• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Cali intiative-Wealth Tax and Ocean Preservation Act

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,395
2
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
FYI, if it helps clear up the discussion, one of my views is that one of the huge blind spots for right-wing people is how they attribute all accumulation of wealth as assumed to be productive activity. Their blind spot is how concentrated wealth and power tend to accumulate wealth in ways that are not only not 'productive' to society but ultikately destruvtive to society, however benefical to the lucky few.

Such a blind spot corrupts a lot of the discussion if not pointed out.

So, it's somewhat helful to talk instead of our goals - areyou for increasing opportunity broadly, or are you for policies resulting in increased concentration of wealth, for example?
Concentration of wealth is a terrible thing, I'll agree with you there. Where is the most wealth in America concentrated? In the government, that's where. As a result what do we have? Entrenched interests in Washington dictating where our wealth is spent, which artifically cotnrols the market and limits oppurtunity for an individual to accumulate wealth. When an indiivdual accumulates wealth, the concentration is diffused, when the goverment takes more than neccessary back, it is again concentrated. What makes the government responsible enough to have the highest concentration of wealth? Do they provide services proprotional to everyone's contributions to the system? Or does the governemnt, perhaps, artificially prop up its own interests above that of the country? Every dirty dollar you spend, be it on a product or on taxes is a vote of confidence in that product or service. Why do you think politicians coem and go but the system remains largely unchaged? We are voting for the goverment with our taxes regardless of the outcome and look where it has gotten us today. A dollar is a vote and I would rather vote for individuals or groups of individuals that demonstrate that they can create wealth, and therefore oppurtunity, not for a government that takes the wealth by force and redistributes it according to its own whims. You may say our votes dictate their whims, but how true is that? The galvanized poltiical atmosphere lends itself to over-balances one way and then another, no one really profits but those in Washington and those with good Washington men.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
I can't view the PDF here, but did the guy proposing this have the initials BHO?
That's my guess.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Brigandier

I am sorry, but I am not a right wing puppet.
Nothing to be sorry about for that. Though I use the word ideologue, because puppet implies some manipulation by force I don't see happening.

What incentive do individuals have to create their weath in California? They will more than likely see a larger benefit of going elsewhere to create their wealth, and California will suffer as a result.
This is often called 'the race to the bottom' - the state (or nation) who offers the lowest taxes (and later, the highest incentives/subsidies/publi funding) tends to attract capital.

The problem with it is how it can cause such low tax rates (and big giveaways) that the society is harmed. That's a larger societal issue to deal with.

Luckily for we Californians, it's not the only factor. Silicon Valley is an expensive place. Before the recent declines, the median homes were perhaps $700K, with the higher than most California state taxes, among other things. Yet, that environment offered enough benefits to industry to prevent the secondary tech markets in places like North Carolina and Austin from destroying Silicon Valley - which thrives with all its high costs, and in part, because of them.

Those high costs can also reflect things such as creating a high-end workforce, with plenty of societal benefits from those taxes, that benefit the companies.

The incentive businesses have to create wealth in California include the state being a good market for selling, because of its wealthier people, and better employees.

Wealth creation is up to the individual, just ask Bill Gates. The boom of the nineties was the result of a lot of people creating wealth. Look at Mark Suckerberg and facebook, did society create that wealth? No, he marketed a product that resonates with his target customers and so it took off. The only thing that makes a capitalist society strong is the abundance of capitalists trying to make money. Society benecits as a whole when it is as easy as possible for those capitalists to build wealth. The government doesn't really give out jobs, capitalists do. It's almost as if you're under the assumption that the wealthyhelp no one on their way to the top. Companies and corpoartions EMPLOY people, they pay them, there is no slavery. So while all your social programs seek to elevate society, it will not work. It is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up by the handle.
If I ask Bill Gates, I'm pretty sure he'd have a lot to say about how much society created the opportunity for him to take advantage of. He's a smart guy, and has shown some solid understanding of the isue of society. The fact that there was a market prosperous enough to pay for his product and to have a need for it wasn't his creation. The creation of the technology his product ran on was not his creation, but built on the shoulders of many others, and in no small part the government's funding of defense and space programs. Gates' ability to create a company in an efficient marketplace regulated by the government, protected physically and legally, is an infrastructure he did not create. His ability to hire people educated at public schools was not his creation.

