Raise Minimum Wage? Progressive Taxes? Let the Rich Decide!

No, he works smarter.

I prefer to think he has different goals than I do: his goal is to make a lot of money; Dillinger had the same goal.

Trump has been smarter than Dillinger in the fact that he didn't get himself killed by the cops at age 31.

Are we forgetting a certain world wide economic crash that was caused by the sub-prime mortgage crisis? What the rich have shown is that they will sacrifice the long term stability of the economy for short term gains.

Do you think Paris Hilton has great business acumen? Do you think she has worked harder in her life than someone making minimum wage?

Imagine all of those workers in the early 1800's just sitting around waiting for someone to invent the computer.

No, her great-grandfather did.Why shouldn't he be allowed to do with his money what he wants to? Including passing it on to his children, and his children's children?One of the motivations for me to work hard is knowing that I can provide a good life to my children.Why should that be removed from me?

Laws have always regulated what one can do with their money.Also, I was pointing out that having a lot of money is not a true indicator of one's business sense. Tthe wealth held by the most wealthy is not always a good thermometer of the health of the economy.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Curiously I notice that you did not answer my question ... I'll repeat it: And let me add: if the work is of equal value when you do it and when someone else does it and you pay them less than you pay yourself you are taking value from their work to put in your pocket. That is stealing in my book, unless there is a clear unambiguous reason for a difference in pay -- the only thing I see as justification is greed ...Now do you agree or not that land was taken from the indians by less than honorable means? I call that stealing as well. And when you look at how land was grabbed up by the wealthy and how laws favored landowners (original requirement to vote), there is no doubt in my mind that much was stolen from people because of the power disequilibrium.Enjoy.Enjoy

In your way, how would your business ever expand?Every time it grows, all that extra money goes out the window.

The business makes a profit, everyone shares in the success and everyone is engaged in working to make the business succeed. No, the profit is shared, and when people make more they spend more, this enables other businesses to grow, and that in turn means more people buying the products of the company, so profits increase.The economy is made by people spending money, by the movement of money, so the more the money moves the better the economy. Having some people hoard money takes it out of the system and makes the economy worse.We KNOW 'trickle down' (a) doesn't work and (b) is a rich man's wet dream because it causes more concentration of money in the pockets of the rich for no extra effort.It's time to try 'trickle up' ... IF you want a better economy ...Enjoy.

I see your proposals as far beyond 'trickle up'.To me, they look more like hippy-commune economics: people doing good things for the sake of doing good things.I don't think that works. It never has. Doesn't now. And I don't see it ever working in the future. No. The economy is made of people creating stuff and exchanging it for other stuff. Moving money around is what all those 'fat-cats' do that none of us like. There are a couple of threads on this; there might be some hints that this is not a sustainable pattern.If you look at those threads, you will see evidence that a consumerism economy is not ever-sustaining. When people become satiated with their level of consumption, the model ceases to create further economic growth. And it is very likely that we are approaching (or at) a point where people's consumption of many goods/services is at the maximum possible level.There are few options around this in a consumerism economy. We can produce stuff that people haven't consumed fully, yet, such as healthcare. We can product junk and try harder and harder to convince people to consume it.Or we can look for a way to maintain economic prosperity without companies always having to turn out junk products of increasingly less utility. But that will mean moving away from consumerism.I think finding a new way of doing things will probably be the only sustainable solution.And that means that your model of people earning more money and buying more stuff to fuel economic activity doesn't necessarily work.Jon

Oh, that's a little different than what you were talking about before...But okay, so does everyone share in the risk too?When the business's profits decline, does the workers' pay decline as well?When the business goes into the red, and profit becomes negative, do the workers then pay to work?What about when a new company starts, and overhead outweighs income, do the newly hired workers have to invest money into the company in order to get the job? Or do they just start out with a negative wage and pay into the company until it gets profitable?Or do the workers just not share the risk at all? The people investing in the company take all the risk, and then they give all the reward away just because they feel like being nice? Why wouldn't they just not take the risk in the first place?

Don't get me wrong. I like Donald trump - but you don't get rich by giving it away, which is one reason I'm not rich. (On the other hand, I'm sure he gives away a lot more than I do, so the overall effect may be better.)

I'm sure he also takes a lot more than you do too.