Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

thriller222 · 08-06-2011 06:14 AM

Seriously, tax the people with billions of dollars until they have 100 million dollars. Thats still a lot of money, with many opportunities to do stuff with it. No one needs to be a billionaire. Imagine how much revenue this country would have if we did that.

Blobthe15 · 08-06-2011 06:17 AM

lol communism

thriller222 · 08-06-2011 06:23 AM

Blobthe15 Wrote:lol communism

No, not communism, social capitalism is what I am proposing.

thewake · 08-06-2011 06:28 AM

You make three fatal assumptions:
1. That it is moral to take money from one person and give it to other people. That one person's need is a mortgage on another person's wealth. Or, in simpler words, that one man can own another man.

2. That the government, or whoever takes the money, will better allocate it than in a free market system. To explain: Money was made to be spent, and money that is saved, or "hoarded," by the rich will be spent at a certain point in time. Many billionaires leave their money to charitable foundations, or to their heirs. Charities give, and heirs spend. At least in capitalism there is an incentive to create wealth with the money one makes.

3. That taxing people at that high of a rate will not disincentivize the accumulation of wealth. As Margaret Thatcher supposedly said, the problem is that, eventually, you run out of other people's money.

And where does it stop? Americans can live off less than they live off now. Why don't they make us give up a portion of our income and give it to Africans! We don't have to have computers and internet. Or even books, starving Africans can't eat books. Or, even better, why don't we relocate 250 million Chinese and Indians to America? America is not nearly as crowded, we don't need all the land we have. You can give up part of your home to a family of poor Chinese peasants. You love your fellow man, right?

thriller222 · 08-06-2011 06:53 AM

Weswammy Wrote:You make three fatal assumptions:
1. That it is moral to take money from one person and give it to other people. That one person's need is a mortgage on another person's wealth. Or, in simpler words, that one man can own another man.

2. That the government, or whoever takes the money, will better allocate it than in a free market system. To explain: Money was made to be spent, and money that is saved, or "hoarded," by the rich will be spent at a certain point in time. Many billionaires leave their money to charitable foundations, or to their heirs. Charities give, and heirs spend. At least in capitalism there is an incentive to create wealth with the money one makes.

3. That taxing people at that high of a rate will not disincentivize the accumulation of wealth. As Margaret Thatcher supposedly said, the problem is that, eventually, you run out of other people's money.

And where does it stop? Americans can live off less than they live off now. Why don't they make us give up a portion of our income and give it to Africans! We don't have to have computers and internet. Or even books, starving Africans can't eat books. Or, even better, why don't we relocate 250 million Chinese and Indians to America? America is not nearly as crowded, we don't need all the land we have. You can give up part of your home to a family of poor Chinese peasants. You love your fellow man, right?

It stops right where I said it stops, at 100 million dollars. Thats as much money as any one needs. Yes I do love my fellow man, and thats why the money is needed, to fund welfare programs, to get a better education system, and to start relief programs.

As for the free market, there is no difference between a total government run economy, and a "free market" economy. Its also very dangerous to assume that a free market system will allocate the money better than the government. Thats why I support a mixed market economy, it has all the benefits of a planned economy and a free market economy. Small businesses thrive in a mixed market, because when there is a limit to how big a corporate power can get, one corporate power cant dominate one side of the market that other businesses rely on to generate their revenue.

You cant run out of money to take from people if they continue to get money. If some one makes enough money to get their networth over a billion, than tax them so that their networth stays at 100 million.

Aya · 08-06-2011 07:06 AM

thriller222 Wrote:It stops right where I said it stops, at 100 million dollars. Thats as much money as any one needs

And what's stopping the people effected by this tax from moving to a country that doesn't tax the shit out of them? One of the problems taxes in general is that the moment you initiate a new tax you instantly start losing revenue. If it's a tax on a product, like tobacco, people will by less of it. If it's a tax on income, people will move, and not only will they take thier money with them, but they'll take business opportunities out of the area as well.

We're dealing with this bullshit in Connecticut. Governor Malloy has raised taxes on everything under the sun including the personal income tax, which he made retroactive to six months. Alot of people are moving out of Connecticut right now because of this, particularly those under the age of 35 who have a whole working career ahead of them and would've contributed the most to state and municipal economies.

Quote:Yes I do love my fellow man, and thats why the money is needed, to fund welfare programs, to get a better education system, and to start relief programs.

