Information
  • 13 Responses
  • Started on 24/4/12
  • Category: Economy
Share
  • Share on Digg
  • Post to Facebook Share on Facebook
  • submit to reddit Share on Reddit
anjinks's Avatar

"taxing the rich and redistribution of wealth?"

Original Opinion by anjinks (14)

This is the fundamental problem with the world. They don't understand what money is. Money is a reflection of the economy not the economy itself. The more you tax and the more you redistribute the more inflation you get. Money doesn't matter because if you took it away from the person who generated it, it becomes worthless.
Think about this. What if God himself came down from heaven and gave you a $100 dollar bill. It is totally legit, not counterfeit. It has never been in the system and won't be unless you spend it. Would it be better or worse for the economy if you spent it. Contrary to popular belief you would be making it worse because of inflation. By introducing the money you have effective written yourself an IOU check from the economy for doing nothing. You have to understand what wealth. It isn't money. They are products. The transaction is facilitated by money. Money what one person gives to another for a product or performing a service. They then do the same with something else. This is how wealth is created. It's not like there is some fixed amount of wealth out there and the rich have all of it. If you don't believe me all you have to do is look at america 200 years ago and look at it now. We didn't get this way because we printed a bunch of dollar bills. Props to Obama for giving me the material for my next point. If you don't believe anything I already said then why didn't the stimulus package work. I mean surely if we just sprinkled money on the economy it would get going. That is a faulty analogy. The SP wasn't so much about lighting a fire than it was dumping a bucket of water into a pool. You get ripples and nothing. And them inflation. This proves my point beyond any doubt the counterintuitive theory that money doesn't matter.
But the 1% own 40 % of the wealth you say. Well yeah. Show of hands, who when you hear this thought they bring in 40% of the paychecks? They don't. Take Bill Gates for example. He is worth $56 billion. But this doesn't mean he has $56 billion in his bank account. He is worth it because he owns that stock in his own company. By saying he is worth $56 billion you are simply acknowledging he owns his own company.
But this is all beside the point. People are dying. We have to take care of them you say. I encourage you to watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
Socialism treats the symptoms and not the problems. When you do this you progressively get worse and worse. We need to be focused on creating such a strong environment for jobs and manufacturing that we won't have the problems in the first place. Besides, can you name even one thing the government does better than the free market? No because there is NOTHING.
So whats my grand master plan you ask? Consolidate all takes into one sloping tax bracket from $1 to $100,000 from 1% to 30% and then flat to be taken out by the employer. Eliminate tax returns. Eliminate incentive programs. Strip government to the bone. There would no longer be taxes on businesses therefore manufacturing would be 30% cheaper and we would have international business once again pouring in.

Go ahead, argue with me.

Responses

Gaelin's Avatar

"I dont need to argue with you, reality is doing that for me." by Gaelin (211)

Wealth is a measure of the combined physical assets of a person or group. Your argument that "the world doesn't understand money" is arrogant and inaccurate. "the rich don't bring in 40% of paychecks". No they don't, they WRITE THE PAYCHECKS. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED "RICH". You claim that "Socialism" treats symptoms not problems. If by this you are referring to the Democratic Socialist Parties then yes, you are correct. If you are referring to a state which has enforced equality by means of a proletarian seizure of the means of production, you do not understand what you are talking about. And then you speak as if Capitalism can be expected to solve problems created by capitalism?? Nonsense.
European Government run Healthcare systems provide higher quality on average treatment for an on average lower cost than what is purchased and received in America. Also government has proven infinitely superior to the "free market" (a misnomer, since it is dominated by wealthy and powerful oligarchs)at solving social ills such as slavery, racism, homophobia, and sexism. As well as at ensuring a decent quality of life for those workers exploited by the "free market".