And the government did not create Windows. That was Bill Gates and his employees taking advantage of the opportunity that existed in society, just as Apple or OS/2 or Linux or even more forgotten alternatives might have done. No one's denying the essential role of the people who actually take advantage of the opportunity and actually do the economic activity. It's a partnership for the government to create the environement and for people to use it for making things and providing services.

The government is a sort of not-so-invisible hand trying to guide the activity for the good of society, quite imperfectly, based on democracy, but better than in other systems.

One good example of this is how the government - led in the effort by Al Gore - funded the development of the internet for the benefit of society. Without the adequate commercial incentive for the major investment, the government backed it for target uses - and the technology gradually was used by the private sector to create the internet we have today.

I think that's a good example of how it works. We didn't need something further to the right - an ideological block on the govermnet funding the early development that would leave us without the internet for at least a long time - and we didn't need something much more to the left, the government being in charge of running the internet when private companies can do it just fine (though we do need the government telling the companies some regulatory restrictions protecting access for all).

Bill Gates has said his company's #1 priority is the internet now - and you can see how he can do a lot there, but he didn't create the internet. Society had a key role in that.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Sawyer
Craig you should really look into the mirror, you are all about right-wing this, republican that. Sure there are tons of crooks and misdeads on that sides, but you are so blindly by partisan politics it is unreal.
You need to lean how to argue. That requires you provide facts, specifics, to back up specific claims; that you use logic in your points. But then you wouldn't post junk.

Where have I ever said there are no crooks and misdees on every side? Nowhere. You are arguing a straw man, and not paying attention to the statements actually made.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Brigandier
Originally posted by: Craig234
FYI, if it helps clear up the discussion, one of my views is that one of the huge blind spots for right-wing people is how they attribute all accumulation of wealth as assumed to be productive activity. Their blind spot is how concentrated wealth and power tend to accumulate wealth in ways that are not only not 'productive' to society but ultikately destruvtive to society, however benefical to the lucky few.

Such a blind spot corrupts a lot of the discussion if not pointed out.

So, it's somewhat helful to talk instead of our goals - areyou for increasing opportunity broadly, or are you for policies resulting in increased concentration of wealth, for example?
Concentration of wealth is a terrible thing, I'll agree with you there. Where is the most wealth in America concentrated? In the government, that's where. As a result what do we have? Entrenched interests in Washington dictating where our wealth is spent, which artifically cotnrols the market and limits oppurtunity for an individual to accumulate wealth. When an indiivdual accumulates wealth, the concentration is diffused, when the goverment takes more than neccessary back, it is again concentrated. What makes the government responsible enough to have the highest concentration of wealth? Do they provide services proprotional to everyone's contributions to the system? Or does the governemnt, perhaps, artificially prop up its own interests above that of the country? Every dirty dollar you spend, be it on a product or on taxes is a vote of confidence in that product or service. Why do you think politicians coem and go but the system remains largely unchaged? We are voting for the goverment with our taxes regardless of the outcome and look where it has gotten us today. A dollar is a vote and I would rather vote for individuals or groups of individuals that demonstrate that they can create wealth, and therefore oppurtunity, not for a government that takes the wealth by force and redistributes it according to its own whims. You may say our votes dictate their whims, but how true is that? The galvanized poltiical atmosphere lends itself to over-balances one way and then another, no one really profits but those in Washington and those with good Washington men.
This is something a vast majority of the big govt nanny staters dont seem to understand. They grant the federal govt more and more of our national income. Then wonder why the gap between rich and poor continues to grow at ever increasing rates. They believe if they just elect the right people to oppress one group by taxing and giving to another it will fix the issue. The problem is this doesnt happen. It disappears into the toilet of govt, usually flowing up.

