New Reason to Raise Taxes on the Rich: ‘Patriotism’

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Blacklight

But unfortunately, those investors are investing mostly overseas now because doing business is so much cheaper over there. And they're keeping their money and re-investing it overseas so they aren't trickleing it down like the Republican Trickle Down theory says it should work. So while they're making the cash, they arent growing anything in the US so the lower classes are losing jobs and getting paid less.

I get the feeling that you did not understand the argument I made. The reason the rich are investing overseas is because of state prevalence in the U.S. economy.

As you said, they do so because it is cheaper. And in many cases, that is not a bad thing. A lot of U.S. factory labor was exported in the past half-century, but the standard of living consistently risen. We transitioned into a service economy. Service jobs took the place of factory jobs. Corporations with significant multinational interests took the place of smaller businesses.

But, as we did all this, government grew as well. People trusted government to "fix" unequal outcomes created by the market. As a result, public debt grew and government became more involved with corporations. In some cases, that resulted in huge government bailouts of corporations that should have died. Do I need to cite examples? In other cases, it resulted in business suffering because of the costs associated with excessive regulation.

It is very expensive to start a business in America today. (not always, but I'm getting to that). The number of permits and licenses that must be obtained is staggering. All of those cost money. In the case of the EPA a business must file an environmental impact statement that can take years to get approved and cost thousands of dollars. In the meantime, the prospective business owner is sitting on the sidelines, losing money in the form of property tax for his building area and in potential profits. I'm sure you have heard the adage that "time is money". It is true, and the state makes it even more true, often with deleterious effects on competition and economic freedom.

Obviously, only people with a considerable amount of wealth can start a business. The rest of us would go bankrupt just waiting for government approval. That harms competition. But, many people choose another option. They get loans. Many of these loans are considered "high-risk". Large banks are willing to invest in these companies because they expect the government to bail them out if a large number of these loans are defaulted.
Should that happen, more public debt is incurred, taxes and inflation affect the common people more and the cycle continues. Result; recession. In the worst cases; depression. And even worse than that, the wealthy are in control. I'm sure that all champions of liberal economic policy would agree that that is a bad thing.

If government intervention in business was to be reduced to the absolute minimum
required to encourage competition and fair trade practices the economy would prosper. Who cares if crappy factory jobs or tech support jobs or whatever are exported? As long as the companies that create these jobs are based in the U.S., we benefit. Almost all the revenue that said jobs create is funneled back into the corporations that control them. We must ensure that these corporations are based in the U.S. White-collar jobs take the place of blue-collar jobs. Industrial jobs are replaced by service jobs. The general standard of living improves.

Generally speaking, this is what the U.S. has been doing for almost 200 years, despite a constant trend towards socialism. Even with some of the socialist domestic policies and interventionist foreign policies the U.S. has pursued in this century, we remain a major world power. This is only because of the U.S. Constitution and its' limitations over state control. (and these are gradually being overcome by the left and the neo-con right)

Need proof? China, Russia, India. All big nations, all rich in resources, and all poor.
The only thing that differentiates them from the U.S. is the level of economic freedom. It is no surprise that China's "Special Economic Zones" generate more income then the rest of the country. It is also no surprise that the Soviet Union failed. Economic freedom is the key.


I don't have a solution for the whole world. Competition over resources and political power will always leave many in poverty. But I do have a solution for the U.S., and it includes actually adhering to the priniciples the nation was founded upon.

Freedom in trade, thought, and practice must ever be the watchwords that we balance against the state.

Originally Posted by Blacklight

In my state, jobs are almost impossible to find now unless you have a masters degree and even positions that require those are pretty full and new businesses just don't like starting up here (and those that are here are trying to move overseas and are laying people off on a constant basis).

Even with the state of the economy today I doubt that. I think you mean to say that jobs which meet your standards are almost impossible to find.

Recession sucks. Keep the state from contributing to it.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Zayphod

1. Democracts = Tax and Spend.
2. Republicans = Borrow and Spend.

Hence the term "Credit Card Conservative"

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Morts

id say that pretty much described Subman1
if you dont see eye to eye with him, you're a commie

Hardly. The matter is that the line has been blurred so much, you guys can't even see it anymore.

The facts are that in reality, it has never really changed. To tax the rich to pay the middle class and the poor is about as Communism as one could get. Got read up on Karl Marx. This is the basis of his idea. How can you deny that?

