Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:32 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Do you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,674
Points:2,872,180
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2005 3:12:20 PM

If so, how do you define rich?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 11:35:44 AM

rjh: "And millions of people are barely making it as self-employed, depending on what larger businesses allow them to have. "


Really? More American workers work in businesses with less than 500 employees than do those who work in businesses with more than 500 employees. Guess those large corporations don't have the stranglehold on the economy and workers that you liberals say. Why doesn't that surprise me?

mudtoe
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,297
Points:23,700
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 8:43:08 AM

"I have seen where a couple of PRIVATE COMPANIES set up to make 100% profit on ships "

You leave the impression that 100% profit, if that were possible, is an evil thing. Something for you to consider: It's the taxes on profit that was deposited into your checking account on payday and the source of funds for any retirement benefits you have now.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,297
Points:23,700
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 8:21:25 AM

"And millions of people are barely making it as self-employed, depending on what larger businesses allow them to have. "

I'm one of those self-employed/retired people. "Larger businesses" had nothing to do with my success.

" I saw how the Military was slowly loosing its ship and shore duty stations to go civilians that claim it is cheaper to have civilians doing the Military servicemen's Job. I have seen where a couple of PRIVATE COMPANIES set up to make 100% profit on ships "

It would be interesting to know how to make a product or deliver a service that is 100% profit.

"Yet you have the Wealthiest of Americans padding the pockets of Congress to keep the Tax Loopholes in Place while trying forcing the Acerage American to cover the cost of paying the National Debt. "

The average American has a net tax liability of ZERO. It is the "Wealthiest of Americans" who pay the bulk of income tax.

"The best thing to do is to CLOSE income tax loopholes, back tax the wealthy, give tax breaks for Veterans and Retirees, Restore all Retiree Benefits."

That's called transfer of wealth by progressives. If an individual tried that, he or she would go to jail for theft.

[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 12/21/2014 8:25:28 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Valandingham
Champion Author Washington

Posts:9,797
Points:2,058,855
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 3:49:49 AM

SoylentGrain;
I did 20 years in the Navy. From inside I saw how the Military was slowly loosing its ship and shore duty stations to go civilians that claim it is cheaper to have civilians doing the Military servicemen's Job. I have seen where a couple of PRIVATE COMPANIES set up to make 100% profit on ships while having service members doing all the work and power provided by the ship. All of this happened within the past 20 years. I did my 20 years for a pension that I earned and I still have to pay taxes out of this and hold a job. Yet there are NO BENEFITS like Health Care For Life because Congress is trying to take that away in the name of Corporate of Greed. Trying to force all Retirees like me to PAY out of our Pensions for HEALTHCARE. Healthcare that myself and all other Retirees have paid for with in the 20 years of service. We earned this and Congress is trying to take it away in the name of Corprate Greed.

Yet you have the Wealthiest of Americans padding the pockets of Congress to keep the Tax Loopholes in Place while trying forcing the Acerage American to cover the cost of paying the National Debt. And Congress is getting the Benefits ment for Military Retirees and Veterans. It is WRONG for income tax loopholes to be in place . The Wealthiest pay LESS in Taxes and get more back in returns than they paid.
The best thing to do is to CLOSE income tax loopholes, back tax the wealthy, give tax breaks for Veterans and Retirees, Restore all Retiree Benefits.
The Only way to do this is to elect Veterans and Retirees to Congress from the Enlisted Ranks and not from the Democrats or Republicans.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 3:24:31 AM

mudtoe - "Millions of people are self employed, me included; and they get to keep every penny that they earn, except of course for the part that government confiscates from them."

And millions of people are barely making it as self-employed, depending on what larger businesses allow them to have.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 3:21:39 AM

SoylentGrain - "With that attitude, why would any sane person hire you? I bet you could come up with a thousand reasons not to perform your job or show up for work."

That "attitude" is simply reality. I'm very good at what I do. Unfortunately, I've only rarely been employed by someone who wants very good. Mostly they want cheap and "don't rock the boat".

