Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[DominionSeraph]

Gates is wealthy beyond measure because he made computers accessible to the masses.

Gates is actually a perfect example. Name something that he coded himself. Gates didn't write DOS, he bought it.


Microsoft is built on the leveraging of property rights, and it grew by plagiarism and theft and anticompetitive practices. His stock is worth so much because it represents ownership of the programmers at Microsoft. If Microsoft didn't own their work the company would be worthless.

You think Gates alone could write Office 2010 or Windows 7? Get a clue.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I'm certainly not disputing the fact that the top 1% are richer than ever. I just don't see a problem with it.

When would you see a problem with it?

 

[HomerJS]

It was already taxed when it was made in the first place. What you want is to tax it two or three times over again.

If you work for a company your salary comes from gross income earned by the company which has been taxed. If I gave you 1 million dollars it would be subject to a gift tax.

Why should inheritence be treated differently?

 

[HomerJS]

The top 400 richest people in the country make more then the bottom 50%. (150 million)

I don't know how anyone can say this is a good thing.

 

[Genx87]

Gates is actually a perfect example. Name something that he coded himself. Gates didn't write DOS, he bought it.


Microsoft is built on the leveraging of property rights, and it grew by plagiarism and theft and anticompetitive practices. His stock is worth so much because it represents ownership of the programmers at Microsoft. If Microsoft didn't own their work the company would be worthless.

You think Gates alone could write Office 2010 or Windows 7? Get a clue.

If it is so easy why havent you done it?

Because Gates didnt write the code doesnt mean did nothing to build Microsoft. Who sold his OS and applications to companies? Who provided vision? Who directed the company to where it is today?

Nothing is stopping those programmers from starting a rival firm. Why havent they?

 

[bamacre]

Gates is actually a perfect example. Name something that he coded himself. Gates didn't write DOS, he bought it.

He found value in it. He took that tool and reshaped it in a way so that many others could use it.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

There is no reason why accumulating wealth through inheritance and dividends should be taxed lower than accumulating it through hard work is.

Actually, there are some reasons for that. Dividends aren't pure income as you seem to think they are. They take a chunk out of your investment. Having a lower tax rate on them allows them to be more fully re-invested, which in turn helps the economy. Additionally, you would be taxing that income three times if you put a personal income tax on it; Taxed when earned by the corporation, taxed when distributed as a dividend, and taxed as personal income. That's just wrong.

Inheritance taxes are just perverse. What gives you any right to say that the wealth accumulated legally by one person cannot be passed to his/her heirs without the government touching it when they die? That money was already taxed when it was earned. Putting taxes on dying wishes is just wrong.

The top 400 richest people in the country make more then the bottom 50%. (150 million)

I don't know how anyone can say this is a good thing.

Oh yes, it is so horrible that the smartest and most ambitious people in our country earn more than the most handicapped and underachieving!

Because you didn't earn the money. You got to steal it because folk much more capable than you are not given that chance. There are millions and millions of folk in this world who have nothing and have talents that would put yours to shame.

You have the most backwards, anti-American logic I have ever heard. Earning money is equivalent to stealing it from other people who weren't as qualified to earn it? Shame on you. Stop blaming others for your inadequacies (a major part of the country's debt problems, by the way).

 

[soulcougher73]

I really have no problem with these 1% being able to earn as much as they do. My problem comes with the fact that these 1% feel they actually need that much money. Id feel happy i am able to make that much money, but id be giving away probably 75% of what i earned because id feel guilty having so much money i could never dream of spending it all when other people have so little.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I've got news for you....as an Independent and someone that will openly mock both sides, I have no delusional illusions that I have any say in who does what in this country because I don't have the money that the real deciders have.

None of us have any real say outside of what occurs on the smallest local arena and even that is controlled and dictated by our masters....the uber rich corporatist elite.

You make it sound as if this "uber rich corporatist elite" are a unified gang of a single mind. They aren't, and even on the local level you'll often have one pitted against another where political decisions are concerned.

Your say in this country is your vote. Obama became president because of the Independent vote, just like Bush did, and Clinton, and so on. Neither the Reps or Dems have enough voting power to bring a president into office on their own so ultimately it's the Independents who swing the vote one way or another. That's the say you have.

 

[soundforbjt]

Inheritance taxes are just perverse. What gives you any right to say that the wealth accumulated legally by one person cannot be passed to his/her heirs without the government touching it when they die? That money was already taxed when it was earned. Putting taxes on dying wishes is just wrong.

Yes and it was probably taxed at a much lower rate than yours or my income is since it proabaly came from dividends and investments.

 

[Blackjack200]

You make it sound as if this "uber rich corporatist elite" are a unified gang of a single mind. They aren't, and even on the local level you'll often have one pitted against another where political decisions are concerned.