We already have those, and despite popular belief, they're funded quite well. And they all suck. Particularly the education system. We spend more money than any other country on this planet on education yet our students constantly lag behind other's in terms of academic success. Hell, if you look at literacy statistics from the government's own research agency NCES, half of all high school graduates today leave school with basic literacy skills or less (RE: Fifth grade reading level or less.)

Quote:You cant run out of money to take from people if they continue to get money. If some one makes enough money to get their networth over a billion, than tax them so that their money supply stays at 100 million each year.

Again, what's stopping those people from moving to areas where they would be allowed to keep their money?

thewake · 08-06-2011 07:12 AM

thriller222 Wrote:It stops right where I said it stops, at 100 million dollars. Thats as much money as any one needs.

What makes you such an expert on what people need? Someone else might say 50 million. Another person might say 200,000. A starving African might say that you have more than you need and you should give him every little bit you have that you don't need.

Quote:Yes I do love my fellow man, and thats why the money is needed, to fund welfare programs, to get a better education system, and to start relief programs.

Then give your money. Don't take from other people.

Quote:As for the free market, there is no difference between a total government run economy, and a "free market" economy.

Yes there is. Government has, I repeat, no incentive to be efficient. Why do you think wheat rotted in the fields of Eastern Europe while people needed food? Government doesn't care about being efficient, because it can just take what it needs, and if it takes everything there is it can just print more money. In capitalism, it's not just a system of profit but a system of loss. If you do something wrong you don't make money, and you either correct your actions or go out of business.

Government operates on totally different principles than capitalism.

Quote:Its also very dangerous to assume that a free market system will allocate the money better than the government.

Why? We look at the laws of economics, and those laws state simply that there is demand in the market. If there is demand somebody will eventually try to satisfy that demand. Money is an integral part of completing that equation in a modern economy.

Quote:Thats why I support a mixed market economy, it has all the benefits of a planned economy and a free market economy.

What you will do is give a healthy individual a tapeworm.

Quote:Small businesses thrive in a mixed market, because when there is a limit to how big a corporate power can get, one corporate power cant dominate one side of the market that other businesses rely on to generate their revenue.

Let's keep basketball players from being too good at what they do by tying weight to their wrists and ankles. The better they are, the more weight. That way they don't dominate the court.

But why do people watch basketball? For entertainment. Why do people buy from companies? Because those companies give them something they want. The big companies, in a free market at least, will only become big by giving people what they want at a cheaper price than their competitors. Do you not understand where this logic is going?

And no, I'm not for monopoly, but monopoly is very rare in a free market. Even Standard Oil, at its peak, was still 10% away from owning all the refining capacity in America. By 1911 that had shrunk to between 60 and 65%, due to the competition of the free market (Source). Most monopolies have been explicitly granted by government, or enabled by government policies restricting competition (see: East India Company or Tariffs).

Quote:You cant run out of money to take from people if they continue to get money. If some one makes enough money to get their networth over a billion, than tax them so that their money supply stays at 100 million each year.

Then he'll stop making a billion and only put in the effort to make 100 million, if that's all he gets to keep.

Blobthe15 · 08-06-2011 08:33 AM

Weswammy, I don't get how you think that capitalism helps close wealth gaps.

Sociopath · 08-06-2011 09:43 AM

thriller222 Wrote:Money is less important than you think

BUT- BUT-...

HOW WILL I EVER LIVE WITHOUT MY PRECIOUS GREEN PAPER AND SHINY METAL FLAT CIRCLES?!?!?

thriller222 · 08-06-2011 10:30 AM

Quote:What makes you such an expert on what people need? Someone else might say 50 million. Another person might say 200,000. A starving African might say that you have more than you need and you should give him every little bit you have that you don't need.

Its common sense, would you say you needed more than 100 million to get through your life?

Quote:Then give your money. Don't take from other people.

I already do pay money, in the form of taxes, everyone does, except that the super rich arent paying as much. Rich are not as effected by tax increases than average Joes like me, and even you. Thats why I'm for tax increases on the super rich, they are still rich even if they have a 50% tax rate (which is low compared to the tax rates during the 50's and 60's).

Quote:Yes there is. Government has, I repeat, no incentive to be efficient. Why do you think wheat rotted in the fields of Eastern Europe while people needed food? Government doesn't care about being efficient, because it can just take what it needs, and if it takes everything there is it can just print more money. In capitalism, it's not just a system of profit but a system of loss. If you do something wrong you don't make money, and you either correct your actions or go out of business. Government operates on totally different principles than capitalism.