"We have two kids. The first recently graduated form college with three job offers before she received her diploma during the lowest point of the recession. The second, holds your attitude. He's unemployed."

He's probably just not very good at what he's supposed to be doing.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 7:48:37 PM

rjh: "And that power imbalance between employer and employee equals coercion. "


Not at all. You can always go into business for yourself if you feel that prospective employers are taking advantage of you and not offering you what you are worth. Millions of people are self employed, me included; and they get to keep every penny that they earn, except of course for the part that government confiscates from them.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 12/20/2014 7:50:20 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,297
Points:23,700
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 1:56:10 PM

"In an ideal world, that would be true. It's not reality, however. Not when employers have all the power. And not when the economy is in the doldrums. "

With that attitude, why would any sane person hire you? I bet you could come up with a thousand reasons not to perform your job or show up for work.

We have two kids. The first recently graduated form college with three job offers before she received her diploma during the lowest point of the recession. The second, holds your attitude. He's unemployed.



[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 12/20/2014 1:58:40 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Valandingham
Champion Author Washington

Posts:9,797
Points:2,058,855
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 3:30:41 AM

Look at it this way.

If you can fill the Pockets of Congress with Money, you can get anything passed you want. This kind of Government is Corrupt and should not be allowed. Our government was "By the People, Of the People, For the People." But now our Government is "Bought By Billionaires for there bidding, Of Congress who doesn't Care, and For Corporate Greed."

The only way to get our Country Back and have the Wealthiest of Americans to pay their share in taxes including back taxes is to Elect neither democrats nor Republicans to both the House and Senate. Then pass laws to ban big business money from the pockets of Politicians. Then close all income tax loopholes, and Back Tax them.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 12:43:52 AM

SoylentGrain - "Either you are worth paying to do a job or not. If you are good at what you do, someone will pay you. If you are as good as you think you are and can't get matched with an employer who shares your opinion, go out on your own."

In an ideal world, that would be true. It's not reality, however. Not when employers have all the power. And not when the economy is in the doldrums.
Profile Pic
BigJake
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:6,713
Points:1,791,125
Joined:Jul 2001
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2014 10:18:19 AM

So who is to blame, the 'wealthiest of individuals' who are following the law, or Congress, who makes the tax laws and loopholes.

Also, do you take advantage of every loophole in the tax code that you know of or do you pay in more than you need to?
Profile Pic
Valandingham
Champion Author Washington

Posts:9,797
Points:2,058,855
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2014 8:40:26 AM

As to reference to my last post on December 16, 2014 @ 6:03:52 AM (Pacific) what I am saying is correct. All the wealthiest of individuals have to do in the event of the individual Tax Loopholes becomes closed is set up a multibillion-dollar International consulting firm where the Billionare sets himself up as the only Nonpaid employee with benefits of living in Firm Houses, Use of Firm Planes, Boats, Cars, going on Firm Trips, and dining on the Firms dime. Since he pays himself NOTHING he pays no Federal, or State Taxes, and the Firm falls thru the Income Tax Loopholes Cracks.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,297
Points:23,700
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 9:39:45 PM

"As already stated, for most it's not a matter of agreeing to a salary, it's more often a question of accepting what's offered or letting your family starve. "

Either you are worth paying to do a job or not. If you are good at what you do, someone will pay you. If you are as good as you think you are and can't get matched with an employer who shares your opinion, go out on your own. Then, you can be the one "hogging" all the profits.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 7:53:11 PM

As already stated, for most it's not a matter of agreeing to a salary, it's more often a question of accepting what's offered or letting your family starve.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,297
Points:23,700
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 5:51:41 PM

" those of us in the middle class must take the salaries offered or be homeless... We have no power to affect change with regards to income inequality."

If you don't like the salary you currently agreed to and homelessness doesn't appeal to you, you could look for another job that pays more or do what I did, go into business for yourself.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 11:30:31 AM

"We must fix our broken dole system or else face the fact that it will grow and grow until it is out of control and it overwhelms us."

That is a difference socioeconomic segment than I was thinking - those of us in the middle class must take the salaries offered or be homeless... We have no power to affect change with regards to income inequality.

Regarding the 'system', you have a point. It does appear to be in need of a makeover as more and more seem to be getting trapped within its warm embrace rather than using it as it was originally intended.
Profile Pic
BigJake
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:6,713
Points:1,791,125
Joined:Jul 2001
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 11:22:35 AM

SemiSteve, stated very well!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,843
Points:458,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 10:30:17 AM

"they have the choice to pay their bills by taking what is offered or be homeless... "

I wish that were the case. I would have no problem providing a roof 3 hots and a cot for those who have none. But to just hand them checks so they can go find their own place is tantamount to asking for more to do the same thing. And then to reward them for having children is like feeding stray cats.

We must fix our broken dole system or else face the fact that it will grow and grow until it is out of control and it overwhelms us.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 1:56:20 PM

Weaslespit - "No, they have the choice to pay their bills by taking what is offered or be homeless..."

And that power imbalance between employer and employee equals coercion.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 8:15:11 AM

"They have a choice to work for someone or not to work for someone."

No, they have the choice to pay their bills by taking what is offered or be homeless...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 8:13:54 AM

"You think that capitalism doesn't "involve coercion and the threat or use of force and violence"?"

Long history of that in US History - hence regulation of Capitalism...
Profile Pic
naw
Champion Author Denver

Posts:3,836
Points:609,775
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 4:27:05 AM

YES!
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 11:39:30 PM

rjh: "So, really, employees don't fit into it at all."


They have a choice to work for someone or not to work for someone. There also hasn't been a slave in this country for just shy of 150 years.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 7:20:42 PM

mudtoe - "As long as you have a choice to buy or not to buy from someone, or to sell or not to sell to someone, it's not coercion. If someone doesn't have the money to buy something, that's not the seller's fault. And as there hasn't been a monopoly in this country for at least a century, no one entity controls the entire market for any good or service."

So, really, employees don't fit into it at all.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 6:27:01 PM

rjh: "You think that capitalism doesn't "involve coercion and the threat or use of force and violence"? "


As long as you have a choice to buy or not to buy from someone, or to sell or not to sell to someone, it's not coercion. If someone doesn't have the money to buy something, that's not the seller's fault. And as there hasn't been a monopoly in this country for at least a century, no one entity controls the entire market for any good or service.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 5:28:02 PM

In reality, it's more like "I am rich. You are not. I need to pay less taxes. It's all your fault. BTW, I'm cutting your pay so I can get richer."
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:24,710
Points:3,856,115
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 5:14:37 PM

You are rich. I am not. You need to pay more. I need to get more. {;>)
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 4:55:59 PM

mudtoe - "Capitalism is simply a manifestation of this reality, and a preferential manifestation as compared to some other manifestations, most of which involve coercion and the threat or use of force and violence."

You think that capitalism doesn't "involve coercion and the threat or use of force and violence"?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 3:07:46 PM

rjh: "What you actually seem to be saying is that the ideal economy has a few wealthy and an awful lot of peasants and peons. "


It's all in the eye of the beholder. If you are an American worker whose job disappeared you may think capitalism sucks. On the other hand if you are a Chinese peasant who used to live in a dirt hut and now at least live someplace with heat and plumbing, you probably think it's great.

I merely note that in the end capitalism will always win because it has its basis in human nature and human behavior. Given a choice people will almost always act in their own self interest, and if you exclude doing things against one's own best interest to help family or maybe close friends, that "almost always" approaches very close to 100% and especially as the severity of the consequence of the particular action against one's own best interests increases.

Capitalism is simply a manifestation of this reality, and a preferential manifestation as compared to some other manifestations, most of which involve coercion and the threat or use of force and violence.

mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 2:04:45 PM

mudtoe - "The fact that the average consumer in China has far less wealth than the average consumer in America isn't important as long as there are that many more of them to make it up in volume."

What you actually seem to be saying is that the ideal economy has a few wealthy and an awful lot of peasants and peons.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 10:42:33 AM

It's quite obvious that you have never owned a business or had anything to do with preparing a tax return for a business. What you suggest is completely illegal and if you get caught you will be fined and/or imprisoned. The reality is that the super wealthy only spend a tiny fraction of their money on their personal expenses. The lion's share of their wealth is invested. That's how most of them got rich and that's how they stay rich.



mudtoe
Profile Pic
Valandingham
Champion Author Washington

Posts:9,797
Points:2,058,855
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 9:03:52 AM

When talking about the Rich or Wealthiest Americans your also taking about their Corporations. If you Close the Individual Income Tax Loopholes then your left with Corporate Tax Loopholes. Then all these Wealthiest of Americans have to do is get another Business License for a Self-Employment Multibillionaire, employ themselves where all of their personal property and assets are a part of the company. Every time they go out to dinner it becomes a Tax Right Off for the Company. Every time they take a trip it is a Company retreat and a corporate tax right off. And since the company is paying for everything and the owner isn't paying for anything the owner doesn't have to pay himself. Which means the Owner of the self owned company worth Billions of Dollars can declare $0 in Taxes and the Company falls into the Corporate Income Tax Loophole System. By declaring all of the Corporate Income work is outside The United States leaves the Self Company paying 0% U. S. Corporate Taxes.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,619
Points:141,405
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 12:08:57 AM

"But when you are talking about who holds the wealth, you are not talking corporations, you are talking individuals... "

Descendents of the uber wealthy generally blow their family fortunes.

What's really notable about the US is the amount of vertical movement. A few poor people become rich, some rich become poor, and all quintiles see movement in and out.

Reality is the composition of the 1% changes, significantly every year. Yes, a few names (Gates, Buffet, Ellison) stay there, but there's a lot of turnover. Why? It's based on income, and most of the big name execs have a big year when they cash in their options, then fall back into lower groups later.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 10:45:46 PM

rjh: "And most of those "high growth areas" have a long way to go before they catch up with First World economies. Which is why they're high growth."


If I can make a bigger profit by manufacturing and selling stuff we take for granted here like soap, potato chips, or sneakers to Chinese consumers who were peasant farmers just a few years ago but now work in factories and have a little money to spend on what for them are goods they could never have afforded before (but there are tens or hundreds of millions of them so those small purchases add up), versus selling high end consumer goods to a dwindling American middle class and paying a big chunk of my profits in taxes, I'll switch from the Gucci bag knock off business to the cheap sneaker business in a heartbeat, as will others with capital to invest. The fact that the average consumer in China has far less wealth than the average consumer in America isn't important as long as there are that many more of them to make it up in volume. The total amount of goods and services in the Chineese economy now exceeds ours, and the growth rate is higher. Therefore capital will go there to take advantage of the market and the growth, and will just produce different goods and services, tailored to Chinese consumer needs and tastes, than it would here.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 12/15/2014 10:46:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 6:55:47 PM

Chiefaz - "The "rich" as you say are the employers of this country. Our economy is mired in a slew of government regulations and decrees. If the government placed new taxes, new regs, and new health care requirements on business, what do you expect them to do?"

Funny, the reversal of all that under Shrub didn't seem to do the economy much good. About all it did was increase the deficit by reducing government revenue. The economic growth that was supposed to offset the reductions in taxes never materialized.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,217
Points:2,870,940
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 12:16:57 PM

" Big companies become lethargic"

But when you are talking about who holds the wealth, you are not talking corporations, you are talking individuals...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 11:24:09 AM

"The "rich" as you say are the employers of this country."

So then why aren't they hiring in droves, given the tax breaks they have been enjoying since W?

Roll back the tax breaks - they have had no effect other than to put more money in their pockets. The current economy is proof of that...

