(02-19-2012 08:26 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  We can conclude that Roberta does not know the reason why he is almost 40, working a job that pays sh!t, and only has a companion that is a blow-up doll. His boat of opportunity has not only sailed it sank long ago. He will remain forever a poor, bitter, hypocrite that thinks he deserves others to subsidize his failure. Pathetic.

(02-18-2012 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why is it greedy for someone who works hard and does the right things to want to keep more of what he has earned, but not greedy for someone who has sat on his/her lazy butt and done nothing to claim to be entitled to having some of what the successful person earned redistributed to him/her?

Because we're not talking about taking a Ferrari or 3D TV away from a rich person and giving it to a poor person. If there's ever an entitlement program to do that I'll oppose it. We're talking about taking a Ferrari away from a rich person so 100 poor people can have food, shelter and medical care. Now, opposition to that, so that you can take home another 3 percent of your income that you don't really need by any sense of the word, is greed.

Also, I object to the idea that rich people "earned" or "worked" for their riches any harder than people with less money. Capitalism isn't equitable. If your dad owned a factory, and gives you the factory, and you just maintain it and rake in millions, don't give me BS about keeping what you've "earned." Now I'm not advocating we do away with capitalism but we shouldn't let it run wild either and compensate for its inequities through wealth redistribution.

(02-19-2012 07:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-18-2012 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why is it greedy for someone who works hard and does the right things to want to keep more of what he has earned, but not greedy for someone who has sat on his/her lazy butt and done nothing to claim to be entitled to having some of what the successful person earned redistributed to him/her?

Because we're not talking about taking a Ferrari or 3D TV away from a rich person and giving it to a poor person. If there's ever an entitlement program to do that I'll oppose it. We're talking about taking a Ferrari away from a rich person so 100 poor people can have food, shelter and medical care. Now, opposition to that, so that you can take home another 3 percent of your income that you don't really need by any sense of the word, is greed.
Also, I object to the idea that rich people "earned" or "worked" for their riches any harder than people with less money. Capitalism isn't equitable. If your dad owned a factory, and gives you the factory, and you just maintain it and rake in millions, don't give me BS about keeping what you've "earned." Now I'm not advocating we do away with capitalism but we shouldn't let it run wild either and compensate for its inequities through wealth redistribution.

Even in your worst case scenario, if I'm running the factory and raking in millions, I'm obviously providing hundreds, or more likely thousands, of people with better incomes than they will ever get from government welfare. I think we should be attracting those people. The more of them we have, the more Americans can have good-paying jobs.

The flaw that I see in your argument is that to make it you have to assume that there is some finite quantity of wealth out there, and all we have to do is allocate it more equitably and everyone will be happy. But if doing so makes this country less attractive to investment than other countries, then the quantity of wealth available to distribute goes down. How in your ideal world do we keep creating enough wealth to sustain the system?

(02-19-2012 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 07:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-18-2012 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why is it greedy for someone who works hard and does the right things to want to keep more of what he has earned, but not greedy for someone who has sat on his/her lazy butt and done nothing to claim to be entitled to having some of what the successful person earned redistributed to him/her?

Because we're not talking about taking a Ferrari or 3D TV away from a rich person and giving it to a poor person. If there's ever an entitlement program to do that I'll oppose it. We're talking about taking a Ferrari away from a rich person so 100 poor people can have food, shelter and medical care. Now, opposition to that, so that you can take home another 3 percent of your income that you don't really need by any sense of the word, is greed.
Also, I object to the idea that rich people "earned" or "worked" for their riches any harder than people with less money. Capitalism isn't equitable. If your dad owned a factory, and gives you the factory, and you just maintain it and rake in millions, don't give me BS about keeping what you've "earned." Now I'm not advocating we do away with capitalism but we shouldn't let it run wild either and compensate for its inequities through wealth redistribution.

Even in your worst case scenario, if I'm running the factory and raking in millions, I'm obviously providing hundreds, or more likely thousands, of people with better incomes than they will ever get from government welfare. I think we should be attracting those people. The more of them we have, the more Americans can have good-paying jobs.

