Is Wealth Inequality the Future of Capitalism?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
So $18.30?
pada's re-threading..kinda like re-gifting at xmas
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Mr. Piketty was quite clear about the cause of extreme wealth inequality and it had as much or more to do with (lack of) taxation of the rich as it did with minimum wages, although I believe the two numbers are distantly related.
The more distance, the deeper trouble that society is in.
I believe that no matter what the source, to include capital gains, real estate, trust funds or inheritance, if an individual earns over a million dollars in a calendar year, in addition to any tax paid on that portion of income less than the million dollar threshold, that they should pay fifty percent of whatever they make OVER that threshold.
If R > G is the problem, then let's solve it directly.
On to corporate power in politics; we used to keep corporate money separate in this country- and it worked. We even put people in jail who broke this law because we as a country knew they were trying to buy influence unfairly.
Today's situation has the corporations showing out political prices with cash because they bought the politicians and had them legalize it. Again, if this- or the Citizens United Supreme Court decision (which was an unconstitutional overreach of their own power, btw; they don't get to make laws, just decide on their conditionality. With that decision, they made a ruling without an underlying case. That's unconstitutional.) is not enough evidence to convince citizens were in a fight for our very freedom, I fear for this country.
The more distance, the deeper trouble that society is in.
I believe that no matter what the source, to include capital gains, real estate, trust funds or inheritance, if an individual earns over a million dollars in a calendar year, in addition to any tax paid on that portion of income less than the million dollar threshold, that they should pay fifty percent of whatever they make OVER that threshold.
If R > G is the problem, then let's solve it directly.
On to corporate power in politics; we used to keep corporate money separate in this country- and it worked. We even put people in jail who broke this law because we as a country knew they were trying to buy influence unfairly.
Today's situation has the corporations showing out political prices with cash because they bought the politicians and had them legalize it. Again, if this- or the Citizens United Supreme Court decision (which was an unconstitutional overreach of their own power, btw; they don't get to make laws, just decide on their conditionality. With that decision, they made a ruling without an underlying case. That's unconstitutional.) is not enough evidence to convince citizens were in a fight for our very freedom, I fear for this country.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
So in essence, you want a society comprised of the semi wealthy and those who rely on government.
No matter how much the government takes from the wealthy , it does not increase your income, unless of course it comes from the government redistrubuting to you.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
This is incorrect. At this level, the beneficiaries of this largesse aren't doing anything active to build it; they're born into it. Those who earn it themselves I have no quibbles with in the first place, other than the following;
Are you saying that you can't find a way to live within one and a half million dollars' worth of income, as opposed to two?
Absent from your argument is the indisputable fact that the government and The People directly assisted this person in gaining said wealth, so where do they get off not paying their fair share? And why would you let them?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
The people assisted the person?
You mean by wilfully purchasing a product or service with obvious demand?
#Leftieshaverottenbrains
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
You are way off base my friend.
You claim the government and the people directly assisted the wealthy in gaining their wealth, totally false.
The government does not create tangible wealth, it only confiscates from the private sector.
If it wasn't for the wealthy and semi wealthy tax payers, the money you describe would not have existed in the first place.
And your "fair share" meme is not supported by facts, quite the opposite to be honest, the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of all income taxes.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Let me know when it becomes part of the constitution. Till then, let's talk about rape.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"For the increasing wages = automatic layoffs geniuses, there is an economic argument for why this would actually increase aggregate demand and benefit the economy. I've said it before, the poor who earn minimum wage spend most of their income on stuff, so the extra money in their hands will go straight to the businesses they spend it at, and circulate throughout the economy. Add in the money multiplier effect, and you have an economic stimulus.
https://www.inkling.com/read/the-eco...iscal-stimulus
Also, I think we'll see more "under the table" employment when the official minimum wage goes up. Some of those jobs that might have gone away in the form of official employment, may continue at wages below the new minimum wage in an unreported status at smaller and local businesses. But large companies like Walmart and McDonalds will be forced to increase wages and cut into their profits/CEO pay/dividends to compensate employees more, giving them a bigger slice of the pie. Which is better for the economy as the super rich don't spend the majority of their income on goods and services, instead it goes into investment and savings, while the poor readily spend it on goods, which gives an immediate boost to the economy. It's pretty simple logic: a consumer driven economy requires consumers who can spend money, and broke-ass people don't consume as much."
https://www.inkling.com/read/the-eco...iscal-stimulus
Also, I think we'll see more "under the table" employment when the official minimum wage goes up. Some of those jobs that might have gone away in the form of official employment, may continue at wages below the new minimum wage in an unreported status at smaller and local businesses. But large companies like Walmart and McDonalds will be forced to increase wages and cut into their profits/CEO pay/dividends to compensate employees more, giving them a bigger slice of the pie. Which is better for the economy as the super rich don't spend the majority of their income on goods and services, instead it goes into investment and savings, while the poor readily spend it on goods, which gives an immediate boost to the economy. It's pretty simple logic: a consumer driven economy requires consumers who can spend money, and broke-ass people don't consume as much."
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Nope, they won't take the hit and will simply increase prices.
You don't know business, obviously.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
"Forced"? I doubt that...
What do you think the market share is for each of those companies, respectively?
20%? 40%? >50%?
Who is their competition? They will creep prices up if the cost-push (and shareholders) forces it. But unlike what some shit-bag fear-mongers--who compare an economy to heroin addicts--may think, the increases won't be across the board nor directly proportional.
They will be subtle, and coldly calculated by some group of wizard econometricians, factoring in substitutions, consumer surplus, price discrimination, Markov chains, etc.
And you won't notice a difference at the micro level, but perhaps puzzle why your usual bill didn't tally the way you expected. No matter...it's only another 50 cents on $50, who cares, right?
Then there are the other options; cut a benefit plan here, drop a shift there...snip and trim that operating budget until the liabilities match. Done... the dynamics of corporations are not the same as a "small business". It's like the difference between pee-wee hockey and the NHL...similar sport, but completely different game.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
That's right. But it won't be the wizards paying. Like what I said before. Even if it's only a $0.50 increase, the wizards will make sure everything shifts, but what they get.
See, the wizards get a $0.50 bulk discount when they spend twice what the poorest pay. So the rest of us get fucked. The wizards get no increase.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
If the wizards are in control of the books, why would they make themselves pay?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Nail + Hit on the Head = Profit.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
That's basically it. The ultimate controller is profit. It determines all fates.
And wizards don't like their lemons squeezed by the proles. By hook or by crook, the sacred profit cow shall be saved.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
If they like their sacred profit cow so much, they'll figure out that it's fed by a strong customer base. One way or another, they'll figure it out;
It is a testament to the shortsightedness of Big Business in this country that they've been so cavalier about supporting policies that hurt their own customers.
THAT is by far the biggest threat to profitability.
Doer
Well-Known Member
If you envy types knew the hard work it takes to be well off, for most people, you would understand we have already been taxed and taxed beyond the reason of Progressive Tax structures.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Actually above that is those who can Own Debt. I mean big Debt, like Governments.
It takes giant capital standing to be allowed to own debt.