Your say in this country is your vote. Obama became president because of the Independent vote, just like Bush did, and Clinton, and so on. Neither the Reps or Dems have enough voting power to bring a president into office on their own so ultimately it's the Independents who swing the vote one way or another. That's the say you have.

And what are you choosing between?

Bush = War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, low taxes for the rich, massive deficits

Obama = War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, low taxes for the rich, massive deficits.

You only get small differences, like the UHC law, or very limited environmental reform.

 

[bfdd]

1% of Americans is 3 million people. Comparing the 3 million in our country who hold 40-50% of the wealth to foreign dictators and their countries where .001% or less control 80%+ of the wealth isn't exactly a fair comparison. Stop the tax loop holes, stop the write offs, everyone pays the same percentage.

 

[CycloWizard]

Gates is actually a perfect example. Name something that he coded himself. Gates didn't write DOS, he bought it.


Microsoft is built on the leveraging of property rights, and it grew by plagiarism and theft and anticompetitive practices. His stock is worth so much because it represents ownership of the programmers at Microsoft. If Microsoft didn't own their work the company would be worthless.

You think Gates alone could write Office 2010 or Windows 7? Get a clue.

The source of disagreement seems to be that you don't believe that anyone has the right to property. I disagree. If I have no right to keep what I've earned, then I will be perfectly happy to sit on my ass and do nothing.

I also would be perfectly within your framework to walk into your house and fall asleep on the couch watching your TV. When I arise, I will crawl in bed between you and your wife. What is "yours" isn't really yours, is it? You have no right to those ill-gotten gains. What's yours is mine. After all, you couldn't possibly complete whatever product or service you are remunerated for without the aid of thousands or millions of other contributors.

In my framework, people agree what their time and effort is worth. People invest themselves in order to reap the benefits of their labor. Virtually no product or service can be rendered in isolation. No one person could code Windows 7. No one person could design a modern computer. No one person could even create a cell phone. But there is value in the design of each component, producing that component, assembling that component, and the software to bring it all together. I develop bespoke instruments "from scratch," including designing the hardware, writing the control software, and physical assembly. I can charge a huge markup (200-400%) for these devices because of the value I add through my expertise as a designer. I buy products from others and turn them into something far more valuable than those products are by themselves. I compensate TI for their microprocessors. I pay another company for their control system. I pay a shop to machine parts. I pay for custom-printed circuit boards. I pay to license software. I pay for these things because it's not worth my time to do them on my own, because I can't be an expert in each of these areas, because it's simply infeasible. In the end, the markup pays for the value I add over and above the value of the individual parts. If this markup wasn't worth it to the end customer, they are free to pay all of the suppliers for these individual parts and try to build it themselves. They don't because their time is better spent on other things.

If I can convince someone to work for me for $20/hour and I can turn their labor into $500/hour for myself, then who is being hurt? The worker wouldn't have accepted that wage if they could make more elsewhere, so that must be what their labor itself is worth. The remainder is value that I somehow add, whether it's through marketing, salesmanship, packaging, or what have you. Some skills absolutely are more valuable than others, and society votes with its dollars to determine which skills those happen to be.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Yes and it was probably taxed at a much lower rate than yours or my income is since it proabaly came from dividends and investments.

There are economically sound reasons why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate. Look them up.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

And what are you choosing between?

Bush = War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, low taxes for the rich, massive deficits

Obama = War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, low taxes for the rich, massive deficits.

You only get small differences, like the UHC law, or very limited environmental reform.

The war in Iraq has long been over. The war in Afghanistan is not as simple as saying 'Fuck it. Let's just quit." Regarding the low taxes on the rich, that wasn't really Obama's choice, it was the GOP forcing him into that action. Massive deficits were inherited and exascerbated by poor economic conditions.

 

[theevilsharpie]

When would you see a problem with it?

When the top 1% getting richer comes at the expense of the other 99%.

 

[sao123]

If I can convince someone to work for me for $20/hour and I can turn their labor into $500/hour for myself, then who is being hurt? The worker wouldn't have accepted that wage if they could make more elsewhere, so that must be what their labor itself is worth. The remainder is value that I somehow add, whether it's through marketing, salesmanship, packaging, or what have you. Some skills absolutely are more valuable than others, and society votes with its dollars to determine which skills those happen to be.

your ideaology fails. it only works in theory when labor is in demand, and there is competition for employees.

Some skills absolutely are more valuable than others, but having capital is not a skill, its merely a posession. Corporate owners forget that without their workforce that their capital is meaningless. Individual workers can be replaced easily, but the entire workforce itself is not. The entire workforce is worth far more of a percent of the profits than is actually being paid to it.

in an actual economy, such as the one we have today, you havent convinced anyone that they are only worth $20/hour, their skills are worth far more. The worker simply has to accept your job because there is no alternative... Ask for more and you can be replaced by another starving no-name. Taking the job is the difference between feeding his family and starving his family.