The flaw that I see in your argument is that to make it you have to assume that there is some finite quantity of wealth out there, and all we have to do is allocate it more equitably and everyone will be happy. But if doing so makes this country less attractive to investment than other countries, then the quantity of wealth available to distribute goes down. How in your ideal world do we keep creating enough wealth to sustain the system?

We don't. Max is like a woman. He can't think practically. We're pragmatists and Liberals are ideologues.

(02-19-2012 07:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Also, I object to the idea that rich people "earned" or "worked" for their riches any harder than people with less money.

I'd object too, because that's not how it works. Income is a product of labor demand and supply, not necessarily correlated to some vague measure of how hard they work or their perceived "benefit" to society. Le Bron James will make a zillion dollars more than a second-grade teacher, and that's just how it is.

First of all, it's obviously a lot harder to be a brain surgeon, electrician or engineer than it is to be a cashier, waitress or UPS truck driver. But let's put aside those examples and use an extreme case where the "rich" person doesn't work all that hard: Kim Kardashian leads a pampered life, her job ain't that taxing, and certainly doesn't work as hard as your next door neighbor factory worker. But her specific "labor" is very high in demand as she alone, as one individual, makes a ton of money for a lot of people. She has a very specific skill ... and, yes, I know the word "skill" here is very stretched. Factory workers and cashiers work hard, but they are a dime a dozen and don't have specialized skills nor have high demand for their services.

(02-19-2012 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 07:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-18-2012 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why is it greedy for someone who works hard and does the right things to want to keep more of what he has earned, but not greedy for someone who has sat on his/her lazy butt and done nothing to claim to be entitled to having some of what the successful person earned redistributed to him/her?

Because we're not talking about taking a Ferrari or 3D TV away from a rich person and giving it to a poor person. If there's ever an entitlement program to do that I'll oppose it. We're talking about taking a Ferrari away from a rich person so 100 poor people can have food, shelter and medical care. Now, opposition to that, so that you can take home another 3 percent of your income that you don't really need by any sense of the word, is greed.
Also, I object to the idea that rich people "earned" or "worked" for their riches any harder than people with less money. Capitalism isn't equitable. If your dad owned a factory, and gives you the factory, and you just maintain it and rake in millions, don't give me BS about keeping what you've "earned." Now I'm not advocating we do away with capitalism but we shouldn't let it run wild either and compensate for its inequities through wealth redistribution.

Even in your worst case scenario, if I'm running the factory and raking in millions, I'm obviously providing hundreds, or more likely thousands, of people with better incomes than they will ever get from government welfare. I think we should be attracting those people. The more of them we have, the more Americans can have good-paying jobs.

Spot on. And this is where emotion tends to overshadow reason among the populist-liberal crowd when it comes to fiscal matters. It's easy for any of us to show disdain (envy) toward the nepotism son who gets handed his daddy's factory on a silver platter. But in the knee-jerk reaction to "punish" the spoiled kid, what people fail to see is the larger picture.

And generally speaking, businesses don't run themselves, and Junior will still need to show savvy skills and business smarts to keep things running. If he didn't learn anything from the family business and goofed off at the country club, bad decisions and poor planning will catch up to him.

(02-19-2012 11:12 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 07:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-18-2012 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why is it greedy for someone who works hard and does the right things to want to keep more of what he has earned, but not greedy for someone who has sat on his/her lazy butt and done nothing to claim to be entitled to having some of what the successful person earned redistributed to him/her?

Because we're not talking about taking a Ferrari or 3D TV away from a rich person and giving it to a poor person. If there's ever an entitlement program to do that I'll oppose it. We're talking about taking a Ferrari away from a rich person so 100 poor people can have food, shelter and medical care. Now, opposition to that, so that you can take home another 3 percent of your income that you don't really need by any sense of the word, is greed.
Also, I object to the idea that rich people "earned" or "worked" for their riches any harder than people with less money. Capitalism isn't equitable. If your dad owned a factory, and gives you the factory, and you just maintain it and rake in millions, don't give me BS about keeping what you've "earned." Now I'm not advocating we do away with capitalism but we shouldn't let it run wild either and compensate for its inequities through wealth redistribution.