What costs more, welfare for people on the street or giving multi-billion dollar no bid contracts to an elected officials district? Which one happens more in our govt? Yet the solution is to grant more power and wealth to the govt? Brilliant!



 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,395
2
81
Yes, and in a captialist society where your dollar is more powerful than a vote on election day, what then? Is Washington controlled by votes or by dollars? It is for the good of scoiety to think of more than just election days, but of where their money goes each day and to make decisions based on that. You can change the world a hell of a lot faster by intelligently deciding where your dollar goes and not just who you vote fo. Elections are driven by media and those fortunate enough to have extra money at election time to donate. Where do those that have the extra money get the extra money? Well, from Joe Six-Pack that buys his product all year round or products he has investments in. If joe Six-Pack starts discriminating against what products he buys those that have the extra money come election time will have earned it by Joe Six-Packs dollar votes. I am not for the empowerment for the wealthy, I am for the empowerment for the intelligent, and the intelligent should realize voting happens every day, every time you open the wallet you are making a vote. Great capitalits understand this, great consumers understand this and if this little bit of information could get out, America could change for the better.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Brigandier
Originally posted by: Craig234
FYI, if it helps clear up the discussion, one of my views is that one of the huge blind spots for right-wing people is how they attribute all accumulation of wealth as assumed to be productive activity. Their blind spot is how concentrated wealth and power tend to accumulate wealth in ways that are not only not 'productive' to society but ultikately destruvtive to society, however benefical to the lucky few.

Such a blind spot corrupts a lot of the discussion if not pointed out.

So, it's somewhat helful to talk instead of our goals - areyou for increasing opportunity broadly, or are you for policies resulting in increased concentration of wealth, for example?
Concentration of wealth is a terrible thing, I'll agree with you there.
And there's the begin and end of our agreement it seems, but I'm glad for it.

Where is the most wealth in America concentrated? In the government, that's where. As a result what do we have? Entrenched interests in Washington dictating where our wealth is spent, which artifically cotnrols the market and limits oppurtunity for an individual to accumulate wealth. When an indiivdual accumulates wealth, the concentration is diffused, when the goverment takes more than neccessary back, it is again concentrated. What makes the government responsible enough to have the highest concentration of wealth? Do they provide services proprotional to everyone's contributions to the system? Or does the governemnt, perhaps, artificially prop up its own interests above that of the country? Every dirty dollar you spend, be it on a product or on taxes is a vote of confidence in that product or service. Why do you think politicians coem and go but the system remains largely unchaged? We are voting for the goverment with our taxes regardless of the outcome and look where it has gotten us today. A dollar is a vote and I would rather vote for individuals or groups of individuals that demonstrate that they can create wealth, and therefore oppurtunity, not for a government that takes the wealth by force and redistributes it according to its own whims. You may say our votes dictate their whims, but how true is that? The galvanized poltiical atmosphere lends itself to over-balances one way and then another, no one really profits but those in Washington and those with good Washington men.
We need to recognize that we're not differing on the details but on the big issue of wealth and society.

You are so wrapped up in government government government that I think you are not understanding the issue of wealth and society. I'll explain.

'Big government' - whether our own or others from the fascist to the communist to the feudal to the simply corrupt - is but one form of 'concerntration of wealth'.

What you are not noticing, as I see it, is how the issue exists just as much when 'government' isn't the issue; the same issue exists whether government is removed from the equation (the robber baron/lassiez faire system, for example) or the wealthy are merged with government (the old monarchy system, or fascism, for example).

In fact, our democratic form of government *can be* the most effective yet found (short of revolution, which begs the question what it leads to, and the huge cost, and the fact that it's pretty much impossible in our society) for balancing the concentration of wealth. But only when the democracy is healthy and representing the public (think the FDR era or the JFK era), not when it's serving the most wealthy as now (since Reagan), *against* the public interest.

The disagreement we have is that while I say the issue is who the government is representing because our democracy has problems, you are saying the issue is simply the government - but any solution I see 'your side' offer makes the problem worse by reducing the government's ability to represent the public interest, and transferring the power to the very unaccountable most wealthy people that have dominated societies throughout history in whatever form of government.

