jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (157 posts)

"In the U.S. it is socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the

  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    poor" by Gore Vidal. He added that the rich are living off the federal government (contracts and tax breaks...).
    I definitively agree with him. Your opinion?

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      BS, it is redistribution for all, primarily from the vast middle both up to political donors and down to potential bully boys and followers.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I saw Ronald Reagan speak at Devonshire Downs in the SFValley when I was a college student. He was so great. I believe that the trickle down theory works when morals are in place. Sadly, without morals we will all become slaves of somebody.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image80
          maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Redistribution should end up in people's pockets. Was it where it ended up?
          Everybody can be an eloquent orator but if their speeches are not followed with actions in favor of the people and the American society where's the point?
          The difference between Obama and Bush is that at least the latter was transparent. We knew what to expect. With Obama, it was confusion. Now I know that he works for private interests.

        2. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The fact that trickle down does not and can not work has nothing to do with morals. It is a theory which enslaves, whether or not morals are involved.

        3. cjhunsinger profile image67
          cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Kathryn

          I did not particularly care for Reagan, but like you, I admired his insight and his Constitutional stand.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If he thought trickle down could ever work the man was totally lacking in anything even vaguely resembling insight.

            1. cjhunsinger profile image67
              cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              John

              What is it, precisely, that causes you so much hate when it comes to America? Obviously, you have no use for America, her history or culture. What do you have value for? You are very good at the spewing of venom and the regurgitating of tired rants. What is it that you stand for? Do you have any principle that you would be willing to share or defend. Accusations are not principle,especially when they are loaded with half or no truths, which, it appears, is your specialty.
              Let us assume that you could build your Utopia, what would be those principles. And would you be willing to defend those truths? If not, you simply have no value in criticizing anything.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Don't be so paranoid (and so insular) our "leaders" promoted trickle down and it failed totally though that didn't change anything.

                1. cjhunsinger profile image67
                  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  John
                  No it did not fail, but you have. You can  only respond with accusations. You do not seem  to have any depth in your thinking other then to find or fabricate a fault. Build something. Stand for something. Give some  indication that you are other than what you appear.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    If it wasn't a failure then why have rich got richer whilst everybody else has seen their incomes fall? That really sounds like a failure to me, unless that was the intent all along.

                    There is plenty of depth to my thinking, far more than goes on in the minds of those who parrot their beliefs, you know the sort of thing I mean "the poor are all lazy and responsible for their own predicament".
                    What do you stand for? You give some indication that you are other than what you appear.

                  2. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, after consideration, you are correct. I make the erroneous assumption that others are as informed as I am. This is obviously not the case and I promise to work harder to inform in future.

        4. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Trickle down" is a phrase attached to supply side economic theory that completely misses every point there of. Calvin Coolidge, John f. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan all understood that when more money is left in the hands of those who earned it economic activity increases. That increased economic activity results in the economy, as a whole, expanding and becoming more complex.

          Decreased government involvement in the economy results in a far more dynamic economy. Crony capitalism, as we are witnessing now in the US with massive wealth transfers to bogus renewable energy companies, as well as, banks/insurance/finance/investment entities too-large-and-too-generous-to-Democrats-to-fail OR the, all too common, pittance for your vote welfare state create massive distortions in the flow of dollars, goods, services, property, labor, etc.... The single largest monolithic power in the economy is the Federal Government with its multi-trillion dollar capital fund.

          1. cjhunsinger profile image67
            cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            retief

            Throw in the Federal Reserve and we are in total agreement.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The Federal Reserve System is separate and far more insidious.

              1. cjhunsinger profile image67
                cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                retief

                80% agreement is not bad.

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Look up the definition of insidious and you will see that it isn't just 80%.

            2. maxoxam41 profile image80
              maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              In what way the Federal Reserve and the government are not the same entity working for the same interest?

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The Federal Reserve System is not run by the Federal Government.

          2. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Who are you alluding to in your reference "... who earned it..."?
            Decreased government involvement is capitalism in what way is it a success since now all the US companies are leaving the country with an income tax of ONLY 9,9%?

        5. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Reagan was a great inspirational speaker. It was a testament to his leadership. Many credit his economic policies as the thing that turned the economy around after Carter. Trickle down was the cover story for the military build up and the federal deficit that went from Carter at 59 billion to Reagans 4 trillion. Morals had nothing to do with it when you see how the war machine bank rolled our so called recovery. If we put another Republican in without any reforms we will repeat the whole thing again.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The end result of Reagan's military build up was the freedom of Eastern Europe. Reagan's picture hangs next to Pope John Paul II in many Polish households, for a good reason. Winning a war without firing a shot, BRILLIANT!!!!!