Argue with me, i dare you.

anjinks's Avatar

"smh" by anjinks (14)

the rich write their paychecks - really? how many people in this country have the ability to write their own paychecks? maybe one in a company if i'm being generous. every rich person i know got that way by working their ass off and or risking everything they had to create their company. the people in a company who make the most have the most to lose when everything else goes south. they make their money because they are worth what they do. because not everyone can do what they do. it is simple as that. and you didn't mention it but i figure i'll bring it up. who cares what wall street investors make. last i checked the whole point of being a publicly traded company is it makes financing easy. they don't steal the money. when he makes his money its a win-win. i don't see the logic in believing they are evil.

capitalism solving capitalism - yes because it is capitalism and not socialism that caused us to go into $14 trillion in debt. 2/3 of the national budget goes to entitlement spending. you really sound like you know what you're talking about. btw health care adds $300 billion per year to the deficit. that's a trillion every 3.

i would recommend watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ to put in perspective how taxing the rich isn't the answer and how out of control spending already is.

government being superior - yes because it is so fun to go to the dmv, because our public education has been doing so well. but that's just social theory inefficiency (no incentive to do better so quality suffers) even though it has been proven over and over again. do you know what dead weight loss is? it is pure market inefficiency. and the more you tax the bigger it gets. youtube it. then you might know why a dollar spent by the government is not the same as a dollar spent by the private sector. PLEASE NAME JUST ONE THING THE GOVERNMENT DOES THAT IS BETTER THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. JUST ONE!

i guess you didn't watch the video on canadian health care. i also recommend the john stossel special on socialized health care.

you made it clear i don't know what i'm talking about. I'm curious as to what gives you credibility. I majored in economics by the way. you sound like an emotional do-gooder who probably got a degree in art history.

watch these videos and then we can talk. if you don't watch any of these videos don't bother responding. you'll just be an ignorant piece of crap.

livingword's Avatar

"America" by livingword (6)

Raising the taxes on the rich is something most democrats and liberals would love to do so that it makes them look like they care about the common American. Raising the taxes on the rich will no solve the debt problem at all. A argument that the left gives is that its not all about solving the debt but about every American paying their fare share. In America, we encourage people to become whoever you want to be and follow your dreams so you will be successful. So now you become successful then America is saying your to rich and selfish and not being fare. It does not make much sense to criticize the rich in that way. I understand how people feel the rich are not paying enough, but a lot of their money does go for taxes. That is why a lot of them try their best to avoid all the taxes they have to pay because its a lot. At the same time, I believe that the lower class should not be paying as high as they are. I don't think lowering the tax rate would the lower to middle class. Everyone living inside the U.S. and receiving any kind of government benefit or service should be paying taxes. This means illegal aliens should be paying their taxes. These are just my thoughts...not a plan to save America.

anjinks's Avatar

"agreed" by anjinks (14)

but even if you don't believe in that all you have to know is this. taxes have what you call a laffer curve. meaning there is a point where the less you tax the less tax revenue gets collected and at one point the more you tax the less tax revenue is collected. and somewhere in the middle is the butter zone maximizing efficiency.
the last 2 times taxes have been cut the tax revenue increased. why in the world would we want to raise taxes. its a no win situation.

Vultren's Avatar

"You ask "why would we want to raise taxes?"" by Vultren (244)

The answer is simple, the Democrats and Liberals believe in entitlements and wealth redistribution.

Gaelin's Avatar

"Woah, do i have alot of work to do here. " by Gaelin (211)

Despite how incredibly rude and rudely delivered anjinks' ultimatum that i watch his videos was, i am still going to watch them. The first alone is 20 minutes though so you'll have to give me some more time here. Before i get to them however, i noticed something in anjinks' first post which really struck me "If you don't believe me all you have to do is look at america 200 years ago and look at it now. We didn't get this way because we printed a bunch of dollar bills." I'd like you to check the link below, while 1913 was the furthest back i could find you will notice that it seems we did, in large part, get "here" by printing money.

Gaelin's Avatar

"also" by Gaelin (211)

"Besides, can you name even one thing the government does better than the free market? No because there is NOTHING."
Notice how you've already decided that before giving anybody a chance to give countering examples. That must be why you ignored THE FACT that the ratio of cost per-capita to quality of healthcare received is higher in nations with single-payer healthcare systems than here in America, as well as my arguments on how government is largely responsible for the quality of products and services that we receive from private industry, as well as being responsible for removing child laborers from their workforce and giving rights and benefits to the adult workers in these industries. Oh i also included a report which shows that the supposed benefits of the American healthcare system (being able to spend more for higher quality care) don't really correspond to medical reality when push comes to shove.