I think that the FDR/JFK type policies that strengthened our middle class are far better than the anti-government policies the right has to offer.

We agree, I presume, Bush is bad government, but you see him, it seems, as 'government' while I see him as 'a bad president' needing replacement.

IMO, the anti-government policies are a real threat to our very core as a nation of the welfare of the public. Ultimately, the wealthy are at odds with democracy.

The question for them is, is power better in their hands or distributed to the public? If you don't know their answer, it'll be hard for us to communicate.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
The ironic thing is, it is the Craig234 ideas that California shares that have put them in this situation. Massive spending and massive debt.

If anyone thinks this is funny, you shouldn't. This is what lies in the future for all of the rest of the USA as soon as the impending SS and Medicare nightmares come to haunt.

Of course, the "fix" for these problems will not be cuts in spending, it will be increases in revenues. How much should we pay. The answer is always more, more more.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Genx87

This is something a vast majority of the big govt nanny staters dont seem to understand. They grant the federal govt more and more of our national income. Then wonder why the gap between rich and poor continues to grow at ever increasing rates. They believe if they just elect the right people to oppress one group by taxing and giving to another it will fix the issue. The problem is this doesnt happen. It disappears into the toilet of govt, usually flowing up.
It would apparently surprise you to hear *I don't think government needs more of our money*.

My arguments for 'more government' are typically either in opposition to the naive and dangerous libertarians calling for stripping it to the bone, or for certiain programs I think are good, just as FDR fought for Social Security or JFK fought for Medicare. But overall, I think government gets more than enough of our money now.

We don't "wonder why the gap between rich and poor continues to grow at ever increasing rates." We know why, because of the government representing the most wealthy, and implementing policies to cause that result - the corruption of the right-wing politics. Indeed, when our policies were implemented, the gap did not increase; rich and poor alike did better, and the gap decreased a lot under FDR.

The federal government under JFK was a fraction the size as under later Republican presidents, FYI.

The issue is about the concentration of wealth - and as Warren Buuffet said, there is class war, but his side is winning (and the only side fighitng the war).

What costs more, welfare for people on the street or giving multi-billion dollar no bid contracts to an elected officials district? Which one happens more in our govt? Yet the solution is to grant more power and wealth to the govt? Brilliant!
Welfare is a sliver of the federal budget. The institutional corporatist corruption such as the military-industrial complex needing tax dollars (and therefore needing war) is the threat.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
The ironic thing is, it is the Craig234 ideas that California shares that have put them in this situation. Massive spending and massive debt.

If anyone thinks this is funny, you shouldn't. This is what lies in the future for all of the rest of the USA as soon as the impending SS and Medicare nightmares come to haunt.

Of course, the "fix" for these problems will not be cuts in spending, it will be increases in revenues. How much should we pay. The answer is always more, more more.
Wrong, Bamacre.

My governors are the Browns (Pat and Jerry); I've defended Gray Davis, who practiced *fiscal responsibility*. His policy to restore the DMV license fee would have raised exactly the amount as our deficit was later - but Republicans were able to run against him on a policy of 'lower taxes' which led to the deficit (given their spending levels).

Gov. Gray Davis was at war with the corruption of Enron and refusing to let them off the hook at the expense of the CA taxpayers - while Schwarzeneggar, buddy of Ken Lay, did.

Get the facts right if you are going to say something about my views.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,395
2
81
Originally posted by: Craig234

We need to recognize that we're not differing on the details but on the big issue of wealth and society.

You are so wrapped up in government government government that I think you are not understanding the issue of wealth and society. I'll explain.

'Big government' - whether our own or others from the fascist to the communist to the feudal to the simply corrupt - is but one form of 'concerntration of wealth'.

What you are not noticing, as I see it, is how the issue exists just as much when 'government' isn't the issue; the same issue exists whether government is removed from the equation (the robber baron/lassiez faire system, for example) or the wealthy are merged with government (the old monarchy system, or fascism, for example).