Government doesnt need to be efficient if it knows how much money it can spend from taxpayer money, and if it doesnt borrow money from other countries. As long as what it is doing with the money helps add to the welfare of the people, and the quality of our society than I'm fine.

Quote:Why? We look at the laws of economics, and those laws state simply that there is demand in the market. If there is demand somebody will eventually try to satisfy that demand. Money is an integral part of completing that equation in a modern economy.

Yes, but you are you ignorant to fact that demand exists in every type of economy? The same goes with planned economys, they also respond to demand. And both systems have the ability to fuck up bad and ruin the economy.

Quote:What you will do is give a healthy individual a tapeworm.

What are you saying? Are you saying that a mixed market is the equivalent of a tape worm?

Quote:Let's keep basketball players from being too good at what they do by tying weights to their wrists and ankles. The better they are, the more weight. That way they don't dominate the court.

Terrible comparison, you are comparing a human body's physical abilities to that of a corporations economic abilities. They have nothing in common, and actually, people do not like it when one player dominates the court, especially the team mates. While there are no rules prohibiting how good a basketball player can get, again, both the audience and the team mates do not like it when a player takes too much time on the court. That is why they switch players during the game, to make sure every one gets a chance. Similar to the relationship between big businesses and small businesses, small businesses do not like it when their source of income is eliminated by big corporations.

Quote:But why do people watch basketball? For entertainment. Why do people buy from companies? Because those companies give them something they want. The big companies, in a free market at least, will only become big by giving people what they want at a cheaper price than their competitors. Do you not understand where this logic is going?

And then what happens when that company eliminates competition? Do prices magically go down? No, because once a monopoly is formed that company can do what ever they want with prices to maximize profit.

Quote:And no, I'm not for monopoly, but monopoly is very rare in a free market. Even Standard Oil, at its peak, was still 10% away from owning all the refining capacity in America. By 1911 that had shrunk to between 60 and 65%, due to the competition of the free market (Source). Most monopolies have been explicitly granted by government, or enabled by government policies restricting competition (see: East India Company or Tariffs).

In a totally free market, a monopoly is inevitable, no matter how long it takes, because one enterprise will soon become bigger than all others and smash them. No matter what you think, government regulations have helped a lot with keeping monopolies from forming.

Quote:Then he'll stop making a billion and only put in the effort to make 100 million, if that's all he gets to keep.

Thats a simple argument. No one chooses how much money they make personally, and besides, if he decided to only make 100 million, he would still be taxed, so then he would have LESS than 100 million.

Aya · 08-06-2011 12:23 PM

thriller222 Wrote:Government doesnt need to be efficient if it knows how much money it can spend from taxpayer money, and if it doesnt borrow money from other countries.

Lol are you fucking kidding me? Government doesn't need to be efficient? Why the fuck would anyone be under the obligation to pay into a system that isn't using the money effectively.

Would you give someone $100 for the purpose of buying something that only cost $20? Well you might 'cause you're a fucking idiot; But most people would either give just the $20 and expect them to use it wisely or they would eventually ask for the other $80 back.

Prevailing attitudes like yours are why this country is so fucked right now. Please do the world a favor and dive head first into a gator pit.

Efs · 08-06-2011 01:20 PM

Hidden stuff:

John Tuttle · 08-06-2011 01:34 PM

Blobthe15 Wrote:Weswammy, I don't get how you think that capitalism helps close wealth gaps.

Because in every single nation in the world that has adopted capitalism their entire population has been better off. Life expectancy rises, child mortality drops, etc. Look at Singapore, which transformed itself from a slum into a global economic hub through capitalism. Same with Hong Kong and Taiwan.

John Tuttle · 08-06-2011 01:35 PM

Also, say goodbye to whatever is left of the job market. In America, 71% of the income tax that flows into the government comes from the top 10% of income earners. The top 1% provides 40% of the total income tax. 97% of the income tax bill comes from the top half of American society. The remaining 3% comes from the lower middle class. Majority of the poor get more money from the government than they pay in taxes. And this data is with the Bush tax cuts. Basically, the rich already pay enough. Raise the taxes on them too much and you can say goodbye to all jobs and investment. That is the problem with most of Africa. Have you noticed that you always see things that have been made in China, India, Indonesia, etc - but never any African nations? That is because most African nations, even the stable ones like South Africa, are incredibly business unfriendly. That is what keeps them impoverished.

thriller222 · 08-06-2011 01:42 PM

Ayliana Wrote:
thriller222 Wrote:Government doesnt need to be efficient if it knows how much money it can spend from taxpayer money, and if it doesnt borrow money from other countries.