Gaelin's Avatar

"Well theres 20 minutes im never getting back.." by Gaelin (211)

anjinks i could give you links to 10 hours of horror stories from the American healthcare system. I wont, because specific cases have emotional appeal but when we're talking about healthcare in a large nation of 300 million they don't mean much, just like they don't mean much in the large nation of Canada (population 30 million, though nearly the size of America and thus dealing with comparable transportation costs). With that considered many of these cases had nothing to do with socialized medicine (particularly the shortages of medical supplies, which are largely due to those high transportation costs). Also i LOVE how the guy takes time out to rant about Canadian gas being more expensive. The reason for that is the incredibly high subsidies that the US Government pays to keep gas prices low (Socialism anyone?). Canada is phasing these out because they are supporting greenhouse gas emitting industries. I also just found out that one reason gas prices are going up here because we are also starting to talk about phasing out these subsidies. You guys should be thrilled! after all our government will be interfering less in the free market. Here's a conservative Canadian MP expressing his support for the plan, and here's a list of Obama's proposals on the subject

anjinks's Avatar

"you are infuriating" by anjinks (14)

your first reply alone makes me want to just turn off my computer and not argue with you anymore because you clearly first don't know the first thing about economics and are therefore irrational. but i will try.

let me explain money to you. say the population of the world was 2 and there was $100 in circulation between you two. then you say "hey i could get more from joe if i just made a bunch of money and then paid him." so you make another $100 dollars. now you have $200 dollars in circulation. but now what he used to value at $50 he now values at $100 because all you have done is decreased the value of a dollar. that is inflation. it isn't money that drives wealth creation it is the actual production of goods and services facilitated by the transaction of money.

but if that's true then why does inflation matter you ask. it wouldn't matter if people spent their money as soon as they got it but since you have a little thing called bank accounts and retirement savings. if we just printed money what we work hard to save becomes worthless. this all applies to taxation. taxation is essentially unearned revenue. there is wealth creation behind it. it is just taking money and spending it. taxation causes inflation.

now to retort to statement 1.
What you are looking at is us constantly printing money to keep up with wealth creation. If we didn't we would get deflation which is a bad thing too. But it is a fine line because if you print too much you get more inflation. For example say you and joe now have a son. He's grown up now he can bring something to the table with his services. To keep a your little world from deflating to introduce $50 more dollars to circulation. what used to be valued at $50 is still valued at $50. this is why we have to print money and that is why your little chart skyrockets. because our wealth exploded so we printed money to keep up with it. however as i said it is impossible to know where that fine line is and we over printed. over printing did not cause the wealth. we printed the money because the wealth was created. i don't know how much more clear i can make this.

statement 2
i won't argue that their's is for some reason cheaper than ours but who cares what other countries pay for theirs? it is not the same situation as ours. they have different labor costs. they have lower supply costs. if they unsocialized their health care it would be even less for them. socializing OUR healthcare will make OUR healthcare more expensive. how do i know this? because EVERYTHING in america that has been socialized is more expensive and slower and less efficient! did you know that on average public schools pay more per student than private schools? yet somehow it is the public school system in america that is falling behind. this is because there is competition. when you ASSIGN someone a doctor, just like we assign kids a school you are monopolizing the industry. you think the cost of health care is expensive now just imagine how much more expensive it will be when you socialize (monopolize) it. these countries are so broke that they have to RATION HEALTH CARE!!! IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? EVERY ONE GETS SOME HEALTH CARE BUT NO ONE GETS ALL OF WHAT THEY NEED? But that aside. HOW DO YOU EXPECT US TO PAY FOR IT?!?! Look. I like liberals. You know why? Because all they want to do is the "right" thing. Unfortunately it is the job of people like me to point out sometimes life sucks and we can't do it. Utopia is impossible due to the nature of man. We have to make an economy so good that everyone can have a job and have health care. it is the only way. until then you're treating symptoms of a terrible economy and not the problem itself.

the gov can enhance quality of some things such as food to a point. for example they enforce health regulations that keep us from getting poisoned by chef boy r dee but they aren't going to improve the quality of your kobe beef steak. it's the same thing. we already have regulations in place that keep us from killing ourselves on our meds but it won't improve the overall quality. besides do you know what happens when they regulate these things? ONCE AGAIN THE PRICE GOES UP!