In fact, our democratic form of government *can be* the most effective yet found (short of revolution, which begs the question what it leads to, and the huge cost, and the fact that it's pretty much impossible in our society) for balancing the concentration of wealth. But only when the democracy is healthy and representing the public (think the FDR era or the JFK era), not when it's serving the most wealthy as now (since Reagan), *against* the public interest.

The disagreement we have is that while I say the issue is who the government is representing because our democracy has problems, you are saying the issue is simply the government - but any solution I see 'your side' offer makes the problem worse by reducing the government's ability to represent the public interest, and transferring the power to the very unaccountable most wealthy people that have dominated societies throughout history in whatever form of government.

I think that the FDR/JFK type policies that strengthened our middle class are far better than the anti-government policies the right has to offer.

We agree, I presume, Bush is bad government, but you see him, it seems, as 'government' while I see him as 'a bad president' needing replacement.

IMO, the anti-government policies are a real threat to our very core as a nation of the welfare of the public. Ultimately, the wealthy are at odds with democracy.

The question for them is, is power better in their hands or distributed to the public? If you don't know their answer, it'll be hard for us to communicate.

I understand the issue quite well, the wealthy got rich because someone at sometime gave them money. The wealthy stay rich because people continue to give them money. I am not anti-government at all, the FDR era was a great thing. But what are welfare programs compared to improving the infrastructure of America? Hand outs and societal goods are just that, what return to most Americans see on their tax dollars? Not too much, I'd wager, a far cry from the many building projects FDR instituted. I would glady pay my taxes every year if I saw the infrastructure improving in America, if I saw the country improving. The simple fact is, roads are in disreapir, our communications network is lacking, as is our education. Whose fault is this? Society's as a whole? The wealthy keeping all the money to themselves and not giving any back? I love the American government, but big government is firmly entrenched on both sides, and I don't see that as the solution. The way I view the goverment is that it should grease the wheels, not turn them. If the goverment must collect taxes from society, so be it, but should it not then be obligated to spending that money on improving only society and not the Washington entrenched? I look at President Bush and see "bad president enabled bya bad congress enabled by a corrupt system enabled by corporate money enabled by government hand outs enabled by citizens unaware of what they actually spend their money on." I am all for improving AMerica, but broad social programs are only a band aid, true education is the fix, a return on are billions on tax dollars is the fix. I am sure many would stop grumbling when they have a high-tech highway system that maximizes fuel economy, blazing fast communications, genuinely open education and the like.

I am sure we agree on a lot more than you think, we just disagree on the method. You see the goverment as being changed one day out of the year, I see it as a day to day struggle beginning and ending at the wallet, be it tax dollars or consumer purchases.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
Just reading about the exit tax is just fascism at its best.

"You have to pay this very high tax rate, if you try to leave, we'll just take more (if not all.)"

That is such a violation of human rights and freedom, anybody who would propose such an idea should be hung from the nearest tree, and anybody who supports them should be lashed. Saudi Arabia is more reasonable than this crap.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Brigandier
Yes, and in a captialist society where your dollar is more powerful than a vote on election day, what then? Is Washington controlled by votes or by dollars? It is for the good of scoiety to think of more than just election days, but of where their money goes each day and to make decisions based on that. You can change the world a hell of a lot faster by intelligently deciding where your dollar goes and not just who you vote fo. Elections are driven by media and those fortunate enough to have extra money at election time to donate. Where do those that have the extra money get the extra money? Well, from Joe Six-Pack that buys his product all year round or products he has investments in. If joe Six-Pack starts discriminating against what products he buys those that have the extra money come election time will have earned it by Joe Six-Packs dollar votes. I am not for the empowerment for the wealthy, I am for the empowerment for the intelligent, and the intelligent should realize voting happens every day, every time you open the wallet you are making a vote. Great capitalits understand this, great consumers understand this and if this little bit of information could get out, America could change for the better.
We're somewhat in agreement here. I think very much in terms of where my dollars go as votes.