Lol are you fucking kidding me? Government doesn't need to be efficient? Why the fuck would anyone be under the obligation to pay into a system that isn't using the money effectively.

Would you give someone $100 for the purpose of buying something that only cost $20? Well you might 'cause you're a fucking idiot; But most people would either give just the $20 and expect them to use it wisely or they would eventually ask for the other $80 back.

Prevailing attitudes like yours are why this country is so fucked right now. Please do the world a favor and dive head first into a gator pit.

It seems you misunderstood what I said. Government should spend all of the taxpayers money it gets, and if it goes into the welfare of the nation and quality of life, then I am fine if government increases taxes by a ton and makes a lot of neccesary spending, thats what gets countries out of recessions. Now if you dont like the idea of that, then you arent thinking right about the economy. And no, the rich dont create jobs, demand does, therefore the super rich should be taxed as much as every one else.

Blobthe15 · 08-06-2011 01:59 PM

John Tuttle Wrote:
Blobthe15 Wrote:Weswammy, I don't get how you think that capitalism helps close wealth gaps.

Because in every single nation in the world that has adopted capitalism their entire population has been better off. Life expectancy rises, child mortality drops, etc. Look at Singapore, which transformed itself from a slum into a global economic hub through capitalism. Same with Hong Kong and Taiwan.

That doesn't answer my question. There is still a huge gap between the rich and the poor, in all countries.

John Tuttle · 08-06-2011 01:59 PM

thriller222 Wrote:It seems you misunderstood what I said. Government should spend all of the taxpayers money it gets, and if it goes into the welfare of the nation and quality of life, then I am fine if government increases taxes by a ton and makes a lot of neccesary spending, thats what gets countries out of recessions. Now if you dont like the idea of that, then you arent thinking right about the economy. And no, the rich dont create jobs, demand does, therefore the super rich should be taxed as much as every one else.

Weswammy will make mincemeat out of you. Spending doesn't get countries out of recession. It just doesn't. Spending traps economies in a cycle of boom and burst. What caused the recent crisis? Subprime mortgages. How? There was a lot of money floating around in the system, and people used it to get mortgages. Why was there money floating around? Because after the dot com burst and 9/11 the Fed decided that more money was the way to prevent recession. Whoops. Also your plan ignores demographics. What do I mean? Simple. Margaret Thatcher said that socialism was great until you run out of someone else's money to spend. She was basically right. The problem is that as a society gets wealthier and more advanced, people have less kids. It just happens. It happens no matter what culture it is. It is happening in Belgium and Japan, Hong Kong and France. See, people used to have a lot of kids because kids were their insurance policy. In a welfare state nobody thinks that they need kids to take care of them. The government will. Also, as a society becomes more advanced, people live longer. That is good. But it creates a problem. You end up with a lot of old people and not many young people. Japan is the perfect example. In the 70s and 80s, economists and political theorists were running around claiming that Japan was the perfect nation. Japan seemed to have perfected health care and welfare. People thought Japan would overtake America. Japan was the utopia - a welfare state that worked. And then it all went wrong. And it is still wrong. Partly due to excessive spending and a lot to do with demographics. It doesn't help that Japan is xenophobic and doesn't let in immigrants. As for your bit about demand, you are slightly correct. Growth is about production of what people demand. But government will never be capable of figuring out what every single person demands. It just isn't possible. Quite simply, you are not half as smart as you think you are.

Aya · 08-06-2011 02:21 PM

thriller222 Wrote:It seems you misunderstood what I said.

No I didn't. I understood completely what you said. It was quite clear. Government does not need to be efficient. there's not much in that sentence to understand. You're giving government a carte Blanche with tax payer money.

Quote:Government should spend all of the taxpayers money it gets, and if it goes into the welfare of the nation and quality of life, then I am fine if government increases taxes by a ton and makes a lot of neccesary spending

Yeah, who cares if you could make those welfare programs work better with less money if you only reformed them. As long as we throw money at the problem the sitation will take care of itself, right?

