What is the ideal spread of wealth in a healthy society

[MJinZ]

Way to totally avoid what I posted...the only democrats that are rich are in office...how can be democrat become rich if they are put their money where their mouth is by helping those poor souls in the da hood that are less fortunuate? you know, the ones driving Escalades with 22" wheels but cannot afford diapers or formula??

lololol.

Richest men in the world - Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. You thought they were Republicans? LOL, when Republicans start leaving their entire fortunes to charity, they deserve a different name.

 

[MJinZ]

I dont have a 47" TV or an I-Phone. Guess I am really poor. I work for a living.

R U Srsly. Iphone is like $200 and 47" TV is like $300 on Black Friday.

 

[werepossum]

LOL, I probably pay more in taxes every year than what you make already. The difference is, people like us who can think independently realize when brainwashing occurs and when the "system" itself is flawed. Capitalism is just as flawed as Communism, in its own separate ways.

However, it doesn't take a genius to realize that Capitalism is more backward than Communism. Socialism doesn't work because HUMANS are not good enough for it. We do not possess the noble traits to make it work. Capitalism is PERFECT for what we are currently - self interested, greedy, competitive, and compassionless.

It depends on what you envision the potential for humans to be really. Capitalism supporters are happy with neanderthalic tendencies of humans, others realize (or hope) that humans are capable of a little bit more of an advanced philosophy than kill or be killed.

Evidently, based on most these forums, most humans clearly not even at an intellectual stage where that can even be reasonably discussed.

Ah, the progressive mantra. Socialism would work just fine if everyone were as enlightened and intelligent as I, but until then I'll just have to direct their dreary little lives for them. Of course, since I'm doing all the work of telling them how to live I deserve a better life - which I will take from their labor - but otherwise they should all have the same.

I bet Neanderthals had socialism - the guy with the strongest club arm took everything and redistributed it in a manner that he deemed fair. The only improvement Marx developed was a way to get other people to do the actual leg work for him.

 

[MJinZ]

Ah, the progressive mantra. Socialism would work just fine if everyone were as enlightened and intelligent as I, but until then I'll just have to direct their dreary little lives for them. Of course, since I'm doing all the work of telling them how to live I deserve a better life - which I will take from their labor - but otherwise they should all have the same.

I bet Neanderthals had socialism - the guy with the strongest club arm took everything and redistributed it in a manner that he deemed fair. The only improvement Marx developed was a way to get other people to do the actual leg work for him.

And you're too dumb to realize that America has been a mix of Socialism and Capitalism for ages now....

And did you think China is actually Communist?

OH and let's talk about property and land ownership. This should be fun. What most people take for granted as basic "rights" are actually pure hogshit. Land ownership? Pure human arrogance, as if a single human is actually worthy of "owning" such a part of an extremely advanced biosphere formed millions of times of their own lifespans.

 

[zsdersw]

I didn't ask you if the non-wealthy get opportunities or how often they get opportunities. I asked you if you really think that the non-wealthy get EQUAL opportunities, which is what you're trumpeting about.

It's your misunderstanding of my usage of the term "opportunity". I don't mean individual opportunities, but access to the means to make your life better. Most people have this opportunity, but not nearly as many choose to use it. The extent to which government fails to make this opportunity available to everyone is the measure of how much work remains to be done.

The answer is that of COURSE the non-wealthy don't receive the same opportunities as the wealthy. Whether it's daddy giving $1 million to Harvard and Junior therefore getting a berth an equally-qualified (or even more qualified) middle-class applicant wouldn't receive OR getting the benefits of family connections in the business world, the wealthy have a leg up on the non-wealthy. It's simply ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

Again, you misunderstand how I meant the term "opportunity".

And we're increasingly moving toward a system where we take LESS from the wealthy and take MORE from the non-wealthy. How can that be? Well, as the income-tax base goes down, user fees go up. Benefits go down. Tuitions for public colleges and universities increase. Sales taxes go up.

It's death by a thousand cuts, directed at the non-wealthy.

And if the righties get their way, the system will become even more stratified. Who do you think benefits when estates worth $10 million, $100 million, $1 billion are all immune to estate tax? Oh, right, those unfortunate 37 "family farmers" and "small business owners" who (sniffle) will be forced to sell the business to pay the tax - yeah, I'm sure that's who the right is really concerned about. Lowering the capital gains rate to 10%. Who do you think benefits from that? Keeping the income tax rate at 15% for hedge fund managers. All while the middle class pays 25%+ on their own income.