It's why I donate or subscribe to things I think are helpful, like Salon.com, good books like "The Shock Doctrine" (and hundreds of others), commondreams.org, Rolling Stone Magazine, The Atlantic, Ironwood Films' monthly documentaries, and so on., and I avoid spending with any Murdoch company, I'm currently shifting off of Comcast, I don't shop at Wal-Mart, etc.

But I recognize how limited that is - how important the actual education of society is. Wal-Mart isn't going broke any time soon because of consumers making good picks.

Both the commercial and the political play important roles in trying to fight for the interests of the nation (and the human race, for that matter).

And they feed on each other - the political has a big impact on how much money the average American has to spend politically. Or how much Blackwater can donate.

BTW, the ignorant are just as much in need of their interests being looked at, both for moral reasons and political, they get to vote too.

Your desire for people to make more informed decisions needs something to help make that happen. Things like the power of marketing, and therefore the money behind the marketing, are facts. You can't just say 'darn that corruption'. That's where grass-roots efforts - like my posting here perhaps - come in.

I think it's a great topic to ask how we can do more to get people informed and voting better - against, for example, the concentration of wealth we both oppose.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,395
2
81
Originally posted by: Craig234

I think it's a great topic to ask how we can do more to get people informed and voting better - against, for example, the concentration of wealth we both oppose.
How about explaining patieently that the reason they can only afford to shop at Wal-Mart is because they continue to shop at Wal-Mart. Explain to them how every dollar you spend on a product made in China does not magicall get transferred to an American's pocket. I do not want to come off as isolationist, I am not, the global market is a glorious thing, but a little refresher course on why Johnny got laid of from his boot factory might make some people make better decisions.

I think the more nefarious threat is the large export of wealth from America, it doesn't affect investment bankers and the extremely wealthy, it dispropritonately affects the middle and lower classes. If more wealth could be created in America, more Americans would have jobs, if more Americans had jobs, more Americans would have health care, if more Americans have health care, the taxes for medicare and other such programs can be reduced or funneled into paying down the debt.

The wealth in the world has to be concentrated somewhere, so I say why not in America? Why not understand that the only people that can actually make that happen are Americans and American capitalists? Instead of decrying the wealthy for being wealthy, why not decry them for taking or dollar and sending 20 cents to China and pocketing the rest? The only way you will make a coporation such as that change is by avoiding their services and products at all costs. You can complain and complain, but as long as your dollar is not going to America, you are giving a tacit approval to those corporatists to continue doing what they are doing. So we get cheap products made in China, but we can only afford to by cheap produts made in China, it sarts eroding our choice. Every dollar that leaves America cannot be used to improve it, and higher taxaction will do nothign to stem the flow of that wealth loss.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
The ironic thing is, it is the Craig234 ideas that California shares that have put them in this situation. Massive spending and massive debt.

If anyone thinks this is funny, you shouldn't. This is what lies in the future for all of the rest of the USA as soon as the impending SS and Medicare nightmares come to haunt.

Of course, the "fix" for these problems will not be cuts in spending, it will be increases in revenues. How much should we pay. The answer is always more, more more.
Wrong, Bamacre.

My governors are the Browns (Pat and Jerry); I've defended Gray Davis, who practiced *fiscal responsibility*. His policy to restore the DMV license fee would have raised exactly the amount as our deficit was later - but Republicans were able to run against him on a policy of 'lower taxes' which led to the deficit (given their spending levels).

Gov. Gray Davis was at war with the corruption of Enron and refusing to let them off the hook at the expense of the CA taxpayers - while Schwarzeneggar, buddy of Ken Lay, did.

Get the facts right if you are going to say something about my views.
Right. And other than education, what are the two biggest areas of expenditures for the state of CA?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Brigandier
Originally posted by: Craig234

I think it's a great topic to ask how we can do more to get people informed and voting better - against, for example, the concentration of wealth we both oppose.
How about explaining patieently that the reason they can only afford to shop at Wal-Mart is because they continue to shop at Wal-Mart. Explain to them how every dollar you spend on a product made in China does not magicall get transferred to an American's pocket. I do not want to come off as isolationist, I am not, the global market is a glorious thing, but a little refresher course on why Johnny got laid of from his boot factory might make some people make better decisions.
One problem with this, and which raises a larger issue, is that even if they understand those things, it may not change their decision on short-term behavior.

