It seems only fair to have one since we have another thread on the poor.
What do we think about the rich? Should people be able to hoard $1 Billion + while others struggle to make ends meet? What should the tax rates be for large inheritances? Incomes over $20 Million a year?
_________________ CrowdSurge and Ten Club will conduct further investigation into this matter.
It seems only fair to have one since we have another thread on the poor.
What do we think about the rich? Should people be able to hoard $1 Billion + while others struggle to make ends meet? What should the tax rates be for large inheritances? Incomes over $20 Million a year?
What do we think about the rich? Some are great, some aren't. Buy me a round and I'll be your friend.
Should people be able to hoard $1 Billion + while others struggle to make ends meet? I don't have a problem with this as long as they aren't breaking any laws in amassing their fortune. Most people I know who are struggling to make ends meet make more than enough, the just have't quite gotten the concept of not living beyond their means.
What should the tax rates be for large inheritances? Not sure what the size of the inheritance should have anything to do with it. Either you buy into the philosophy that when you die it goes to the government or you don't. I don't really care what the rules are, just set them and leave them be so I can plan accordingly.
Incomes over $20 Million a year? Personally I'll never work that hard nor take on the stress level those incomes have but don't begrudge those that do. Governments should just set a fair tax rate and live within it's means.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
I'm not really concerned with the rich as people. They are just like anyone else, except perhaps more finely in tune with their self-interest, though not necessarily.
What I'm concerned about is how much they own. I question the justification of any property rights whatsoever. That question notwithstanding, I see absolutely no reason to believe that any one man or woman on this earth is entitled to such a vast amount of resources. There is simply no reasonable way to justify the property rights of a billionaire. And sorry, the Constitution doesn't cut it any more than Descartes' proof for God cuts it in the 21st century.
I'm in favor of a wealth cap somewhere in the 10s of millions of dollars, say 50 million to be generous. Anything over that should be outright confiscated or taxed at 99% in the name of the rights of humanity to jointly share in the fruits of the Earth. Anything over 10 million or so should be taxed at a very high rate, maybe 90%, so that actually achieving the wealth cap is something only the most resourceful can do.
I'm not really that concerned with the method of taxation. Income tax, capital gains tax, it makes little difference to me. In fact, I don't even care that people "have" that much money, I only care when they spend it and thus consume resources. So I would potentially be in favor of some kind of strange system that only prohibited people from spending more than a certain amount of money in a year. That way you could let people have their "property" but simply restrict their use of it to procure resources from society. Similar to how people can own guns but they can't go around shooting people. Now that I think about it, that's actually a pretty appealing idea, and a good argument to use against constitutional fundamentalists.
I'm not really concerned with the rich as people. They are just like anyone else, except perhaps more finely in tune with their self-interest, though not necessarily.
What I'm concerned about is how much they own. I question the justification of any property rights whatsoever. That question notwithstanding, I see absolutely no reason to believe that any one man or woman on this earth is entitled to such a vast amount of resources. There is simply no reasonable way to justify the property rights of a billionaire. And sorry, the Constitution doesn't cut it any more than Descartes' proof for God cuts it in the 21st century.
I'm in favor of a wealth cap somewhere in the 10s of millions of dollars, say 50 million to be generous. Anything over that should be outright confiscated or taxed at 99% in the name of the rights of humanity to jointly share in the fruits of the Earth. Anything over 10 million or so should be taxed at a very high rate, maybe 90%, so that actually achieving the wealth cap is something only the most resourceful can do.
I'm not really that concerned with the method of taxation. Income tax, capital gains tax, it makes little difference to me. In fact, I don't even care that people "have" that much money, I only care when they spend it and thus consume resources. So I would potentially be in favor of some kind of strange system that only prohibited people from spending more than a certain amount of money in a year. That way you could let people have their "property" but simply restrict their use of it to procure resources from society. Similar to how people can own guns but they can't go around shooting people. Now that I think about it, that's actually a pretty appealing idea, and a good argument to use against constitutional fundamentalists.
What about luxurious items like homes, yachts, etc? Rich people buy those and create all sorts of jobs that trickle through the economy as a result. For a $200 Million yacht, most of that cost goes to labor while some goes to raw materials - that create demand for those raw materials - and then make companies mine for more of them, creating more jobs.
Also, rich people use their capital to start businesses which obviously creates jobs. Who is to say that someone with $1 Billion doesn't do more net net for "average people" than if that $1 Billion was divided 6 Billion ways?
_________________ CrowdSurge and Ten Club will conduct further investigation into this matter.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
given2trade wrote:
Buffalohed wrote:
I'm not really concerned with the rich as people. They are just like anyone else, except perhaps more finely in tune with their self-interest, though not necessarily.