Statement 3
i'm not saying we have some awesome health situation in america. it needs to be fixed. but the way you do that is by fixing the economy.

and guess how they pay for those gas subsidies? they get it from taxes! how much of a moron do you have to be to realize that the people would be better off paying for it themselves especially when you consider dead weight loss. i guess you still haven't watched that video. but to recap a dollar spent by the government is not the same as a dollar spent by the private sector. subsidizing the gas (or anything) impedes the economy. it does not help it.

Gaelin's Avatar

"First off" by Gaelin (211)

So apparently I "clearly first don't know the first thing about economics and are therefore irrational." because I pointed out that a sizable amount of inflation has occurred throughout history?

Oh, i see. You have assumed once again that those who don't agree with you (me) don't understand the difference between capital and assets (which is what you're trying to say with your talk of money and wealth). I might be peeved if the attempt wasn't so laughably obvious for what it is.

Also your statement that taxation also causes straight inflation is highly misguided. Your saying taxed money doesn't create any physical assets; what do you call our road system and utilities? Tax money sent Americans to the moon, taxes from a time when the top tax bracket was 90%. We could never afford to repeat the landing now partly for that reason.

Gaelin's Avatar

"Next" by Gaelin (211)

Socialized medicine is cheaper for a very simple reason: you are replacing insurance-companies with the government, and while OBVIOUSLY that doesn't mean immediately a perfect system (it has to be funded and regulated properly)the fact is the insurance companies are taking massive profits. The problem with health care in America is that its focus is making the insurance and pharmaceutical industries profits instead of the best possible medical care. I LOVE how even though you admit that they get more cost affective care, that evidence doesnt matter. Why?? "socializing OUR healthcare will make OUR healthcare more expensive. how do i know this? because EVERYTHING in america that has been socialized is more expensive and slower and less efficient!" Because you are holding your preconceived notions above the facts on the ground.

Gaelin's Avatar

"as to the last bit" by Gaelin (211)

Ha! You're so busy being angry that I disagree with you (i must be a moron)that you didn't notice that i oppose gas subsidies (though for different reasons then yours).

NimbuloTC's Avatar

"My part in this argument :P" by NimbuloTC (7)

To anjinks, there are certain things that government does do better than free market. I would rather have government deal with the use of violence and enforcement of private property than free markets. Governments are good at promoting beneficial exchanges between people, by creating a stable environment. Now I know governments can be corrupt also, but that's where a good constitution comes into play hopefully. Also, i'm curious how much of an increase in inflation is due to taxation. Taxation doesn't mean there's a greater supply a money, it just means it can potentially be circulating around more, keyword potentially. Printing money is a different issue where ya, that increased supply in money can create inflation with other harmful unintended consequences to the economy. I also agree with you that governments are, in most, if not all cases, more inefficient than free markets at being economically efficient.

And to Gaelin, ya, the government may be better at solving social ills, but it can also just as easily be harmful with social ills, depending on the government. I will assume that the government is relatively good to its people for my argument. A better economy is where there are less restrictions on who you are able to exchange with, and more people who you could exchange with. Ya, slavery was harmful to an economy since it reduced how many people were exchanging and especially hurt the slaves themselves, so it was good that slavery was abolished. But with racism, homophobia, sexism, ya, they can be bad, but I hate it too when you can't hire the best people for a job since you have to have more diversity in your workforce or more balances in gender. If a place wants to be racist and sexist and not hire the best workers, then that's just hurting their own business by limiting the amount of people they could hire. But enforcing diversity, that can also limit a business since they may not be getting the best workers they could get. I am curious, are you one of those people that hate the working conditions in other countries like in China with Apple products, and wishes the government did something to improve them?

And I won't lie, I don't know much about the American health care system, but don't we have a lot of regulations for the American health insurances which, in effect, pushes the prices up. I'm not sure if liabilities or threat of lawsuits effects this industry too like it does for doctors or medicine.

Back to the main topic, I would be in favor of less taxing and less redistribution of wealth. There should be some taxes still since I believe government still has some important aspects like enforcing private property rights. I don't have any say on the optimal tax rate though.

Respond

To respond, you'll need to Login. Don't have an account? Join UnitedIssues now!