The larger issue it raises is societal policy versus individual policy.

There are a lot of things I'm happy to pay for as a fair share in taxes, that I won't pay for as one of a few individual donors - and it's clear taxation is the only effective way to raise funds for quite a few things that benefit society, however much the right refuses to admit that.

For a hypothetical example, imagine there's a pollution measure companies can adopt which costs them 1% of operating costs, but saves society 100 times that much.

Any individual company is almost forced, between competition and shareholder obligation, not to adopt the improvement if it's their decision - but a law mandating it works great, making all the competitors on equal footing by having to adopt the measure instead of placing those who do at a disadvantage.

It reminds me of the old Sam Donaldson story where he had a business - cattle IIRC - with subsidies from the federal government. He spoke out against the subsidies - and was called a hypocrite when it was found he accepted them. But his explanation was right on, that while the subsidies were there, he needed to take them for competitive reasons, even though he wanted to end them for him and his competitors.

Consumers tend to buy the cheapest price however much education. Societal-level policies can have a better impact. Why not have tarriffs addressing the inequalities?

I think the more nefarious threat is the large export of wealth from America, it doesn't affect investment bankers and the extremely wealthy, it dispropritonately affects the middle and lower classes. If more wealth could be created in America, more Americans would have jobs, if more Americans had jobs, more Americans would have health care, if more Americans have health care, the taxes for medicare and other such programs can be reduced or funneled into paying down the debt.
While I'm all for the huddled masses globally improving from globalization, I agree with you here.

The wealth in the world has to be concentrated somewhere, so I say why not in America?
I have somewhat a different take - *some* concentration of wealth is optimal, but we don't need excessive concentration anywhere.

I agree witht the point I think you are making that the US doesn't suddenly need to compete head on with the peasants of China - but not the unqualified way you say it.

Why not understand that the only people that can actually make that happen are Americans and American capitalists? Instead of decrying the wealthy for being wealthy, why not decry them for taking or dollar and sending 20 cents to China and pocketing the rest?
I don't know anyone who decries the wealthy simply for being wealthy (that sort of went out of fashion after the French Revolution).

Even on decrying what you ask for, they're just doing what *the system incents*. That's where we need people who understand the proper of role of government to have the system incent things good for society, not blindly serve the wealthy and set the system up to reward bad things.

The only way you will make a coporation such as that change is by avoiding their services and products at all costs.
Or by the governmen adopting different policies on how they're incented and rewarded.

You can complain and complain, but as long as your dollar is not going to America, you are giving a tacit approval to those corporatists to continue doing what they are doing. So we get cheap products made in China, but we can only afford to by cheap produts made in China, it sarts eroding our choice. Every dollar that leaves America cannot be used to improve it, and higher taxaction will do nothign to stem the flow of that wealth loss.
You're right, but the fact is, consumers will simply pick the cheap produt, even if it hurts the nation and their interests. So, we need another approach.

Enter the issue of the right's blind opposition to any discussion of the goverment having a role.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234

Wrong, Bamacre.

My governors are the Browns (Pat and Jerry); I've defended Gray Davis, who practiced *fiscal responsibility*. His policy to restore the DMV license fee would have raised exactly the amount as our deficit was later - but Republicans were able to run against him on a policy of 'lower taxes' which led to the deficit (given their spending levels).

Gov. Gray Davis was at war with the corruption of Enron and refusing to let them off the hook at the expense of the CA taxpayers - while Schwarzeneggar, buddy of Ken Lay, did.

Get the facts right if you are going to say something about my views.
Right. And other than education, what are the two biggest areas of expenditures for the state of CA?
I don't know what you're trying to get at. It depends how you break the spending into categories.