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It depends on who benefited. Did we gain freedom for the Poles against deficit spending to enslave your kids. If you owned stock in military contractors the economic freedom you would have gained was great. BRILLIANT INDEED, on the backs of your children's children.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You mean the children I got to have because there was no war with the Soviet Union? That there is no Soviet Union? That my friends and their families could come here, freely, from the now defunct, communist Eastern Europe and contribute to America as doctors, engineers, teachers, etc...? Hell yes, BRILLIANT!

                1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                  maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Rhamson, come on you think like him down deep. We just have to trigger it. You pressed his button and here is the typical American that praises a government that contracts corporations for billions and that give pennies (and I'm generous) to the indigents. He doesn't see the biggest picture but... I have to acknowledge it is for the better when our government will give him the ebola vaccine he will take as well as his children... It is Darwinism at its purest.

              2. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                And very expensive. Even with raising taxes he was able to triple deficit spending three fold to over three trillion. BRILLIANT!!!

                Maybe we could revere his Voo Doo economics with a dash of reality?

          2. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Reagan has nothing to do with the "success" of the eighties. If it was the case then why won't we apply the logic of his cabinet. I doubt like many of us (I'm not sure that many is appropriate for the statement) that a simple actor could define a winning policy concerning our economy.
            Now, if the policy applied was not the cause of our success then the conjuncture is the hero. As we will have a interest on Kondratieff's theory, we will see that economies follow patterns and therefore a logic.
            Rhamson, to be realistic, you'll have to say Reagan was lucky, he took his tenure at the right moment as he was riding the next upwave. It clearly means that we don't control the economy, it does control us.

      2. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Halliburton has contracts with the government (pricy ones). Oil cartels have tax breaks in spite of the billions achieved in revenues. Is it still BS? If Buffet asked the government for an increase of the taxes affecting the rich doesn't it show a breach or a failure in the system?
        How does redistribution affect the lower class?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          On this I'm more inclined to agree with retief. Redistribution is not socialism, it's redistribution.
          The only point I'd disagree with is the redistribution downwards, the poor still have what little cash they have taken off them and given to the rich. They essentially are given a government loan which they then repay to the private wealthy.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Can you be more explicit as for your understanding of redistribution?Since the poor has the least of redistribution, meaning less intervention from the government, the free enterprise concept definitively is part of their life.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              My understanding of redistribution is simply taking something off one person and giving it to another.
              Whether it involves government intervention of the trading of baubles and knick knacks it makes no difference, it is redistribution.

              1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Ok, then, in what way isn't it part of socialism?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no mechanism in socialism for taking money off the poor to give to the rich.

                  1. cjhunsinger profile image67
                    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.
                    Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty." Winston Churchill
                    Socialism is the 'control of production and the means of production.'. With this understanding define "Control." of business and 'control" of the means of production, people.

                  2. maxoxam41 profile image80
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Taxes don't discriminate. In both socialistic and capitalistic economies people pay taxes.

        2. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, still BS. Just because a few hypocritical billionaires want to manipulate public opinion to insulate themselves from criticism does not mean that the property of said billionaires should be taken to redistribute to those who do not own it. Warren Buffett knows he placating critics by his seeming contrition while actively avoiding taxes by exploiting existing tax breaks. Buffett owes back taxes.

          If you want to hold up Buffett as a paragon of tax avoidance, you would have a point. If you want to hold him up as some moral authority on honesty, than you are as easily deceived as everyone in the liberal press.

          http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 … taxes.aspx

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 … erse-past/

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What about the property of none billionaires being taken off them and redistributed to billionaires?

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Governments are nasty bit of work, aren't they. Taking from one and awarding to another for no better reason than to secure a little political support.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Once more, I have to agree. Let's not make a habit of it smile

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I suspected you weren't as fouled up as you pretend.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Why? what?

                    I don't pretend to be fouled up, why should I?

          2. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Any charts about the source of federal revenues in the US will state that the individual income tax is 46,2%, the payroll tax is 34,5%, the corporate income 9,9% (it decreased again) and other taxes for 9,4%, is it still BS?
            I know who Buffett is.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely still BS, corporate income tax is a pass through. Corporations are tax collectors not tax payers. The money drained away from higher wages, increased dividends, more capital investment by corporate taxation and massive regulation encourage corporations to be cautious and seek any possible means for preserving profits, hence tax inversion moves to places like Canada.

              Companies leave the US to preserve the profits they have earned out side the US from the taxes assessed against repatriated profits. The current US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world.

              http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/services/ … table.aspx

              1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Indeed if the corporations govern the country they are the real tax collectors and I guess you are right. They bought congress, the president and its cabinet... therefore it explains why all the laws tend to benefit them and among them the 9.9% tax rate.
                And where does go the capitalized money? Offshore accounts, bribes...? With whose money are they fattening from? People's money put in banks, given to taxes...
                Apparently, you don't know what you are talking about.
                France rate 33,3%, Australia 30%, Germany 29,8%, Japan 38,01%, Russia 20%...

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/De … s-2014.pdf

                  http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax- … ateCaptial

                  http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 … itiveness/

                  http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country … e-tax-rate

                  I was mistaken in one thing, the UAE has a higher corporate tax rate.(I would wager that they do not tax income earned abroad, like the US. Most countries don't)

                  It never ceases to entertain when lefties talk about business buying government. At  best it is a pas de deux at worst it is the overwhelming power and organization of government that twists the relationship into pimp-government and whore-business. It is the government that will beat a business to death, what business can beat the government to death? What businesses work in such concert as to distort the entirety of the government? It is one of the most foolish and persistent fantasies of the left the somehow business controls government when entire sectors fall on the word of the government.

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I see that righties are not better in understanding the privileged relationship between a bought government and corporations. Halliburton works with Obama, yes or no? Former Blackwater today Academi as if it changed their image or branding works for the government yes or no?
                    I guess Righties are less informed than Lefties, aren't they?
                    For a government to accept to be robbed by the Federal Reserve there must be collusion between both entities, don't you think? Because at the end, the bill is for people, isn't it? Why does a leftie understand what a rightie doesn't?
                    Bell is one example among a plethora of corporations controlling the government. They imposed their monopoly through the legislative.

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      No, I'm sorry I do not agree with that. Socialism is nothing to do with hand outs for doing nothing except perhaps for having more influence than the next man.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What about the American concept of socialism? In the US socialism is synonymous of hand outs, especially to the people.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Actually not! I have spoken with American socialists and they are no different to socialists in any country.
          With the hatred of socialism so apparent in the USA I wonder why any right wing party would institute socialist policies!

          I thought you were a little above swallowing all the lies put about by those in power Maxoxam.

          Can you show me in this document where they promote handouts?

          http://socialistparty-usa.net/

          1. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I was referring to the uninformed conservative majority of the US. The same majority that still thinks that Russia is still communist economically.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sorry, once again the internet fails to reveal irony.

    3. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, maxo I agree, I remember the big bank bailouts of the eighties, when the money changers made a bad call  and the tax payer bails them out. Who believes that they would have shared their bounty with the rest of us had they been successful?  Yes, indeed ,profits under capitalism and socialized losses. The right winger continues to have us believe that the 'system' is even handed. There has been always been war between rich and poor, maintaining a balance of resources is what keeps revolution and economic upheaval at bay. The American success of maintaining the middle class is what allows capitalism here to work.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 SPOT ON!

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, Grace

      2. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        We don't need to go that far in history. 2008 is another vivid example. Since the middle class is dying what do you will be our future or to be more precise the future of the American economy?

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Maxo, as for the direction, I am dismal about it. Unfortunately , the pinball table is slanted toward more economic inequity, not less. It is just that the conservatives are more in hurry to bring on the apocalypse. The value of labor in so many fields is in decline, I see feudalism in our future. Feudalism is just a step above slavery. Without infusing the demand portion of the economy, there can be no real recovery. The conservatives are ridiculous in thinking that handing money over to the big shots will result in their investment in the economy and fix things. Hardly !

          1. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Indeed I couldn't agree more with you. Finally someone who reasons rationally, who can project himself in a near future using common sense. Unfortunately, we don't represent the majority and it does sadden me.

          2. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Absolutely agree with this. Nick Hanauer  a billionaire venture capitalist wants to see the minimum wage raised to at least $15.00 per hour. He says he can only buy so many pairs of pants and automobiles and that will have no affect on the economy.

            Consumerism requires money to be in the hands of the consumer to spend and to cycle the money through the economy. The investor will not invest in a workforce that an economy will not support. Putting more money in the investors hands will stop there. The lie still circulates that the tax breaks to the rich (job creators) will allow them to invest, invent and hire more people. It won't if there is no one to who can afford to buy the product.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Wait for all the nay sayers claiming that he is wrong and by extrapolation, lower wages will stimulate the economy!

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It is about as ridiculous as basing the cost of "items" to be adjusted to the consumers income. A flat tax would make the playing field level so all are able to purchase equally and be taxed the same way. Many are against it including the huge tax industry and legal system who make their living off the injustice of it all.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  A flat tax would be grossly unfair to the low paid, and the wealthy!

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Ridiculous. It is the only fair way to execute a fair tax equally on all. If you make $15,000 a year or $15,000,000 a year you will be contributing proportionally to the government.

  2. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    I confess that I don't quite understand how a tax break, leaving the rich still paying more for the same service as the poor, is "living off the government".  Can you elucidate?

    I also don't quite understand how a contract to provide a product or service of equal value to the payment is "living off the government".

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Don't you know that all property belongs to Die Staat and therefore any that you are permitted to keep is a gift from your benevolent rulers. I think you need a little trip to the Gulag... I mean re-education camp.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well, yes, but I don't have to like it.  I suppose you're right - I do need "re-education" - but then I still use the word "freedom".

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          This should help in your reformation.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ah yes.  It's been many years since I read that - perhaps I'd better renew my acquaintance with Mr. Orwell.

    2. maxoxam41 profile image80
      maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Is it proportionate? And again why do people pay 44,6% and corporations only 9,9%? That should be your logic? Are you Halliburton? Academi? Exxon?
      Can you be more precise and include a clear example that fits reality?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Do you pay proportionate for a box of corn flakes?  A used car?  A cell phone? 

        No?  When then should we expect some to pay proportionate for services from the state?  Just because the and we want them to pick up our share so we'll have more left?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No you don't pat proporionately for a box of cornflakes, the guy on $4000 a week pays the same as the guy on $400 a week, where's the justice in that?

          At the time when the conservatives mistakenly introduced the Poll Tax, a conservative friend of mine was outraged. "Why should I pay the same as some doley in a council house? I'm worth much more than he is".

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A Poll Tax? We might need a little clarification, it has been 50 years since there has been a Poll Tax in the US and its primary purpose was discourage Southern Blacks and poor Whites from voting.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not in the US so however long ago you had a poll tax in the USA is irrelevant. It was however, introduced to discourage the poor from voting.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I would gladly discourage those who receive the entirety of their living from the government, without exchanging any labor or goods for that living, from voting. It represents a clear conflict of interest, just as any sole proprietor who receives a government contract should not vote.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Who mentioned those receiving the entirety of their living from the government?
                  There are plenty of poor who work.

                  Anyway, what is all this about people not being able to vote to lift themselves out of their situation?

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I thought I was rather clear. I was addressing myself to a specific portion of the population. A conflict of interest is just that. It isn't merely to improve one's lot, but to increase the taking of another's property for purposes of direct transfer. I think a poor person who doesn't vote for decreasing the taxes on his employer is a fool. How better to improve one's lot than to improve the over all climate for employers.

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, Retief, it is good that you don't run things and make that determination. I guess for the many that live on social security, military and government pension, their reward is disenfranchisement? Not on your life!

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Military and government pensions are part of the compensation for employment, so there your thinking is flawed. Social Security is only a paid to program for the first few years after retirement. Most everyone will out live the contributions they personally made to Social Security long before they die, so yes during the years that they are receiving a direct transfer payment from the taxpayers I would disenfranchise them. It is a conflict of interest.

                    How is permitting those who directly benefit from an increased taking of another's property a say over how much is taken a good thing? Just one of many reasons America is lost and has been for a long time, thanks to childish liberal notions of fairness.

                3. maxoxam41 profile image80
                  maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Which "reality" are you referring to? Holden speaks factual whereas you thrive in imaginary.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Where's the equality in forcing one to pay more than another for the same product?  Should we also charge based on skin or eye color, or maybe on how tall a person is?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              But don't you see, you are arguing for one paying more than another for the same product!
              You are arguing for one man paying say 5% of his income for the same product that is costing another 0.5% of his income.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                And the darker the skin, the more should be paid.  The taller, the more, and the heavier the more.

                Personally, I believe all should pay the same - I'll leave it to the socialists to decide which people should pay more, and why, but don't expect me to agree.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  In the UK the powers that be decided that an equal fine for the same offence was grossly unfair. A fine that one person could pay immediately with no detriment to the person being fined might financially cripple another and cause extreme hardship.
                  I suppose you think that unfair and that all should be fined exactly the same amount.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, I have considered that idea with general approval. 

                    We punish by years in jail, or hours of community service - why not income from hours worked?  But I'm still not sure how we go from equal $ for a bag of popcorn to paying more for government services.  They seem equivalent to me, whether from private sources (where cost would be equal) or government (where the price suddenly goes way up but only for select groups).