Quote: thats what gets countries out of recessions.

No that's what earn nation a double dip recession and a reduced credit rating.

Quote:Now if you dont like the idea of that, then you arent thinking right about the economy.

Have you been asleep the past three years? Government spending has gone through the roof and it hasn't helped the economy at all.

Quote:And no, the rich dont create jobs, demand does,

Hey dumbass who has the capital to supply that demand? To make investments and develop properties?

Quote:therefore the super rich should be taxed as much as every one else.

That's not what you're advocating. You're advocating an income cap that would strip people of upwards of 95% of their net worth; All so you can spend it on a government programs that would run better with less money if just made them more god damn efficient.

thriller222 · 08-06-2011 02:45 PM

John Tuttle Wrote:
thriller222 Wrote:It seems you misunderstood what I said. Government should spend all of the taxpayers money it gets, and if it goes into the welfare of the nation and quality of life, then I am fine if government increases taxes by a ton and makes a lot of neccesary spending, thats what gets countries out of recessions. Now if you dont like the idea of that, then you arent thinking right about the economy. And no, the rich dont create jobs, demand does, therefore the super rich should be taxed as much as every one else.

Weswammy will make mincemeat out of you. Spending doesn't get countries out of recession. It just doesn't. Spending traps economies in a cycle of boom and burst. What caused the recent crisis? Subprime mortgages. How? There was a lot of money floating around in the system, and people used it to get mortgages. Why was there money floating around? Because after the dot com burst and 9/11 the Fed decided that more money was the way to prevent recession. Whoops. Also your plan ignores demographics. What do I mean? Simple. Margaret Thatcher said that socialism was great until you run out of someone else's money to spend. She was basically right. The problem is that as a society gets wealthier and more advanced, people have less kids. It just happens. It happens no matter what culture it is. It is happening in Belgium and Japan, Hong Kong and France. See, people used to have a lot of kids because kids were their insurance policy. In a welfare state nobody thinks that they need kids to take care of them. The government will. Also, as a society becomes more advanced, people live longer. That is good. But it creates a problem. You end up with a lot of old people and not many young people. Japan is the perfect example. In the 70s and 80s, economists and political theorists were running around claiming that Japan was the perfect nation. Japan seemed to have perfected health care and welfare. People thought Japan would overtake America. Japan was the utopia - a welfare state that worked. And then it all went wrong. And it is still wrong. Partly due to excessive spending and a lot to do with demographics. It doesn't help that Japan is xenophobic and doesn't let in immigrants. As for your bit about demand, you are slightly correct. Growth is about production of what people demand. But government will never be capable of figuring out what every single person demands. It just isn't possible. Quite simply, you are not half as smart as you think you are.

Of course government does not know the demand of every single person, but I never said that. Now how can you not correlate spending with economic booms? FDR had massive spending, and he got us out of the depression, and he created millions of jobs. Every type of economic system has the boom and burst cycle you were talking about. It always happens, because there are always economic bubbles that form when demand for something spikes. But massive spending does help get countries out of recessions, if the spending creates jobs. Jobs are what keeps the economy going. Now you can cut spending once the economy gets better, but look at the state of our economy right now. The 9.2% unemployment rate is just the tip of the iceberg, because it does not count the people who have just given up looking for jobs, and it also does not count the people who have no unemployment benefits. Adding it up our unemployment rate must be higher. Listen, you are entitled to your own opinion, and if this doesnt convince you, then fine. But I will keep pushing this theory until people start to find the truth in it, because I know it is true. I just wish I could talk to you and weswammy in person rather than hide behind a key board, because I know it would be alot easier to get my opinion across that way.

Aya · 08-06-2011 02:50 PM

If you really think that speaking to someone in person will help you to convince them of this bullshit, then you're not just retarded but arrogant as well.

Sociopath · 08-06-2011 04:27 PM

Ayliana Wrote:If you really think that speaking to someone in person will help you to convince them of this bullshit, then you're not just retarded but arrogant as well.

Why are you being a complete bitch and using ad hominems instead of talking like a real philosopher without sand in their vagina?

Aya · 08-07-2011 12:09 AM

Sociopath Wrote:
Ayliana Wrote:If you really think that speaking to someone in person will help you to convince them of this bullshit, then you're not just retarded but arrogant as well.
Why are you being a complete bitch and using ad hominems instead of talking like a real philosopher without sand in their vagina?