Broadly speaking, the next largest spending is on a variety of 'human services' lumped together, transportation, housing, and prisons.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,395
2
81
I think we have both realized how much we actually have in common, I guess I'm just too cynical to think that the government will actually change its ways. I am extremely hopeful(yes, that word) to see an administration under Obama as his is probably the most democratically finance campaign in recent history. I want to see him change the corporate structure of Washington, and if he doesn't I'll just cling to my real votes don't matter dollar votes do mentality. There are a lot of things a responsible government can do to help its country, I just don't see our government doing very many of those things.

I want to be proved wrong by the government, but if I'm not I won't let them interfere with my march towards personal happiness. And if that means avoiding as many taxes as I can, I will, and it seems that California will never be a place for me to try and accumulate wealth.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Brigandier
I think we have both realized how much we actually have in common,
I'm please to see how much that happened.

I guess I'm just too cynical to think that the government will actually change its ways.
I'd only be repeating what I said earlier about the issue being who government serves and the need to get it serving the public, not the wealthy. We need an anti-Reagan.

I am extremely hopeful(yes, that word) to see an administration under Obama as his is probably the most democratically finance campaign in recent history. I want to see him change the corporate structure of Washington, and if he doesn't I'll just cling to my real votes don't matter dollar votes do mentality. There are a lot of things a responsible government can do to help its country, I just don't see our government doing very many of those things.
You sound more optimistic than me about Obama. I'd have been thrilled with Kucinich, happy with Edwards, but I have mild expecations for Obama's progressiveness.

But he'll be a breath of fresh air, I expect, likely the best president since LBJ.

I want to be proved wrong by the government, but if I'm not I won't let them interfere with my march towards personal happiness.
Good point, but abandoning the political can require you to find happiness from within prison, perhaps tortured, ultimately (as seen in many naitons). Luckily, probably not here.

And if that means avoiding as many taxes as I can, I will, and it seems that California will never be a place for me to try and accumulate wealth.
A lot of wealthy Californians feel differenly.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234

Wrong, Bamacre.

My governors are the Browns (Pat and Jerry); I've defended Gray Davis, who practiced *fiscal responsibility*. His policy to restore the DMV license fee would have raised exactly the amount as our deficit was later - but Republicans were able to run against him on a policy of 'lower taxes' which led to the deficit (given their spending levels).

Gov. Gray Davis was at war with the corruption of Enron and refusing to let them off the hook at the expense of the CA taxpayers - while Schwarzeneggar, buddy of Ken Lay, did.

Get the facts right if you are going to say something about my views.
Right. And other than education, what are the two biggest areas of expenditures for the state of CA?
I don't know what you're trying to get at. It depends how you break the spending into categories.

Broadly speaking, the next largest spending is on a variety of 'human services' lumped together, transportation, housing, and prisons.
Then please allow the state of CA to break it down for you...

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/...mmary/Introduction.pdf

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
Right. And other than education, what are the two biggest areas of expenditures for the state of CA?
I don't know what you're trying to get at. It depends how you break the spending into categories.

Broadly speaking, the next largest spending is on a variety of 'human services' lumped together, transportation, housing, and prisons.
Then please allow the state of CA to break it down for you...

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/...mmary/Introduction.pdf
Why? I checked their data before answering, and it's one way to break it into groups.

I still have no idea what you are getting at.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
Right. And other than education, what are the two biggest areas of expenditures for the state of CA?
I don't know what you're trying to get at. It depends how you break the spending into categories.

Broadly speaking, the next largest spending is on a variety of 'human services' lumped together, transportation, housing, and prisons.
Then please allow the state of CA to break it down for you...

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/...mmary/Introduction.pdf
Why? I checked their data before answering, and it's one way to break it into groups.

I still have no idea what you are getting at.
That's ok, I'm sure everyone else who cares can see what I mean.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,395
2
81
Originally posted by: Craig234

A lot of wealthy Californians feel differenly.
I'm sure they do, but I don't see the allure of joining them, it's all been done before. I want to be a wealthy yooper, it has much more pizazz. How about the wealthy Californians in the future if this tax gets passed? I doubt they'll be thrilled with a 55% tax on their wealth.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY