining rather than actually losing.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Thank you for clarifying your position. Now we know that you couldn't care less if Americans end up living in third world poverty if that's what worldwide free market forces dictate.

What you fail to realize is that people's incomes and standard of living are not necessarily based on their contributions. For example, if the market dictates that a business owner should be able to keep 98% of the value of a worker's contribution to the act of wealth production as a profit, leaving all of his employees impoverished with their meager 2% return, that's what's going to happen regardless of their contributions. When you merge the U.S. labor market with the billions of poor people in the third world, that's what would happen to Americans, too.

Perhaps there aren't any nations that are enslaving their people, but they have such huge amounts of labor relative to capital that the end result is the same. Some nations even have child labor. A number of employees at a computer components manufacturer (Foxconn) felt they were so overworked and underpaid that they even committed suicide. Is that what we want for the U.S. standard of living?

If i may cut in :
I do not think what you are claiming here is entirely fair and smells of hypocrisy. You can attack cyclowizard all you like, but when will you yourself take a proper stand against slave labor and refuse as a customer to buy any electronic product with foxconn components in them ? The strength in a democracy and of a proper free market is that you can as a customer make a statement not to buy a certain product because of some principle you believe in. If you really cared about foxconn employees, you should trash your apple products, your pc and your monitor for starters. Or at least remove all foxconn components from these items.

 

[William Gaatjes]

As a side note :
To make another statement of democracy and a proper free market, i wish to decide myself if i buy genetically altered food products. Yet US corporations are lobbying world wide and in the EU to prevent proper ways of indications and labeling on food products that make it very obvious what is contained in these food products. Taking away the freedom of choice. How can i make a proper choice to steer the free market in a certain direction(as should be intended) when i am not allowed to have a choice ? This is an example of why sometimes regulations are needed to enforce honest business and reduce white collar criminal practices.

 

[jonks]

The problem is that the male-to-female ratio amongst Objectivists is probably 5 to 1 or 10 to 1. I'm not sure it's much better for people who are merely atheists.

It's a much closer ratio for atheists/agnostics. Women tend to be more religious than men across the board.