Why are you being a selectively literate fucktard? I've addressed all of his arguments. Scroll up the thread and read them. Not only is his reasoning bullshit but he hasn't even addressed one of the glaring flaws of his opinion. (what's stopping the super rich from moving and taking their money with them.)

SaintVicious · 08-07-2011 02:18 AM

Yea fuck hardworking people fuck em lets all be poor an ignorant!

thriller222 · 08-09-2011 11:48 AM

I have never seen any historical evidence that taxes make big businesses leave. It never made businesses leave during the 40's, 50's, and 60's. And businesses sure did not leave when Bill Clinton raised the taxes. Businesses only started to leave when free trade was introduced, and deregulation of the market started. You know why? Because places like China were willing to make people work longer and harder, for much less pay, so that businesses could make more money when they sold the product.

thriller222 · 08-09-2011 11:54 AM

Ayliana, I understand that you dont agree with me, but you are being a total stain on this conversation, and all you really are doing is calling me names. At least weswammy and John Tuttle are putting forth arguments that put meaning into the post, all you are really doing is calling someone you dont agree with a fucktard.

John Tuttle · 08-09-2011 11:54 AM

thriller222 Wrote:I have never seen any historical evidence that taxes make big businesses leave. It never made businesses leave during the 40's, 50's, and 60's. And businesses sure did not leave when Bill Clinton raised the taxes. Businesses only started to leave when free trade was introduced, and deregulation of the market started. You know why? Because places like China were willing to make people work longer and harder, for much less pay, so that businesses could make more money when they sold the product.

Free trade helps almost everyone in the long run. Businesses didn't leave in the 40s, 50s, and 60s because there was no free trade. Where would they move? Europe, which in the 40s was being bombed to smithereens and in the 50s was recovering from being bombed to smithereens? The Communist Bloc? Canada? Where?

thriller222 · 08-09-2011 11:59 AM

John Tuttle, you did not bring up the 90's at all, which I did mention.

Aya · 08-09-2011 01:04 PM

thriller222 Wrote:Ayliana, I understand that you dont agree with me, but you are being a total stain on this conversation, and all you really are doing is calling me names. At least weswammy and John Tuttle are putting forth arguments that put meaning into the post, all you are really doing is calling someone you dont agree with a fucktard.

Sorry fucktard, but I call it like I see it. Besides there is a big difference between what you advocate and what was done in the 40's & 50's. You're not advocating increased taxes. You're advocating a government mandated cap on personal income and unlimited government spending without any consideration about efficiency.

As you said yourself,

Quote:Government should spend all of the taxpayers money it gets, and if it goes into the welfare of the nation and quality of life, then I am fine if government increases taxes by a ton and makes a lot of neccesary spending

Well, who defines what's 'necessary' in terms of government spending? Wasting a million dollars to get a mediocre result? Or reforming the program and getting an excellent result for $10K? And if the latter,(of course the latter!) why should the government tax people to pay for a million dollar program when they could get better results with a $10K program?

You're using vague terminology and false correlations to prove your point and it's bullshit. You have no fucking clue how the economy or the government works or what needs to be done to fix it. If you did you would realize that at least one of the things you advocate, unlimited spending has been tried for the past three years and it has been a resounding fucking failure.

And whats this bitchin' about free trade? Without free trade most of the worlds countries, particularly in Asia would still be piss holes, and the American economy would stagnate for want of new markets.

Man is not an end to himself, neither is a nation. Isolationism, political and economic is a horrible policy and only leads to trouble down the road.

So Recap: You're advocating
Personal Income Caps
Unlimited Government Spending
Absolutely no standard of government efficiency
Economic Isolationism (antithesis of free trade)

What does that remind me of? Oh yeah!

[Image: flag_33_1.jpg]

That worked out real well didn't it? I bet those people in the 40's & 50's would be really keen to your ideas about the economy /sarcasm

Edit: Congratulations fucktard, I'm adding you to my list.

thewake · 08-10-2011 07:39 AM

thriller222 Wrote:I have never seen any historical evidence that taxes make big businesses leave. It never made businesses leave during the 40's, 50's, and 60's. And businesses sure did not leave when Bill Clinton raised the taxes.

Businesses only started to leave when free trade was introduced, and deregulation of the market started. You know why? Because places like China were willing to make people work longer and harder, for much less pay, so that businesses could make more money when they sold the product.