The only truly free markets are the only markets that generate almost limitless possibilities. This has been proven time and time again.

With these ideas being put forth, you remove the 'incentive' to create as the first thing you remove. Why should anyone work their ass off to get ahead if the Gov just takes it away? The end result is the crashing of the market that has sustained you for so long. You are starting to see part of it now.

-S

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Hardly. The matter is that the line has been blurred so much, you guys can't even see it anymore.

The facts are that in reality, it has never really changed. To tax the rich to pay the middle class and the poor is about as Communism as one could get. Got read up on Karl Marx. This is the basis of his idea. How can you deny that?

The only truly free markets are the only markets that generate almost limitless possibilities. This has been proven time and time again.

With these ideas being put forth, you remove the 'incentive' to create as the first thing you remove. Why should anyone work their ass off to get ahead if the Gov just takes it away? The end result is the crashing of the market that has sustained you for so long. You are starting to see part of it now.

-S

Bingo! TAXES=COMMUNISM!! I think the rich should have zero taxes, because only rich people work their ass off. The middle class is just a bunch of lazy dimwits, and they haven't contributed in any way to the wealth the rich have, so they rich should keep ALL their money.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Kraut

Bingo! TAXES=COMMUNISM!! I think the rich should have zero taxes, because only rich people work their ass off. The middle class is just a bunch of lazy dimwits, and they haven't contributed in any way to the wealth the rich have, so they rich should keep ALL their money.

In a way, taxes actually are communist. Enforced redistribution of wealth.

Naturally, they are necessary, all of us could agree on that. So it could be said that we are all communists, to a degree. Some more than others

[clive bradbury]

'The facts are that in reality, it has never really changed. To tax the rich to pay the middle class and the poor is about as Communism as one could get. Got read up on Karl Marx. This is the basis of his idea. How can you deny that?'

Because it's not true. The basis of marxist theory is that industrial growth relied upon the proletariat as the body who produced manufactured goods through their labour. From that, a revolution was inevitable, after which the proles would take the reins of power as well as production. Afterwards, the state would control all industry and capital, with the people working for the good of the state rather than for personal gain. Marx felt that taxing the rich was not required as the revolution he predicted was inevitable. All rubbish, of course, but only as rubbish as your knowledge of Marx. Do you read all your history from the back of cereal packets?

I love your 'the rich get rich by not buying stuff', by the way. Takes ignorance to a whole new level. Trying buying different packs of cereal...please give us the evidence for your theory, I could do with some light entertainment this morning.

[Skybird]

:rotfl: Adam Smith with his four rules of raising taxes, the Romans, the Feudal kings during Medieval - they were all communists! Building public roads and highways, providing a network of waterpipes and public hospitals, schools, police - all communism!

It's a hard world, isn't it.

I have read Marx, long time ago, and most of "Das Kapital". Not that I have kept it all in memory after that time, by far not, but the basic things are still there. And so simplistic as the usual suspects try to make it appear - it is NOT. Marx is a split figure. He was a brilliant observer and anaylsed many charactertistics of social and economical situations in society correctly. But he was also an escapist in the conclusions he drew from that. In private life, he did not manage to ever keep his money together and live by his own means, he had debts most of the time, and lived from others. when he was in financial trouble, it was up to the others to fix the situation in his place. And this attitude of his how to walk through life, you find reflected in his theory of what should be done with society and economy. It's a bit like believing in fairies who show up and fix those financial things in your life that you are not able or willing to fix yourself by adapting to the situation adequately. The lefts always being the first to call for higher taxes for the rich, compare to this. It is one of the many example in history how character's deficits or deformation of just one individual - turns into a religion or an ideology influencing millions and for centuries.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by clive bradbury

'I love your 'the rich get rich by not buying stuff', by the way. Takes ignorance to a whole new level. Trying buying different packs of cereal...please give us the evidence for your theory, I could do with some light entertainment this morning.

While I am not going to defend Submans stupidity, may I just interject that this idea is not completely unfounded. When I did my year in the socical services I worked with elderly people, and it's really like that: the miserly have money (which they never use), the and the generous one's are poor.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

:rotfl: Adam Smith with his four rules of raising taxes, the Romans, the Feudal kings during Medieval - they were all communists! Building public roads and highways, providing a network of waterpipes and public hospitals, schools, police - all communism!