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 12/15/2014 11:24:26 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,560
Points:1,499,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 11:16:55 AM

SemiSteve
What universe are you living in? The "rich" as you say are the employers of this country. Our economy is mired in a slew of government regulations and decrees. If the government placed new taxes, new regs, and new health care requirements on business, what do you expect them to do? Go broke or go out of business or change their rules. At least they still employ people and try to produce.
What are you? One of the freeloaders that want us to make them one of the rich. Move to Philadelphia, it's happening there.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,843
Points:458,265
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 7:47:45 AM

The economy is limping along, artificially kept on life support by the steady hemoraging of the federal budget and increasing federal debt in the form of the dole.

Since the greediest of the super-rich have eliminated too many jobs for the economy to self-sustain, and cut the pay of remaining low end jobs below a living wage, increasing federal debt and the dole are the only thing preventing a meltdown.

Thus it is the responsibility of the super-rich to pay enough taxes to offset the deficit.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 2:32:20 AM

mudtoe - "There are innumerable sources, so I picked one at random: 2015 World GDP Outlook"

IOW, you're basing that part of your argument on estimates, not actual figures.

And we all know how accurate most of those estimates turn out. For example, more recent estimates are that US GDP growth will exceed 3% in 2015.

And most of those "high growth areas" have a long way to go before they catch up with First World economies. Which is why they're high growth.

"As machines take the place of ever more low and moderate skilled workers, eventually (and it may take a century or so to get to this point) the only humans in demand are going to be those with very high technical skills requiring creative thinking that machines won't be able to reproduce (for a while) and those with very high organizational and political skills who will be in charge of it all."

Agreed, except that, as we've seen, many of those in charge don't have "very high organizational and political skills", just connections.

"Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be killed or revolt in revolution. One possibility is that if machines replacing people are productive enough, and we have enough energy to run it all, the necessities of life could be plentiful enough to just give the stuff away."

That does seem likely. What that will mean, though, for the future of humanity is somewhat murkier.

"However, make no mistake about this part though, if such a thing happened those who receive all these freebies in return for doing nothing will have no say whatsoever in how the world is run. That will be the exclusive domain of the few who are contributing and running the whole thing."

So, much as it is now.

Though I don't have your confidence that those who are actually contributing have all that much say in how things are run.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 12/15/2014 2:37:14 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,619
Points:141,405
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 12:46:01 AM

"That's the biggest problem with unrestrained capitalism. You invariably wind up with a very very small percentage of the "haves", while the vast majority wind up as have not's"

Not even close to being true.

1) Big companies become lethargic, and get displaced by start-ups (see Schumpeter). The average life span of most corporations is surprisingly short, somewheere between 40 and 50 years. Even big names get displaced by new technology and new thinking.

2) Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else. See [L=http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/text deleted/L]Telegraph, even Bono.

[Edited by: Cirdan at 12/15/2014 12:46:24 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 10:11:11 PM

shock: "That's the biggest problem with unrestrained capitalism. You invariably wind up with a very very small percentage of the "haves", while the vast majority wind up as have not's. "


Better get used to it because it's only going to get worse. As machines take the place of ever more low and moderate skilled workers, eventually (and it may take a century or so to get to this point) the only humans in demand are going to be those with very high technical skills requiring creative thinking that machines won't be able to reproduce (for a while) and those with very high organizational and political skills who will be in charge of it all. The rest of society will be basically useless as far as being contributors. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be killed or revolt in revolution. One possibility is that if machines replacing people are productive enough, and we have enough energy to run it all, the necessities of life could be plentiful enough to just give the stuff away. However, make no mistake about this part though, if such a thing happened those who receive all these freebies in return for doing nothing will have no say whatsoever in how the world is run. That will be the exclusive domain of the few who are contributing and running the whole thing. Of that I'm quite certain.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,217
Points:2,870,940
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 6:19:33 PM

"Capitalism always wins in the end."

That's the biggest problem with unrestrained capitalism. You invariably wind up with a very very small percentage of the "haves", while the vast majority wind up as have not's.

Sooner or later the have nots will be overcome with an overwelming feeling of being exploited, which usually does not end well for the haves, or the have nots for that matter.

It's what revolutions are built upon...

Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 11:00:30 AM

rjh: "And where do you get that from? Most of the the world, in terms of relative size of economy, isn't doing much, if any, better than the US. There are plenty of exceptions, but most of those appear to be much smaller economies with miniscule GDPs to start with."


There are innumerable sources, so I picked one at random: 2015 World GDP Outlook Note that the world GDP is expected to grow 3.4% in 2015, while the U.S. GDP is only expected to grow 2.6%. Sounds like a small difference until you realize that means the world GDP is growing 30% faster than the U.S., and that includes Europe and other places that are doing worse than the U.S. Places like China and India, which together have a large fraction of the world's population are doing double or better than the U.S. Capital is flooding into the high growth places at the expense of the lower growth places, like the U.S. (that sucking sound I was referring to).


rjh: "But that probably won't happen soon enough to save the American middle class"


That's the one thing I agree with you on. The U.S. middle class is doomed, at least in terms of its size as a percentage of the population. It's inevitable. When you look at it though, the size U.S. middle class in the last 70 years was an aberration created by WW II. After the war the U.S. was the only industrialized nation left standing as all the other large industrial countries were either broke or lay in ruins. Therefore the only industrial capacity left to rebuild the world was in the U.S. This created the middle class because things like unions could flourish because there was no competition, an hence the unskilled workers here could enjoy higher wages than they otherwise could. As the world rebuilt and industrial capacity came back online in other parts of the world competition reappeared. This took several decades to grow to the point at which it became a threat to the U.S. worker, but the result was things like the Japanese successes in the 1970s and 1980s which decimated the U.S. electronics and auto industries, followed by the technological revolution that began the process of creating a truly world economy.

Technology will shortly start destroying white collar information worker jobs as computers and software get smart enough to do decision making jobs. Already things like car loans and credit card applications which used to require a human being to make a decision on, are being handled completely by computer. All white collar jobs in which a human being gathers a bunch of information and then makes a decision based on that information using a set of quantifiable rules are in imminent danger of being eliminated in the next 10-20 years. This includes jobs like claims adjusters, accountants, many government jobs, etc. And it's not just those folks. A lot of routine work done by higher paid higher educated people such as attorneys and physicians are also in danger. Wills, Trusts, basic estate planning, basic medical care and drug prescribing, all are within reach of being able to be done by machine.

The U.S. middle class worker is in the same position today as the town cooper, cobbler, and chandler were in the early 1800s as the first factories and railroads came online and destroyed the vast majority of their livelihoods by making it far cheaper to buy factory made goods that could be delivered by railroad versus paying for handcrafted items. The net result was a dramatic increase in productivity and wealth for the entire country (wealth being measured as the amount of stuff everybody owned as now even poor people could afford things like shoes), but the losers were the individual craftsmen who had been the middle class of the time and whose ranks were decimated leaving only a few to make handmade goods for the very wealthy who were able and willing to pay a lot more for handcrafted items.

This same fate is likely in store for the U.S. middle class, and there is nothing they can do about it anymore than a colonial cobbler could stop the townspeople from voting with their wallets and buying a pair of factory made shoes for a fraction of the price the handmade pair cost once they had that choice. Capitalism always wins in the end.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 12/14/2014 11:01:20 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 1:46:44 AM

mudtoe - "Two reasons we aren't seeing significant growth, and they are related. First, we have too many people on the dole who are removing wealth from the system (everything they consume while producing nothing is a net loss of wealth). They are like friction in a machine. They slow it down and cause it to use more energy."

Yet what they consume provides profit for businesses.

Of course, it would be better if they could find productive jobs that paid enough to live on....

"Second, the taxes and deficit spending necessary to overcome this friction drives capital out of the country to be invested elsewhere in the world."

Yet our taxes are still lower than they were when the economy was a lot healthier, before the Bush tax cuts.

"Total world economic growth is significantly higher than that in the U.S.,"

And where do you get that from? Most of the the world, in terms of relative size of economy, isn't doing much, if any, better than the US. There are plenty of exceptions, but most of those appear to be much smaller economies with miniscule GDPs to start with.