Watch on YouTube

thriller222 Wrote:Its common sense, would you say you needed more than 100 million to get through your life?

Why should a person only have what he needs? You don't need the computer you're using to argue with me. I don't need a bed, I can sleep on the floor. I'm sure the money and the labor used to make those thigns could have been used to feed starving kids in Africa.

Quote:I already do pay money, in the form of taxes, everyone does, except that the super rich arent paying as much. Rich are not as effected by tax increases than average Joes like me, and even you. Thats why I'm for tax increases on the super rich, they are still rich even if they have a 50% tax rate (which is low compared to the tax rates during the 50's and 60's).

Or maybe we could cut taxes for everybody? Such a novel idea. Wait, then people might get to decide how to spend their money how they want. Oh, the horror.

Quote:Government doesnt need to be efficient if it knows how much money it can spend from taxpayer money, and if it doesnt borrow money from other countries. As long as what it is doing with the money helps add to the welfare of the people, and the quality of our society than I'm fine.

What makes you think government spending money will add to the welfare of the people? It's a question of the seen and the unseen. We see government "improvements." Dams, bridges, libraries, and the people who build them. What you don't see is what the rightful owners of that money could have done with it. They could have bought cars or books or toys or clothes or anything. They could have saved it to spend later, or invest in a business.

Quote:Yes, but you are you ignorant to fact that demand exists in every type of economy? The same goes with planned economys, they also respond to demand. And both systems have the ability to fuck up bad and ruin the economy.

There is demand in both economies, yes. But a planned economy does not respond to demand as well. The incentives to do that just aren't there. Grain rotting in the fields of Eastern Europe. Famines in Russia. The government paid farmers to destroy their crops in the Gereat Depression in order to raise food prices. When many people could barely afford bread.

Quote:What are you saying? Are you saying that a mixed market is the equivalent of a tape worm?

Yes, I am.

Quote:Terrible comparison, you are comparing a human body's physical abilities to that of a corporations economic abilities. They have nothing in common, and actually, people do not like it when one player dominates the court, especially the team mates. While there are no rules prohibiting how good a basketball player can get, again, both the audience and the team mates do not like it when a player takes too much time on the court. That is why they switch players during the game, to make sure every one gets a chance.

No metaphor is perfect, and, yes, I could have used a better one.

Quote:Similar to the relationship between big businesses and small businesses, small businesses do not like it when their source of income is eliminated by big corporations.

Consumers seem to like it, or they would buy from small rather than big business. And a lot of people do buy from small businesses, or the small businesses wouldn't exist.

Quote:And then what happens when that company eliminates competition? Do prices magically go down? No, because once a monopoly is formed that company can do what ever they want with prices to maximize profit.

In a free market, competition is rarely fully eliminated because entry into the market isn't restricted. Bring me an example of monopoly, and I'll show you a business aided and over-regulated by government. Companies can very rarely eliminate competition without aid from government, in fact I'd go so far as to say they never can eliminate it if I was a little more sure.

Quote:In a totally free market, a monopoly is inevitable, no matter how long it takes, because one enterprise will soon become bigger than all others and smash them. No matter what you think, government regulations have helped a lot with keeping monopolies from forming.

They may temporarily get the upper hand their competitors. Standard Oil did that. But did it competely eliminate competition? No. New people can enter into a business and it is very hard to completely eliminate your competition. I'd say practically impossible without using force to eliminate them. Plus, foreign competition is also a great way to keep monopolies from forming by providing even more competition. One of the great flaws of the nineteenth century, an era of much less regulation than today in many other areas, was the high tariffs business lobbied for.

Quote:Thats a simple argument. No one chooses how much money they make personally, and besides, if he decided to only make 100 million, he would still be taxed, so then he would have LESS than 100 million.

So he'll make a little over a 100 million and get that taken off, leaving him with 100 million. Simple argument, but a good argument. A man isn't going to put the effort into making a multi-billion dollar business if he can't be a billionaire. He'll rise up to the cap and stop. You are destroying the incentive to amass a fortune more than a little over 100 million dollars.

SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT · 08-11-2011 06:26 AM

Money has no importance watsover. SOCIAL CAPITALISM, wtf?

I would read weswammy's psuedo-intellectual argument, but I seriously would rather him come to me, and try to destroy everything I'm saying with some milton freidman straw man shit.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Money is less important than you think
Author	Message