Except the Roman taxes also paid for huge arenas where they could feed folks to lions and watch men battle each other to the death. Not a society i'd hold up as an example to follow and Feudal kings weren't any better.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Except the Roman taxes also paid for huge arenas where they could feed folks to lions and watch men battle each other to the death. Not a society i'd hold up as an example to follow and Feudal kings weren't any better.

I don't know about that. I am sure we can all think of some people we would like see fed to lions.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I don't know about that. I am sure we can all think of some people we would like see fed to lions.

Well of course, but would we want to see our tax dollars spent on it?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by clive bradbury

Because it's not true. The basis of marxist theory is that industrial growth relied upon the proletariat as the body who produced manufactured goods through their labour. From that, a revolution was inevitable, after which the proles would take the reins of power as well as production. Afterwards, the state would control all industry and capital, with the people working for the good of the state rather than for personal gain. Marx felt that taxing the rich was not required as the revolution he predicted was inevitable. All rubbish, of course, but only as rubbish as your knowledge of Marx. Do you read all your history from the back of cereal packets?

I love your 'the rich get rich by not buying stuff', by the way. Takes ignorance to a whole new level. Trying buying different packs of cereal...please give us the evidence for your theory, I could do with some light entertainment this morning.

I'm sorry that you are mathematically challenged.

And do you realize how stupid your above statement is in that you just described redistribution of wealth to a 'T'? You're a funny guy! And then you say i don't get it? Frankly, my friend, you are the one that doesn't get it! Understanding your cereal boxes yet? Hahahaha! :p

-S

PS. Just for fun:

$400 (average car payment) per month put into a mutual fund every month for 40 years will net you approximately $6,000,000.00 if that mutual fund does about average. Get one that performs well, and you will be rolling in it. So the average guy cannot do this? Hope you like that shiny new car! You just paid $6,000,000.00 for it.

OMG Obama wants to increase the taxes on the rich to pay for the huge deficit! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets go with McCain's plan of destroying medicare in order to eliminate the deficit. Because as Subman just explained it, clearly those middle class bums should have worked harder and spent their money better in order to retire, and cover their medical expenses.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Kraut

OMG Obama wants to increase the taxes on the rich to pay for the huge deficit! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!! COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets go with McCain's plan of destroying medicare in order to eliminate the deficit. Because as Subman just explained it, clearly those middle class bums should have worked harder and spent their money better in order to retire, and cover their medical expenses.

He isn't destroying Medicare. Far from it. Medicare needs to be fixed though before it goes bankrupt, so I am happy if someone is paying attention to it at all even, otherwise it won't exist at all when I am older. It can't continue the way it is and costs need to be cut to make it survive.

On another note - I'm sorry but I don't support bailing out stupidity. That just encourages more of it. Typical that you missed that point because you can't see past here and now. Look to the future and where things are going for once. Might do you some good.

Then again, are you a Euro or an American?

-S

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

On another note - I'm sorry but I don't support bailing out stupidity. That just encourages more of it.
-S

I am glad you were not the Captain of the Carpathia with that attitude toward the passengers of the Titanic. "Let the passengers die. If we rescue them this will only encourage Harland and Wolff to build ships with design flaws". That's a pretty harsh attitude.

The Government is not bailing out these companies for the benefit of the CEOs (which I strongly feel should be held financially accountable). The Government is bailing out these companies so innocent citizens and other related businesses won't have their lives ruined.

Please keep in mind that the people being hurt are innocent.

Why punish the employees and stockholders and the rest of the public who will be affected by a poor business choice? Would you rather have to support these thousands of people on welfare while they rebuild what some CEO lost?

Yes the CEOs were stupid/greedy but in American Business models it is the innocent citizen who bears the brunt of the adverse effects. That's who the government is protecting.

The government really can't stand around and see thousands of people have their lives ruined and justify it by saying "we could help you but that would be letting some CEO you never heard of get off. Sorry your kids are hungry. Your sacrifice for capitalism is greatly appreciated."

The tricky part is deciding what company is "worthy" of being bailed out. Clearly the Government can't and should not bail out every failed company. Nor can the other extreme be justified where the government stands by and allows thousands of innocent people's lives be destroyed.

I don't have the answer, but I do feel that either extreme is not right.