"and since the evil rich people you hate actually invest around the world they are doing much better than the returns they could get just from investing in the U.S., as is the stock market in general because many companies in the stock market (and almost all large ones) are international businesses. This will continue to be true into the indefinite future."

And will continue to be true as long as domestic workers are paid as little as their employers can get away with. Which won't last forever, because wages are rising in the rest of the world. But that probably won't happen soon enough to save the American middle class.

"That sucking sound you hear is the sound of wealth leaving the U.S. and spreading out around the world as the people who control it vote with their feet and leave the increasingly liberal U.S. to the same fate as is befalling Europe."

Which is complete ideological BS. They're leaving because they can't take advantage of their customers and employees as easily here as they can in other countries. That's a relatively short-term advantage.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2014 7:15:49 AM

rjh: "No, if there were "plenty of customers out there with money", we'd be seeing real economic growth, instead of the stagnation we're currently seeing."


Two reasons we aren't seeing significant growth, and they are related. First, we have too many people on the dole who are removing wealth from the system (everything they consume while producing nothing is a net loss of wealth). They are like friction in a machine. They slow it down and cause it to use more energy.

Second, the taxes and deficit spending necessary to overcome this friction drives capital out of the country to be invested elsewhere in the world. Total world economic growth is significantly higher than that in the U.S., and since the evil rich people you hate actually invest around the world they are doing much better than the returns they could get just from investing in the U.S., as is the stock market in general because many companies in the stock market (and almost all large ones) are international businesses. This will continue to be true into the indefinite future.

That sucking sound you hear is the sound of wealth leaving the U.S. and spreading out around the world as the people who control it vote with their feet and leave the increasingly liberal U.S. to the same fate as is befalling Europe.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 12/13/2014 7:16:08 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2014 2:31:08 AM

StArrow68 - "Right on, mudtoe, and in the end, the rich are paying the most in taxes."

Which is also due to their greed.

Because they need those taxes to mollify the ones they're taking advantage of.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2014 2:30:04 AM

mudtoe - "Obviously the evil rich people you hate aren't having trouble finding customers because otherwise they wouldn't be rich anymore. As the vast majority of wealthy people's money is invested somewhere, if all those businesses had trouble finding customers they would lose money and eventually go under, sending their stock prices into a nosedive and wiping out the rich people's wealth."

Note, please, that the stock market is doing much better than the economy is.

"As that ain't happening either, there must be plenty of customers out there with money to pay for the goods and services the businesses in which the rich people invest their money offer."

No, if there were "plenty of customers out there with money", we'd be seeing real economic growth, instead of the stagnation we're currently seeing.

"Capitalism works every time it's tried; and it works precisely because people can get rich by engaging in it, which motivates them to work hard and smart producing wealth (i.e. goods and services) which other people who also work hard and smart producing different goods and services are willing to buy."

When it's correctly regulated, yes. And when it's not stifled by greed.
Profile Pic
StArrow68
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:6,154
Points:2,038,350
Joined:Apr 2003
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2014 10:06:29 PM

Right on, mudtoe, and in the end, the rich are paying the most in taxes.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,255
Points:1,957,430
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2014 8:01:51 PM

rjh: "Assuming that he can find customers for whatever he's selling. Which is why increasing pay for the workers would benefit everyone."


Obviously the evil rich people you hate aren't having trouble finding customers because otherwise they wouldn't be rich anymore. As the vast majority of wealthy people's money is invested somewhere, if all those businesses had trouble finding customers they would lose money and eventually go under, sending their stock prices into a nosedive and wiping out the rich people's wealth. As that ain't happening either, there must be plenty of customers out there with money to pay for the goods and services the businesses in which the rich people invest their money offer.

Capitalism works every time it's tried; and it works precisely because people can get rich by engaging in it, which motivates them to work hard and smart producing wealth (i.e. goods and services) which other people who also work hard and smart producing different goods and services are willing to buy.

mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2014 7:49:37 PM

Yep, exactly why so many conservatives blame the poor for being poor.
Post a reply Back to Topics