This is nothing more than legal extortion via poverty-level wages employment.

 

[CycloWizard]

your ideaology fails. it only works in theory when labor is in demand, and there is competition for employees.

Some skills absolutely are more valuable than others, but having capital is not a skill, its merely a posession. Corporate owners forget that without their workforce that their capital is meaningless. Individual workers can be replaced easily, but the entire workforce itself is not. The entire workforce is worth far more of a percent of the profits than is actually being paid to it.

in an actual economy, such as the one we have today, you havent convinced anyone that they are only worth $20/hour, their skills are worth far more. The worker simply has to accept your job because there is no alternative... Ask for more and you can be replaced by another starving no-name. Taking the job is the difference between feeding his family and starving his family.

This is nothing more than legal extortion via poverty-level wages employment.

Without capital, what will the laborers do? If you are easily replaced, you don't have a valuable skillset. The workforce is worth exactly what it is paid - the individuals who make up that workforce agreed that this is the case by accepting the wages offered. No one ever has to accept any job. If I didn't get a job, I could start my own company and create my own job. This would require risk on my part, the application of a lot of elbow grease, and the use of a (hopefully valuable) skillset that I have hopefully developed. If you aren't willing to work for the wages offered and you aren't willing to work for yourself, then you simply have an inflated opinion of your own value. If reality matched up with your view, then you could start your own company and make that amount. If you can't do that, then you have obviously overestimated.

 

[theeedude]

Actually, there are some reasons for that. Dividends aren't pure income as you seem to think they are. They take a chunk out of your investment. Having a lower tax rate on them allows them to be more fully re-invested, which in turn helps the economy. Additionally, you would be taxing that income three times if you put a personal income tax on it; Taxed when earned by the corporation, taxed when distributed as a dividend, and taxed as personal income. That's just wrong.

Why is it more important to let rich people have more to reinvest by not taxing their dividends, than having working people being able to invest more by not taxing their earned income? Sounds like you want to create an untaxed dividend collecting aristocracy in this country and punish the middle class that is working to save up for the future. We already saw how much this income was taxed when earned by the corporation called GE. It has to be taxed as ordinary income when paid out.

 

[QuantumPion]

The top 400 richest people in the country make more then the bottom 50%. (150 million)

I don't know how anyone can say this is a good thing.

Well excluding the George Soros/Warren Buffet/other miscellaneous rich Democrats that make themselves wealthy at others expense using the power of government...those top 400 probably also make 50% of the jobs.

 

[Genx87]

Why is it more important to let rich people have more to reinvest by not taxing their dividends, than having working people being able to invest more by not taxing their earned income? Sounds like you want to create an untaxed dividend collecting aristocracy in this country and punish the middle class that is working to save up for the future. We already saw how much this income was taxed when earned by the corporation called GE. It has to be taxed as ordinary income when paid out.

Do you have an IRA, 401K, ROTH IRA or other investment tool? Maybe a house?
You would cut off your own nose to spite your face.

 

[Turin39789]

nah

 

[CycloWizard]

Why is it more important to let rich people have more to reinvest by not taxing their dividends, than having working people being able to invest more by not taxing their earned income? Sounds like you want to create an untaxed dividend collecting aristocracy in this country and punish the middle class that is working to save up for the future. We already saw how much this income was taxed when earned by the corporation called GE. It has to be taxed as ordinary income when paid out.

You're not letting them have anything - it's their money. You are simply arguing that you have done more to deserve their property than they have - the fundamental argument of all wealth redistribution policy.

 

[sao123]

Without capital, what will the laborers do? If you are easily replaced, you don't have a valuable skillset. The workforce is worth exactly what it is paid - the individuals who make up that workforce agreed that this is the case by accepting the wages offered. No one ever has to accept any job. If I didn't get a job, I could start my own company and create my own job. This would require risk on my part, the application of a lot of elbow grease, and the use of a (hopefully valuable) skillset that I have hopefully developed. If you aren't willing to work for the wages offered and you aren't willing to work for yourself, then you simply have an inflated opinion of your own value. If reality matched up with your view, then you could start your own company and make that amount. If you can't do that, then you have obviously overestimated.

without capital, they will continue doing what they always have done... unskilled self imployment for cash.

Skill set does not determine worth, otherwise everyone with the same skills would be paid the same wages. what controls wages is labor demand...

the inherent problem is the largest employers with the largest capital, use it to "buy" policy makers in government. They gain favorable policies, which prevents small businesses from competing and keeps labor demand low, artificially deflating wages further.

We need seperation of corporation and state.

 

[Atreus21]

Don't you mean....we're talking about any nation. In ANY economic system, if you are well connected and have absolutely zero skills, you can still get 6-7 figure salaries from cronyism. Actual working skills are for the poor to help build your coffers.

Fixed.