Oh yes, the sky is falling.

The right is owned by the wealthy, and it has nothing to do with equal opportunity for everyone.

Lest you forget the wealth on the left, of which there is a substantial amount.

You seem to believe that in order for the poor to get rich the rich must be forced by government through taxation and regulation to become a bit poorer, and that extreme wealth is what is keeping poor people poor. History has very clearly shown how failed those beliefs are.

We spend a lot of money on various social welfare programs, for which we get a relatively poor rate of return in the form of reduction in poverty and crime rates, and improvements in health and education. Instead of inspiring people to better themselves these social welfare programs inspire laziness and mooching and a greater sense of entitlement. This is not going to work.

 

[zsdersw]

And you're too dumb to realize that America has been a mix of Socialism and Capitalism for ages now....

.. and it doesn't need to become any more socialist. In fact, it needs to become less socialist.

 

[Mursilis]

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc... their money goes to good in the world, not more Bugattis.

I just have to chuckle when people bring up Bill Gates as some sort of secular saint or something. The guy lives in a 66K sq. foot, ~$100M home, and has every luxury imaginable. He may or may not own a Bugatti (I have no idea), but he's owned a Porsche 959, which isn't a half-bad set of wheels. He literally wants for nothing. He's probably giving away his money because he's run out of things to buy.

 

[Genx87]

I just have to chuckle when people bring up Bill Gates as some sort of secular saint or something. The guy lives in a 66K sq. foot, ~$100M home, and has every luxury imaginable. He may or may not own a Bugatti (I have no idea), but he's owned a Porsche 959, which isn't a half-bad set of wheels. He literally wants for nothing. He's probably giving away his money because he's run out of things to buy.

I dont really care what he buys with his wealth. But the funny thing is bringing up gates as some kind of saint is funny. He used govt to protect his monopoly to make that fortune. It is great he is giving it away to charity. But lets not act like that wealth was generated within a fair market either.

 

[SammyJr]

Ideal spread of wealth per Democrats: Tax the shit out of everyone. 99.9% of wealth to our government overlords, .1 % to the serfs (everyone else)

Isn't this fun? :biggrin:

But seriously, there is no answer. Whatever the free market decides.

The free market... LOL. You'll have better results from prayer. At least the religious tell you a pretty story while they take all your money.

 

[SammyJr]

I bet Neanderthals had socialism - the guy with the strongest club arm took everything and redistributed it in a manner that he deemed fair. The only improvement Marx developed was a way to get other people to do the actual leg work for him.

You're more accurately describing pure capitalism or a dictatorship. The individual with the most power (money, military, both) wins. There is nothing brutish about socialism in the context of a properly functional representative society. People vote on what they want to work on collectively.

 

[Modelworks]

A healthy society and the only system that will work forever is when money or value of physical possessions is meaningless. As long as physical items = power , there will be greed, corruption, those who have more. What is needed to change things is not policies or reform it is changing what people value in life.

There is not a single system, capitalism , socialism, communism, that has lasted. It always ends with one group having more , abusing those below them , and the government falling under its own weight.

 

[Craig234]

.. and it doesn't need to become any more socialist. In fact, it needs to become less socialist.

No, that's right-wing irrationality.

Quick, what's the word for too much right-wing economics corresponding to socialism?

There isn't one, which is a big reason why right-wingers can do little more than bleat about the word they are fed.

No, it's not fascism, that's a specific ideology not encompassing our modern right in a counterpart to the word 'socialism'. There isn't any such 'attack word'.

You might claim it's 'free market', but that is neither an attack word - it's viewed as more good than bad - nor is our system a 'free market' really. 'Socialism for the rich'.

'Corporatism' might be the closest, but doesn't quite capture it either.

People who throw around the word 'socialism' recklessly to promote irrationality to not do anything to help the discussion.

Weren't the economics of WWII basically socialist - from the war itself to the GI Bill - and how did that do at moving from economic depression to thriving economy?

 

[Phokus]

Conservatives don't seem to understand that you need a strong middle class for a strong country. They don't give a shit that the middle class is shrinking and we're becoming more and more like a Banana Republic. They cheer when jobs are shipped oversees.

 

[EagleKeeper]

the liberals seem to think that you can throw money at the poor and magically make them middle class.