What I'm concerned about is how much they own. I question the justification of any property rights whatsoever. That question notwithstanding, I see absolutely no reason to believe that any one man or woman on this earth is entitled to such a vast amount of resources. There is simply no reasonable way to justify the property rights of a billionaire. And sorry, the Constitution doesn't cut it any more than Descartes' proof for God cuts it in the 21st century.
I'm in favor of a wealth cap somewhere in the 10s of millions of dollars, say 50 million to be generous. Anything over that should be outright confiscated or taxed at 99% in the name of the rights of humanity to jointly share in the fruits of the Earth. Anything over 10 million or so should be taxed at a very high rate, maybe 90%, so that actually achieving the wealth cap is something only the most resourceful can do.
I'm not really that concerned with the method of taxation. Income tax, capital gains tax, it makes little difference to me. In fact, I don't even care that people "have" that much money, I only care when they spend it and thus consume resources. So I would potentially be in favor of some kind of strange system that only prohibited people from spending more than a certain amount of money in a year. That way you could let people have their "property" but simply restrict their use of it to procure resources from society. Similar to how people can own guns but they can't go around shooting people. Now that I think about it, that's actually a pretty appealing idea, and a good argument to use against constitutional fundamentalists.
What about luxurious items like homes, yachts, etc? Rich people buy those and create all sorts of jobs that trickle through the economy as a result. For a $200 Million yacht, most of that cost goes to labor while some goes to raw materials - that create demand for those raw materials - and then make companies mine for more of them, creating more jobs.
Also, rich people use their capital to start businesses which obviously creates jobs. Who is to say that someone with $1 Billion doesn't do more net net for "average people" than if that $1 Billion was divided 6 Billion ways?
There are many responses to this. I will just offer one of them right now by saying that the idea of "creating jobs" is a relic of a capitalist society in which people do have billions of dollars. In a society with a more equitable distribution of wealth, the perpetual problem of job creation would be far less pressing, because there would be adequate social welfare nets. Furthermore, a capitalist society has far more focus on the production of material goods for the rich, which could be replaced by jobs which benefit society as a whole such as the arts, sciences, education, etc. Capitalism is little more than a value theory of capital, and to replace it would be to institute a value theory of something other than capital, which is what the government already does to an extent by funding education and science.
Buff, would it be totally inaccurate if one were to think you're more anti-rich than you are pro-poor?
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 2:35 am Posts: 18585 Location: In a box Gender: Male
Buffalohed wrote:
I'm not really concerned with the rich as people. They are just like anyone else, except perhaps more finely in tune with their self-interest, though not necessarily.
What I'm concerned about is how much they own. I question the justification of any property rights whatsoever. That question notwithstanding, I see absolutely no reason to believe that any one man or woman on this earth is entitled to such a vast amount of resources. There is simply no reasonable way to justify the property rights of a billionaire. And sorry, the Constitution doesn't cut it any more than Descartes' proof for God cuts it in the 21st century.
I'm in favor of a wealth cap somewhere in the 10s of millions of dollars, say 50 million to be generous. Anything over that should be outright confiscated or taxed at 99% in the name of the rights of humanity to jointly share in the fruits of the Earth. Anything over 10 million or so should be taxed at a very high rate, maybe 90%, so that actually achieving the wealth cap is something only the most resourceful can do.
I'm not really that concerned with the method of taxation. Income tax, capital gains tax, it makes little difference to me. In fact, I don't even care that people "have" that much money, I only care when they spend it and thus consume resources. So I would potentially be in favor of some kind of strange system that only prohibited people from spending more than a certain amount of money in a year. That way you could let people have their "property" but simply restrict their use of it to procure resources from society. Similar to how people can own guns but they can't go around shooting people. Now that I think about it, that's actually a pretty appealing idea, and a good argument to use against constitutional fundamentalists.
Aren't the property rights of a billionaire the same as the property rights of someone making 20k a year? Obviously the latter has a whole lot less property, but the concept of owning what you purchase is the same.
I can't really say that I think the distribution of wealth/resources is ideal either. We all know the examples of billionaire owners with employees that are barely getting by. While I don't like the way wealth is distributed now, I don't really see anyone I trust with coming up with a better system. Maybe there is no way to justify having that much property, but I don't see how one could justify having the authority to decide that.
Lastly, with what you said in regards to a limit on spending. I would think that would be even worse for an economy. Since it can't be spent and put back into the economy it is pretty much useless. At least when some billionaire spends however many millions on building a new house that money goes to some people in construction. While I understand the point in limiting how much one makes (even if I don't agree with it), I just don't see the sense in limiting spending.
