The rich get richer and the poor get screwed - again

Feb 2019
1,758
421
here and there
#11
I admit, I have no inkling as to how the US government runs such massive debt and survives. Governments throughout history have collapsed under much lesser of debt.

It really is voodoo economics to me.

Was Dick Cheney right? Do deficits no longer matter?
 
Dec 2014
27,475
15,085
Memphis, Tn.
#12
Why should you care? I mean, is wealth one big pie that we all divvy up or is wealth created? If it is one big pie, then why has the GDP grown so much over the years? Why does the pie grow?

The idea that wealth is one big pie that needs to be divided equally is a misnomer

Also puzzling to me is the notion that if we take more money from rich folk and give it to the government that somehow we will all get some of their loot.

Again, if government was restricted to redistributing only the tax money they took in, I could understand why you would think that. However, that is not how things work. Government plans on spending "X" amount of money no matter how much they take in or don't take in. In fact, they routinely run massive deficits and don't blink an eye. It's all monopoly money really.

If you destroy wealth, you destroy the economy. After all, the government does not produce anything as they simply leach off the wealthy.

I would love to hear from any of you how the wealthy are restricting your economic freedom. I can give you a myriad of examples on how the government restricts your economic freedom.
'Huh? Who's talking about "destroying wealth?"
 
Likes: leekohler2
Apr 2013
38,294
26,280
La La Land North
#13
Reminds me of a joke.

So three men apply for a job, a mathematician, an accountant, and an economist.

The interviewer's first question to the mathematician was, what is 2 + 2? The mathematician then pulls out a slide ruler and a chalk board and shows proof that it is equal to 4.

The accountant was next and asked the same question. He whips out a calculator and show the man that it is equal to 4. Easy peasy!

Then the economist enters and is asked the same question. The economist then looks around the room, under the desk, and draws the curtain and closes the window. He cozies up to the interviewer and whispers in his ear, "What would you like it to equal?"
That's an old joke. But every other time I've heard it, it was a Republican politician who asked what would you like it to be.
 
Apr 2013
38,294
26,280
La La Land North
#14
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-hurts-everyone-even-the-rich/?noredirect=on

What’s Wrong with Wealth? Inequality. | Oxfam International Blogs

From Wikipedia:
Main article: Effects of economic inequality
Effects of inequality researchers have found include higher rates of health and social problems, and lower rates of social goods,[91] a lower level of economic utility in society from resources devoted on high-end consumption,[92][not in citation given] and even a lower level of economic growth when human capital is neglected for high-end consumption.[93] For the top 21 industrialised countries, counting each person equally, life expectancy is lower in more unequal countries (r = -.907).[94] A similar relationship exists among US states (r = -.620).[95]
2013 Economics Nobel prize winner Robert J. Shiller said that rising inequality in the United States and elsewhere is the most important problem.[96]
The economic stratification of society into "elites" and "masses" played a central role in the collapse of other advanced civilizations such as the Roman, Han and Gupta empires.[97]
The Hoover Institute disagrees, surprise, surprise.
 
Likes: Lyzza
May 2018
6,643
4,490
Chicago
#15
Why should you care? I mean, is wealth one big pie that we all divvy up or is wealth created? If it is one big pie, then why has the GDP grown so much over the years? Why does the pie grow?

The idea that wealth is one big pie that needs to be divided equally is a misnomer

Also puzzling to me is the notion that if we take more money from rich folk and give it to the government that somehow we will all get some of their loot.

Again, if government was restricted to redistributing only the tax money they took in, I could understand why you would think that. However, that is not how things work. Government plans on spending "X" amount of money no matter how much they take in or don't take in. In fact, they routinely run massive deficits and don't blink an eye. It's all monopoly money really.

If you destroy wealth, you destroy the economy. After all, the government does not produce anything as they simply leach off the wealthy.

I would love to hear from any of you how the wealthy are restricting your economic freedom. I can give you a myriad of examples on how the government restricts your economic freedom.
Here's a clue for you- what happens to money that goes to the government? It goes straight back into the economy. It goes to pay salaries for government employees, and there are quite a few of them. It pays for infrastructure, the military and all kinds of other things. Those things benefit everyone. Even money provided for welfare goes straight back to the economy. Because what do welfare recipients do with that money? They spend it. No matter how you slice it, tax money goes back to the economy.

Let's contrast this with what happens when we give tax cuts to the upper 10%:

Kansas's ravaged economy a cautionary tale as Trump plans huge tax cuts for rich

BIg fuckin' OOPS. Job losses, service cuts, schools closing. Rich people are super happy and hoard their cash. They don't spend it. That's been true since Reagan started this garbage in the 80s and its getting worse. Kansas was supposed to be the right wing dream come true for tax cuts. Instead, its a nightmare.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
1,758
421
here and there
#16
From your article

The insatiable pursuit of profit by giant corporations and their rich shareholders is fuelling an epidemic of tax dodging that is depriving developing countries of at least $170 billion every year – money that should be going to schools and hospitals. It is driving down wages and working conditions across the globe, leaving hundreds of millions of people in dangerous and difficult jobs, struggling to earn enough to get by.
It is no coincidence that most of these people are women.
The effects of inequality
Women like Lan, who is a garment worker in Vietnam, working in a factory far from her home. Lan’s pay is so low, and she has to work so much overtime, that she goes months at a time without seeing her young children.

She will earn in her lifetime what a CEO of a top garment company earns in just ten days. Or Dolores, who works in a US poultry factory, and has to wear diapers to work because she isn’t allowed to take toilet breaks. And that’s in the richest country on earth!

So assuming that these countries in question are being deprived of tax dollars, why not hold them accountable? That is the role of government, is it not? I suppose you will say that those in government are simply bought off. So what is the alternative? Destroy wealth so that you don't have that money for the much needed help that the article claims? Where else will it come from?

