Sorry if I went on a bit, but I don’t like it when people talk about socialism without thinking through the implications.
Likewise, I don’t think any country in Western Europe is socalist.
Geez, okay, I’m against ‘huge inequality’ rather than the entire concept of inequality. Obviously, everything can’t be equal, that’s silly.
And if the government isn’t there to keep people from being screwed by others with more power (whether it takes the form of a gun, a bank account, or social connections), what is the government there for, etson? And why shouldn’t there be a social safety net? Doesn’t it mean that countries in europe are weathering this recession with many fewer problems?
But, I have work to do (despite being lazy and, as a couple, upper-middle-class anywhere but nyc) so i should go before the kid gets up.
(but one last thing- people ask the govt to help solve problems because it has a lot of resources that they, individually, don’t have. Hence the ADA, social security, medicare, sewers, as well as BS like corn subsidies, highways, etc. This answer is obvious, so I’m assuming that was a rhetorical question, but just in case anyone was unsure of the answer. And the reason why private enterprise isn’t always the answer is the original point: It might be always cheaper (might) but it also has different priorities (profit) than the public good. We wouldn’t get universal mail delivery or rural electrification (high cost, low margins) or things like quasi-universal law enforcement without gov’t ‘interference’)
“The top 1% of the nation’s ‘wage earners’ are the
group that sponsor new jobs, new businesses, new
ideas who then employ the other 99% of the
population.”
Wrong! They indenture slumdogs from “emerging economies” overseas who live in squalor for 1/20 the wage. Raise taxes on that 1% by 150% and they’re still ahead!
The right’s logic, at least that of the elite, is totally inverse. The very rich SHOULD pay a higher increase in taxes because their incomes grossly exceed what is reasonably necessary to survive. Then they offshore jobs.
If that 1% wants to leave the US, bye bye! Where are they gonna go, Europe and pay even more taxes? Bye bye! Same thing with Mike Bloomberg’s threat of higher taxed, wealthy New Yorkers leaving the city. Bye bye!
Don’t get me wrong – we need measures at both extremes, low income (get off your ass and work) and high income (settle for only 1 private jet, only 1 yacht, a vacation home in only 5 countries overseas versus 10, etc.).
“you’re just allowed to be filthy rich while other people are totally screwed. Not sure why this is a crazy position to take.”
Because I don’t think either you or the government has any proper right to ‘allow’ or ‘disallow’ this.
And I’m not sure how you define ‘filthy rich’ or ‘screwed’ anyway.
The top 1% of the nation’s “wage earners†are the
group that sponsor new jobs, new businesses, new
ideas who then employ the other 99% of the
population.
And I said that the top 1% of wage earners are primarily corporate executives who do absolutely none of the things you listed. That there may be 1-5% entrepreneurs in this mix is a red herring to non-Republicans. But if you can explain how cutting income tax for my CEO who makes over $10 million a year (during a recession btw) benefits me – who makes a lot less and hasn’t seen his income go up a dime in the last 3 years (due to my laziness of course), I’m all ears.
Also, don’t forget to address the other part – the corporate tax rates that left off VAT. Are you gonna repost your numbers with all corporate taxes included?
OK, now I’m going back to work for rest of day. But this was fun.
Done. ‘filthy rich’ = >$5m in total assets. Probably includes half of park slope.
Ah, that was easy. Anything else?
Sorry if I went on a bit, but I don’t like it when people talk about socialism without thinking through the implications.
Likewise, I don’t think any country in Western Europe is socalist.
Affirmation for the drinkers in plusa land.
http://tinyurl.com/2ahs62v
Geez, okay, I’m against ‘huge inequality’ rather than the entire concept of inequality. Obviously, everything can’t be equal, that’s silly.
And if the government isn’t there to keep people from being screwed by others with more power (whether it takes the form of a gun, a bank account, or social connections), what is the government there for, etson? And why shouldn’t there be a social safety net? Doesn’t it mean that countries in europe are weathering this recession with many fewer problems?
But, I have work to do (despite being lazy and, as a couple, upper-middle-class anywhere but nyc) so i should go before the kid gets up.
(but one last thing- people ask the govt to help solve problems because it has a lot of resources that they, individually, don’t have. Hence the ADA, social security, medicare, sewers, as well as BS like corn subsidies, highways, etc. This answer is obvious, so I’m assuming that was a rhetorical question, but just in case anyone was unsure of the answer. And the reason why private enterprise isn’t always the answer is the original point: It might be always cheaper (might) but it also has different priorities (profit) than the public good. We wouldn’t get universal mail delivery or rural electrification (high cost, low margins) or things like quasi-universal law enforcement without gov’t ‘interference’)
Yes, bfarwell, define “filthy rich.”
Especially the “filthy” part.
“The top 1% of the nation’s ‘wage earners’ are the
group that sponsor new jobs, new businesses, new
ideas who then employ the other 99% of the
population.”
Wrong! They indenture slumdogs from “emerging economies” overseas who live in squalor for 1/20 the wage. Raise taxes on that 1% by 150% and they’re still ahead!
The right’s logic, at least that of the elite, is totally inverse. The very rich SHOULD pay a higher increase in taxes because their incomes grossly exceed what is reasonably necessary to survive. Then they offshore jobs.
If that 1% wants to leave the US, bye bye! Where are they gonna go, Europe and pay even more taxes? Bye bye! Same thing with Mike Bloomberg’s threat of higher taxed, wealthy New Yorkers leaving the city. Bye bye!
Don’t get me wrong – we need measures at both extremes, low income (get off your ass and work) and high income (settle for only 1 private jet, only 1 yacht, a vacation home in only 5 countries overseas versus 10, etc.).
***Bid half off peak comps***
“you’re just allowed to be filthy rich while other people are totally screwed. Not sure why this is a crazy position to take.”
Because I don’t think either you or the government has any proper right to ‘allow’ or ‘disallow’ this.
And I’m not sure how you define ‘filthy rich’ or ‘screwed’ anyway.
I know DIBS, you said this –
The top 1% of the nation’s “wage earners†are the
group that sponsor new jobs, new businesses, new
ideas who then employ the other 99% of the
population.
And I said that the top 1% of wage earners are primarily corporate executives who do absolutely none of the things you listed. That there may be 1-5% entrepreneurs in this mix is a red herring to non-Republicans. But if you can explain how cutting income tax for my CEO who makes over $10 million a year (during a recession btw) benefits me – who makes a lot less and hasn’t seen his income go up a dime in the last 3 years (due to my laziness of course), I’m all ears.
Also, don’t forget to address the other part – the corporate tax rates that left off VAT. Are you gonna repost your numbers with all corporate taxes included?
OK, now I’m going back to work for rest of day. But this was fun.
For a perfect example of wasteful government spending, see the thread above about CPC partnering to renovate houses in bed Stuy & Flatush.
The private sector could do this for far less money.