American Budget Cuts

I don’t think I have a plan. But I am astounded that you don’t see any sort of problem with things as you have described them. How can the runaway concentration of greater and greater wealth in the hands of a miniscule minority that your description results in be seen as desirable? Certainly it is not good for the vast and overwhelming majority. And one could even argue that it isn’t even healthy for the (admittedly very comfortable but increasingly isolated) financial elite themselves. Surely the systems we put in place to control the distribution of limited resources amongst humanity is everyone’s business isn’t it? It affects every single one of us so how can we not be interested? I didn’t say it was. I am simply suggesting that the ever increasing runaway concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority that you have described doesn’t sound ideal. And when those in possession of that wealth have done nothing to earn that stratospheric degree of wealth other than be wealthy questions of fairness are frankly inevitable aren’t they?

And I'm astounded that you can't seem to couch your greed in other terms. You realize that the total wealth in the world isn't a static amount, right? Since when does leaving your assets to your children have to be fair? Are you fair to your children compared to the rest of the children in the world?

I'm not sure why you are accusing me of having said things that I haven't said at all.So do you really think the system you have described is a good one?

Hi Straggler, you almost have it ... Except that they cannot put in more effort in any one day than they were capable of the previous day. They can buy more effort but it isn't their effort. That effort potentially exists whether it is bought or not, so buying it does not increase the amount of effort available.This is why money is not equivalent to effort. That same amount of effort can exist without being bought by anyone, and produce just as much. No, you don't necessarily end up with a self-reinforcing spiral, unless the wealthy control the means to become wealthy and keep taking a cut of the value of the production of other peoples effort, whether they earned it or not. It seems you understood this part very well. It puts them in the position of purchasing effort rather than expending it. And as long as they can continue to steal a portion of the value of that effort from the workers then they can continue to increase their wealth.In Catch-22 a character named Milo Mindbender was involved in several financial schemes of questionable character. Humour is often very close to the truth. He kept saying that everyone benefited because they all had a share in the company. Obviously if one thing is sold in a circular arrangement and everybody makes a profit there is something wrong in the model.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Yes I do. Building upon the advancements of our ancestors is what the progress of the human race is based upon. Being able to make things better for your children is both a central and respectable motive for a person.A long and successful family line leaving the resulting generations many resources is the logical expectation.

So you are looking forward to the foundation of an aristocratic class of the idle wealthy?The days of Georgian and Victorian England are an ideal for you?Can't wait till we bring back the workhouses and debtors prisons? So much good comes from orphanages doesn't it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And there comes the rhetoric.You didn't actually point out any particular stage of the process thats unfair or undesirable, you just skipped straight to bitching about people being wealthier than you.You want what they have, given to them by their parents who earned it.

So you really do consider the ever-increasing concentration of wealth that arises in the system you have described to be a desirable outcome? OK. But I am bewildered as to why you think that a long and successful family line requires a system where the top 1% are in possession of 40% (and increasing) of the wealth. Is it not possible to devise a system that allows a long and successful family line but whihc doesn't also result in such an intense and increasing concentration of resource?

Hi Phhage0070, Easy: I want MY share of profits for MY share of the effort. Except that they are not exclusive either. You do not get a decrease in value without a decrease in percentage because there is only so much value to go around at any one time.The ability to purchase is dependent on the percentage of wealth owned by each individual so when that percentage decreases, their ability to buy decreases. That is a decrease in their percentage of value.You seem to think that in an ideal world everyone can work happily and make a profit. The only way this works is for the value of money to change by the same amount as the overall average profit each and every person makes. Adjusting for actual value then shows that some gain and some lose. Every one should have their first dollar taxed the same, but the 10th dollar should be taxed more and the 100th dollar even more, etc: those that earned those larger dollar amounts benefited MORE from the economic system that made it possible, and should support in proportion to their benefits.Curiously, millionaires seem to pay less percentage overall than many in the middle class. So they are stealing from the government as well as from the workers. Dishonestly, certainly in many many cases. And as for your distribution argument, wealth IS redistributed already - from the poor to the rich - and that needs to be reversed. No, that means that they have benefited more from the economic system and should be grateful to support it with higher taxes on those who benefit more in order to support the system that allows them to benefit more.And we still have the FACT that the US budget for the military is glutted with unnecessary costs and expenditures.It is still a no brainer that budget cuts -- if we have to have them at this time -- should START where there is such profligate wastage.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

So I take it you do. Wow lets look at my post and see if I was bitching. Nope looks like straightforward questions to me. And not surprisingly you refused to answer any.You see societies have found that they are more stable if there is a process in place to prevent the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few.Progressive taxation is actually a long term gain for society and the vast majority of people in a society. You see governments job is not to protect peoples wealth. Its job is to do the most good it can for the most people. I like this explanation

quote:

---

America's government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, the military, and so on. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, our national parks and public buildings, and more. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.