I'm not really concerned with the rich as people. They are just like anyone else, except perhaps more finely in tune with their self-interest, though not necessarily.
What I'm concerned about is how much they own. I question the justification of any property rights whatsoever. That question notwithstanding, I see absolutely no reason to believe that any one man or woman on this earth is entitled to such a vast amount of resources. There is simply no reasonable way to justify the property rights of a billionaire. And sorry, the Constitution doesn't cut it any more than Descartes' proof for God cuts it in the 21st century.
I'm in favor of a wealth cap somewhere in the 10s of millions of dollars, say 50 million to be generous. Anything over that should be outright confiscated or taxed at 99% in the name of the rights of humanity to jointly share in the fruits of the Earth. Anything over 10 million or so should be taxed at a very high rate, maybe 90%, so that actually achieving the wealth cap is something only the most resourceful can do.
I'm not really that concerned with the method of taxation. Income tax, capital gains tax, it makes little difference to me. In fact, I don't even care that people "have" that much money, I only care when they spend it and thus consume resources. So I would potentially be in favor of some kind of strange system that only prohibited people from spending more than a certain amount of money in a year. That way you could let people have their "property" but simply restrict their use of it to procure resources from society. Similar to how people can own guns but they can't go around shooting people. Now that I think about it, that's actually a pretty appealing idea, and a good argument to use against constitutional fundamentalists.
What about luxurious items like homes, yachts, etc? Rich people buy those and create all sorts of jobs that trickle through the economy as a result. For a $200 Million yacht, most of that cost goes to labor while some goes to raw materials - that create demand for those raw materials - and then make companies mine for more of them, creating more jobs.
Also, rich people use their capital to start businesses which obviously creates jobs. Who is to say that someone with $1 Billion doesn't do more net net for "average people" than if that $1 Billion was divided 6 Billion ways?
There are many responses to this. I will just offer one of them right now by saying that the idea of "creating jobs" is a relic of a capitalist society in which people do have billions of dollars. In a society with a more equitable distribution of wealth, the perpetual problem of job creation would be far less pressing, because there would be adequate social welfare nets. Furthermore, a capitalist society has far more focus on the production of material goods for the rich, which could be replaced by jobs which benefit society as a whole such as the arts, sciences, education, etc. Capitalism is little more than a value theory of capital, and to replace it would be to institute a value theory of something other than capital, which is what the government already does to an extent by funding education and science.
Obviously, I disagree. Simply put: Private business is far more productive than government so I would rather have all businesses run by owners (people with repercussions) than run by the government. I would be in favor of privatizing almost everything so that there are repercussions when things go wrong. I realize certain industries/services are simply not profitable ventures (postal service, airlines) and we need to subsidize them for the good of the country.
Tell me, how does not building the $200 Million home for the rich person get replaced by something that could benefit society? We'd build an art gallery? The flaw in your logic is that person who built the $200 Million home was able to afford it because he started and created a $10 Billion company. In a world where you are not incentivized to build and create $10 Billion companies, they won't exist. Since they don't exist, the profits of that $10 Billion firm can't be used to build your $200 Million art gallery. This puts aside the fact that the $10 Billion company is providing some service, some need, that was previously unmet. So now in your new world there is no cash flow from that $10 Billion company to pay for the $200 Million home or Art Gallery and there is no service/good that previously would have existed.
_________________ CrowdSurge and Ten Club will conduct further investigation into this matter.
Last edited by given2trade on Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
aprilfifth wrote:
Buff, would it be totally inaccurate if one were to think you're more anti-rich than you are pro-poor?
Yes. But not for the reasons you think, I think.
My pro-poor position is pretty clear cut and based rather simply on my belief that society should provide a minimum standard. Blah blah, you've heard that before.
My anti-rich, really anti-wealth, position has a two-fold root. First of all, because I believe in some measure of distributive justice and equity, and want to bring the poor closer in line with the rich, which is the argument you might imagine and have heard before. The second reason, which is at least as important, has to do with environmental issues and the nature of the things rich people spend money on. To put it simply since I don't feel like going into it here, it has to do with consumption of natural resources and the resulting destruction of the environment. I recognize that this is an empirical concern which could be eased by certain data showing that the rich do not consume more natural resources per dollar than the middle-class, or something to that effect.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
Buffalohed wrote:
My pro-poor position is pretty clear cut and based rather simply on my belief that society should provide a minimum standard. Blah blah, you've heard that before.
I'm going to turn this question around ever so slightly. Do you believe that society should provide more than a minimum standard for all?
First of all, because I believe in some measure of distributive justice and equity, and want to bring the poor closer in line with the rich, which is the argument you might imagine and have heard before.
Outcome-based analyses ignore the process. What's important is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