 

[Phokus]

the liberals seem to think that you can throw money at the poor and magically make them middle class.

The conservatives think you can destroy middle class jobs and magically KEEP a middle class.

 

[Craig234]

the liberals seem to think that you can throw money at the poor and magically make them middle class.

95% of what's said about liberals here is wrong; I can't remember the other 5%.

 

[zsdersw]

Conservatives don't seem to understand that you need a strong middle class for a strong country. They don't give a shit that the middle class is shrinking and we're becoming more and more like a Banana Republic. They cheer when jobs are shipped oversees.

Jobs shipped overseas? What's the alternative? Build a wall around the US so we can depress the broader economy and eliminate the jobs of more people?

I sympathize for those in horse carriage manufacturing who lost their jobs to the automobile, and I am sorry that all those people who built typewriters had to lose their jobs to the personal computer, but would our economy been better off if we went to extraordinary lengths to keep those jobs longer?

Manufacturing in this country is headed in the same direction. Let these countries have those jobs; we'll add different kinds of jobs. There's little that can be done about it. It's a global economy; get with it or you'll be left behind.

 

[Carmen813]

Seems like a bell curve would be healthiest, but what do I know.

 

[zsdersw]

No, that's right-wing irrationality.

Quick, what's the word for too much right-wing economics corresponding to socialism?

There isn't one, which is a big reason why right-wingers can do little more than bleat about the word they are fed.

No, it's not fascism, that's a specific ideology not encompassing our modern right in a counterpart to the word 'socialism'. There isn't any such 'attack word'.

The expansion of the welfare state needs to be stopped and, in fact, the welfare state must shrink a great deal.

Weren't the economics of WWII basically socialist - from the war itself to the GI Bill - and how did that do at moving from economic depression to thriving economy?

The time of the New Deal is coming to an end. We can no longer afford it.

 

[Mursilis]

95% of what's said about liberals here is wrong; I can't remember the other 5%.

Who's turn is it to whack the Craigbot? It's stuck on stupid again.

 

[Genx87]

The conservatives think you can destroy middle class jobs and magically KEEP a middle class.

Right...because we dont believe that taxing the rich to the extreme means we want to destroy the middle class.

 

[werepossum]

Who's turn is it to whack the Craigbot? It's stuck on stupid again.

LOL! It's like one of those "artificial intelligence" programs from the seventies and eighties that can't actually parse your words, so it repeats phrases while you think WTF, that made no sense the first time you said it. Anybody remember ELIZA. LIZA and ALICE?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Should be a Bell Curve with the majority of Wealth in the Middle.

If the middle class holds the majority of the wealth, then are they really middle class anymore?

 

[werepossum]

Jobs shipped overseas? What's the alternative? Build a wall around the US so we can depress the broader economy and eliminate the jobs of more people?

I sympathize for those in horse carriage manufacturing who lost their jobs to the automobile, and I am sorry that all those people who built typewriters had to lose their jobs to the personal computer, but would our economy been better off if we went to extraordinary lengths to keep those jobs longer?

Manufacturing in this country is headed in the same direction. Let these countries have those jobs; we'll add different kinds of jobs. There's little that can be done about it. It's a global economy; get with it or you'll be left behind.

But we have to have some wealth producing jobs or we cannot continue consuming wealth. Manufacturing is leaving, farming is starting to go, mining is being crushed by environmental concerns, and the only thing we have left are intellectual property. But besides being frighteningly easy to steal, Americans are not fundamentally smarter or more creative than all other people. Look at the advanced research and development being done in Red China. Our economic freedom is declining, and our wealth production, that once fueled our R&D sector, is no longer able to support the world class R&D across a broad spectrum that we once enjoyed. If we cannot come up with one or more good sources of clean and above all cheap energy, then as a nation we are screwed, blued and tattooed.

 

[lord_emperor]

why do we concentrate so much on wealth? why are we so damn envious of what others have. Bill Gates wealth has no bearing on me.

Sure it does, there is a finite amount of "wealth" available for everyone.

I die a little every time I see a corporation reporting "800 billion dollars in profit", after paying their executives multi-million dollar bonuses. Meanwhile their employees don't even see enough of a raise to counter inflation, assuming they dodged the latest round of layoffs and outsourcing.

There is a systemic greed at the top where those who are already rich wield the power to line their pockets further at the expense of honest working people.