---

SourceInfrastructure and social programs must be paid for. Are you of the belief that everyone on social programs "should go get a job"? If so, how do people survive on minimum wage? Where do you think the handicapped and indigent or mentally ill are going to go if we cut social programs to the bone? Are you going to up your charitable giving? Or do you think they will disappear? How much more do you think you will pay for prisons and orphanages and police protection if we cut social programs?When would you say the US economy was the strongest? Post WWII through the 1970's statistically was when the economy boomed. What drove that? Government spending and investment. Should we not have built the interstate highway system? Not have improved and built the infrastructure that allowed the economy to blossom? Close down schools that don't pay for themselves?Do you know when the marginal tax rate in the US was highest? The same time period.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.phpHow about showing us a society that was or is stable, that allowed for the continuing concentration of wealth and a continuing and growing disparity between the rich and the poor. Here is the difference between people like you and people like me. All you can see is the personal effect of these issues. I do not begrudge people being wealthier than me. I don't want their money. I am sitting pretty damn good financially. Better than probably 75% of the people in this country. My concern is the long term effect of not dealing with social issues and infrastructure issues. It is called having a social conscience.Go ahead and go John Galt. In actuality it is a stupid idea, since we have a progressive tax system and there is a thing called a marginal tax rate. But then again if you are making over $250k a year there may be a slight benefit to you personally.Are you a proponent of the opt out idea?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You are getting it. Without the invested money your efforts are not terribly profitable. WRONG! You could get a decrease in value without a change in percentage if the overall value available decreased. You are trying to compare a reduction in overall percentage share from one year to the next with a static view of the overall value available, which is simply wrong. NNNNoooooo, it also depends on the amount of stuff out there available for purchase. You are leaving out massive elements of the equation.If someone's share of the total money supply decreases by 1% but the amount of goods available to purchase doubles... their purchasing power dramatically increased. Yes they can, your poor understanding of economic notwithstanding. This discourages investment, making it harder for the poor to find investment capital. Being unable to buy equipment or labor which they can leverage into increased profit is hurting them, not helping them. Really? My research indicates that the top 1% of wealthy Americans between 2007 and 2008 paid 38% of all federal income taxes but earned 20% of adjusted gross income.The top 5% of earners paid far more than the bottom 95%. Where on Earth are you getting your data?

Lets. I said nothing of the sort, thats bitching. I never even hinted at the rich being a ruling class of any sort, or that they would necessarily be idle (although in theory they could if they wished). Again, not even slightly mentioned. The problems of Georgian and Victorian England are easily identifiable as oppressive practices, not just because someone had a bunch of money. The monetary accumulation was a byproduct, not the cause. Again, this has nothing to do with anything I said. Bankruptcy is certainly agreeable and the very idea of a "free market" goes against workhouses. Its just more bitching from you. And what does this even have to do with economics? Emotional bitching from start to finish. No, and in fact I'm not especially against the idea of progressive taxation. The idea of not taxing the poor who can't afford it is reasonable and directly extensible to offloading that burden onto those who can afford it.However, keep in mind that investment is an effort multiplier. Having investment capital available makes people much more productive than otherwise, and hurting investment opportunities is detrimental to overall progress. Taxation is a necessary element of running a society with public services, but drawing too much from discretionary income has long term social and infrastructure issues as well.

Well you addressed my comments from the previous post but I guess you don't want to address the issues form the one you actually replied to. It ain't bitching it is looking at realistic potential scenarios. Do you really believe that concentration of wealth will not result in a de facto ruling class if not a de jure one? Wow. Do you pay any attention to politics in this country now? Spoken as if you had firm evidence for this. This concentration of wealth allowed for the oppressive nature of the society. You do realize that the concentration of wealth is something that societies have been working against for millenia. There could be no oppressive practices if there was no concentration of wealth. Please show how it was a byproduct and not a cause. OK no workhouses, but we need an underclass of the working poor? Instead of government getting labor we will let corporations create more low wage jobs. Cause the priority is corporate profits, because that will allow them to create more low wage jobs. Did you know that counties that have Wal-Marts see a rise in social service costs. That's right these "wonderful" corporations can cost taxpayers even more.

quote:

---

Wal-Mart's low prices don't come cheap. In fact, each Wal-Mart store employing 200 people costs taxpayers approximately $420,750 annually in public social services used by Wal-Mart workers whose low wages and unaffordable health insurance mean most of them are among the working poor. That's the finding of Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart, a report by the minority staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Education and the Workforce Committee.

---

SourceOriginal reportShow me how the Walton's investments are improving the lives of people. Oh wait I forgot. It is all about profit, leave your social conscience at the door.All the scenarios are historical facts that were the result of the concentration of wealth. It is ridiculous to think that it cannot happen again if we allow for the concentration of wealth as you advocate. I vehemently disagree. Tax cuts do not spur growth. Show me an example where it does. Tax cuts consolidate wealth. The greatest periods of economic growth are periods of high government spending and high marginal tax rates.Still waiting for you to address post 265.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

But this one did. We've established that, because you've agreed that it's ridiculous to suggest that 3.5 million Americans suddenly became a million times more productive since 1970.I mean, that's a physical impossibility. Are there a million more hours in a day since 1970? Not even if you're rich. Sure! Working harder, working smarter, working longer hours - an eight-hour workday is only one third of a day, after all - it's not that difficult to imagine the average worker doubling their productivity. Even if they simply worked two shifts instead of one, there's enough hours to do that and still get home for a night's rest. It's not good for you, which may partially explain the dramatic decrease in American public health since 1970.So, the notion of workers doubling their productivity isn't all that unreasonable. There are 24 whole hours in a day, and in 1970 they were only working for a third of them. We could explain the increase in productivity simply by supposing that workers are working twice as many hours.Now, of course, that's not likely true. It's far more likely that a combination of factors were responsible - workers working more effectively due to technological advancements, workers working longer hours, as well as an increase in the number of workers. All of that is considerably more reasonable than the notion that 3.5 million rich people figured out how to increase their productivity by seven orders of magnitude. I think there were less people working, and people were working less effectively due to more primitive technologies. For instance, the internet has dramatically increased the productivity of knowledge workers; computers have dramatically increased the productivity of anyone who works with numbers.

Right, the sole proprietor of a business isn't separate from the business.But you specified "corporations", so we're talking about corporations. You understand the difference, right? It's the truth; I'm sorry you're needlessly defensive instead of willing to correct your errors.