As for workers not being paid enough, what is not enough? We all have a dollar amount in mind and it is all arbitrary. Someone in Haiti has a completely different outlook than you do. At best, we should provide an economy that enables people to pursue jobs they desire rather than jobs they feel forced to work, and to even start a business so that they can be their own boss.

I never understood the minimum wage. Who is putting a gun to their heads to work? Would it be better for them not to have those jobs? If so, then why do they work?

The assumption with these jobs is, they have to feed a family, pay a mortgage, buy a car, etc. Well that is a big assumption. It could be a college student just looking for enough money to pay for books and food in college. It may be a retired senior who is collecting a pension and just wants to get out of the house and have some extra spending money, etc. But what if it is a guy trying to support a family? That is his business. Would it be better to take that job from him? If so, how?

Now if you want to take the profit aspect out of business, like they have done in government, what future will that bring?
 
Apr 2013
38,294
26,280
La La Land North
#17
From your article

The insatiable pursuit of profit by giant corporations and their rich shareholders is fuelling an epidemic of tax dodging that is depriving developing countries of at least $170 billion every year – money that should be going to schools and hospitals. It is driving down wages and working conditions across the globe, leaving hundreds of millions of people in dangerous and difficult jobs, struggling to earn enough to get by.
It is no coincidence that most of these people are women.
The effects of inequality
Women like Lan, who is a garment worker in Vietnam, working in a factory far from her home. Lan’s pay is so low, and she has to work so much overtime, that she goes months at a time without seeing her young children.

She will earn in her lifetime what a CEO of a top garment company earns in just ten days. Or Dolores, who works in a US poultry factory, and has to wear diapers to work because she isn’t allowed to take toilet breaks. And that’s in the richest country on earth!

So assuming that these countries in question are being deprived of tax dollars, why not hold them accountable? That is the role of government, is it not? I suppose you will say that those in government are simply bought off. So what is the alternative? Destroy wealth so that you don't have that money for the much needed help that the article claims? Where else will it come from?

As for workers not being paid enough, what is not enough? We all have a dollar amount in mind and it is all arbitrary. Someone in Haiti has a completely different outlook than you do. At best, we should provide an economy that enables people to pursue jobs they desire rather than jobs they feel forced to work, and to even start a business so that they can be their own boss.

I never understood the minimum wage. Who is putting a gun to their heads to work? Would it be better for them not to have those jobs? If so, then why do they work?

The assumption with these jobs is, they have to feed a family, pay a mortgage, buy a car, etc. Well that is a big assumption. It could be a college student just looking for enough money to pay for books and food in college. It may be a retired senior who is collecting a pension and just wants to get out of the house and have some extra spending money, etc. But what if it is a guy trying to support a family? That is his business. Would it be better to take that job from him? If so, how?

Now if you want to take the profit aspect out of business, like they have done in government, what future will that bring?
Nice accumulations of strawmen. Who in any of that was advocating taking profit out of business. Obscene profit for business and individuals is another thing.

I can't be bothered right now but there is a great analysis done by the IMF which very clearly states that the best outcomes are achieved by very progressive tax systems.

And in this case progressive isn't a synonym for liberal, it describes a tax system that much more aggressively taxes entities that are more wealthy.

Which has nothing to do with preventing profits.
 
Feb 2019
1,758
421
here and there
#18
Here's a clue for you- what happens to money that goes to the government? It goes straight back into the economy. It goes to pay salaries for government employees, and there are quite a few of them. It pays for infrastructure, the military and all kinds of other things. Those things benefit everyone. Even money provided for welfare goes straight back to the economy. Because what do welfare recipients do with that money? They spend it. No matter how you slice it, tax money goes back to the economy.

Let's contrast this with what happens when we give tax cuts to the upper 10%:

Kansas's ravaged economy a cautionary tale as Trump plans huge tax cuts for rich

BIg fuckin' OOPS. Job losses, service cuts, schools closing. Rich people are super happy and hoard their cash. They don't spend it. That's been true since Reagan started this garbage in the 80s and its getting worse.
And here is a clue for you, money that goes to the government often disappears. Take Social Security, for example. The money they take in they redistribute, but what is left over, they just take. That's called a Ponzi scheme. Where does it all go? And why are those roads and schools not getting built? Where is all of those trillions of dollars going? Are they going to wars over seas? Are they going to promote such things as abortion internationally? And why do politicians all live like multi-millionaires while making about a hundred thousand a year? Even AOC is rich now after making a deal with a corporation to make a movie about her life story. In the same breath, she rants against the rich corporate types? Really?

And where did all that stimulus money go that Obama spent? Did it all go where it was needed? If so, I would love to see a balance sheet, but no such sheet exists, does it.

No, we must simply trust them.

I think not.
 
Feb 2019
1,758
421
here and there
#19
Nice accumulations of strawmen. Who in any of that was advocating taking profit out of business. Obscene profit for business and individuals is another thing.

I can't be bothered right now but there is a great analysis done by the IMF which very clearly states that the best outcomes are achieved by very progressive tax systems.

And in this case progressive isn't a synonym for liberal, it describes a tax system that much more aggressively taxes entities that are more wealthy.

Which has nothing to do with preventing profits.
Naturally, as with any corporation, the IMF seeks to empower themselves. So they spew propaganda about how they need to be empowered to "fix" everything.

No doubt, they want the personal job of collecting international taxes to create some sort of one world economic government.

You do realize, they are essentially a monopoly, much like the Fed.
 
Feb 2019
1,758
421
here and there
#20
Just wait till the government takes over health care. They keep saying that they will drive the costs down.

Hell yes they will, just ask the veterans at the VA how they keep costs down. They save lots of money, don't they.
 

Similar Discussions