                2. gmwilliams profile image85
                  gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  People should only be paid  based upon merit i.e. what they have EARNED either through education, work experience, passing a qualifying test, and a combination thereof.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    While I don't think anyone would disagree with that, we were discussing what the cost is to maintain government and all its programs.  Some people are required to pay more - I asked if that should be based on skin color, weight or something else as well as wealth.

        2. maxoxam41 profile image80
          maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Again, you just showed how unfair society is. Why would people be paid differently? Why is a lawyer paid more than an electrician? Which added value does he bring? Who did decide that intellectual work is superior to manual? Why did poor people pay more for a product than the rich since their purchasing power is inferior? Why do they have to pay sales taxes that discriminate nobody?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Is a car worth no more than a box of corn flakes?  We don't actually buy the labor so much as the fruits of that labor, and the fruits vary with every individual.  Thus every individual job is worth a different amount, just like the corn flakes and car are.

            The market place determines value; a much better judge than some committee somewhere in the bowels of government.

            I'm not aware that the poor pay any more than the rich for the same product.  Indeed, the rich generally pay more because their purchase includes a more expensive store.  Now if you reference volume purchases, then you are discussing two different products and the rich definitely pay more.  They get more, too, but then that's what you expect with a higher price.

            Not sure what you mean by sales taxes that discriminate nobody.  Just like a graduated income tax, sales tax discriminates against the rich by forcing them to pay more for the same government services.

            1. maxoxam41 profile image80
              maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I just saw that Holden explained it to you already. If someone earns $2000 per month and another 8300 and if both pay $1000 for rent, you will understand that one will end up with one thousand for the whole month and the other with $7300. And I don't refer to the inflation, sales taxes...
              No the rich are NOT the consumers. It is a false conception to assume that they are the ones that consume quantitatively. It is the same assumption that states that African American people are the minority that depend on government aid whereas it was documented that it is the Caucasian population.
              Sales taxes are applied on everybody whatever their economical status.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You're getting closer, with the idea that both pay the same $1,000 for the same "product".

                All that is left is to explain why it matters how much is left after that purchase.  You seem to be operating under the concept that after buying that box of corn flakes everyone should have the same amount left in their wallet, but life doesn't work that way.  Why is the amount for taxes any different than other purchases?

                1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                  maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I guess it is hard for you to embrace inequity.

      2. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You keep repeating this 9.9% figure when the corporate tax rate is 40%. I provided sources, would you do the same ?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes we know the theoretical tax rate is 40% (though one source says 35%) but how much do they actually pay?

        2. maxoxam41 profile image80
          maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I googled it like you and saw plenty of charts that concurred with my source versus yours? Why would Buffett for instance ask the corporations to pay more if it is close to the individual income rate? Do you understand that your number doesn't fit the reality, does it?

  3. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    "You don't have to be an economist to appreciate that this is fundamentally a redistribution of wealth, from the productivity of Foxconn workers to the shareholders. What that means is that the employees of Foxconn don't just make our phones; they also fund our portfolios."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-happen … -suicides/

  4. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    You know, I always believed the USA to be more egalitarian and far less class concious than these forums actually lead me to believe!

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps.  Or perhaps you decide class based on wealth, where most Americans won't.  What that wealth has bought, yes, but not wealth in and of itself.  Only at the higher wealth levels to people seem to think they are better, but that's because they find some kind of intrinsic value in simply having wealth.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        From what I see on these forums I'd have to disagree and say that you do decide class based on wealth, probably even more so than we do.
        You probably don't see it as class but as a nation you do seem to look up to wealth.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image80
          maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I would understand wilderness' opinion if he was part of the corporatist elite.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            or a lover of libety

            1. maxoxam41 profile image80
              maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              A lover of liberty that abides the elite's ruling.

      2. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That is indeed true.  The wealthier one is, the more intrinsic and extrinsic privileges he/she has, not only for himself/herself but his/her immediate family.  When one is wealthy, he/she receives more respect and deferrence.   He/she often lives in areas where there are amenities that aren't present in less wealthy neighborhoods.  He/she can eat better quality food, wear better quality clothing, and have a higher premium quality of health and medical care.  He/she can also afford better quality of education for his/her children.   Wealth has its perks and privileges.   

        However, in American society, wealth is not always static generationally.   There are wealthy children who become poorer, even impoverished due to their lack of ability and industriousness.   Not all wealthy parents carry their children socioeconomically throughout life, some disinherit their children because their children aren't up to snuff.   Whereas there are those who come from very humble, even impoverished beginnings who become wealthy i.e. Dr. Wayne Dyer, Oprah Winfrey, Mark Wahlberg, Warren Buffett,Jay-Z etc. through their own efforts.

 
working