Even in your worst case scenario, if I'm running the factory and raking in millions, I'm obviously providing hundreds, or more likely thousands, of people with better incomes than they will ever get from government welfare. I think we should be attracting those people. The more of them we have, the more Americans can have good-paying jobs.

Spot on. And this is where emotion tends to overshadow reason among the populist-liberal crowd when it comes to fiscal matters. It's easy for any of us to show disdain (envy) toward the nepotism son who gets handed his daddy's factory on a silver platter. But in the knee-jerk reaction to "punish" the spoiled kid, what people fail to see is the larger picture.

And generally speaking, businesses don't run themselves, and Junior will still need to show savvy skills and business smarts to keep things running. If he didn't learn anything from the family business and goofed off at the country club, bad decisions and poor planning will catch up to him.

How dare you say that it takes skill and intelligence to successfully run a multi million dollar comapny! It is painfully obvious that they just did it off the backs of the people working for them and the rest of society who gave them what they needed to be successful.

(02-19-2012 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The flaw that I see in your argument is that to make it you have to assume that there is some finite quantity of wealth out there, and all we have to do is allocate it more equitably and everyone will be happy.

Once again OWL, you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Kudos.

THIS seems to be a flaw in thinking that I see again and again when attempting to talk with liberals/progressives. There is no finite wealth pie and it is not a zero sum game.

(02-19-2012 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Even in your worst case scenario, if I'm running the factory and raking in millions, I'm obviously providing hundreds, or more likely thousands, of people with better incomes than they will ever get from government welfare. I think we should be attracting those people. The more of them we have, the more Americans can have good-paying jobs.

The flaw that I see in your argument is that to make it you have to assume that there is some finite quantity of wealth out there, and all we have to do is allocate it more equitably and everyone will be happy. But if doing so makes this country less attractive to investment than other countries, then the quantity of wealth available to distribute goes down. How in your ideal world do we keep creating enough wealth to sustain the system?

I don't believe that justifies the disparity. The people working in your factory are providing you with wealth too you know; it's a 2 way street. And running the factory that you didn't even found isn't necessarily something that those workers couldn't do anyway. One of my grandfathers ran a CAT plant that my other grandfather worked at as a welder. Was one of my grandfathers that much smarter than the other? He had a lot more education, but I'm going to say no. They were born into very different circumstances, the welder being a son of immigrants whose grocery business failed and needed to drop out of high school to join the work force, and yet had highly successful kids. The disparity in the guy running the factory's $5 million income and their $40,000 income cannot be justified as "earning." Capitalism disproportionately rewards people who gain control over the means of production, and this is where all the talk about capitalism rewarding "sweat of the brow" falls apart.

I don't have to assume a finite quantity of wealth to favor wealth redistribution to take care of the needs of the poor. The argument you're making now is the same that was said when Social Security was passed in 1935, when the Great Society was passed in 1965, etc. The rich individuals haven't exactly bolted for the bottom of the ocean (or whatever it is they do in Atlas Shrugged, which no I have not read). We redistribute wealth and remain productive and the pie continues to grow.

Quote:I'd object too, because that's not how it works. Income is a product of labor demand and supply, not necessarily correlated to some vague measure of how hard they work or their perceived "benefit" to society. Le Bron James will make a zillion dollars more than a second-grade teacher, and that's just how it is.

First of all, it's obviously a lot harder to be a brain surgeon, electrician or engineer than it is to be a cashier, waitress or UPS truck driver. But let's put aside those examples and use an extreme case where the "rich" person doesn't work all that hard: Kim Kardashian leads a pampered life, her job ain't that taxing, and certainly doesn't work as hard as your next door neighbor factory worker. But her specific "labor" is very high in demand as she alone, as one individual, makes a ton of money for a lot of people. She has a very specific skill ... and, yes, I know the word "skill" here is very stretched. Factory workers and cashiers work hard, but they are a dime a dozen and don't have specialized skills nor have high demand for their services.

I agree with what you've said, though I suspect you've reached a different conclusion. Just because Brittany Spears won the genetic lottery and has high demand for her "singing ability" doesn't justify her earning tens of millions of dollars. You see her enormous wealth as "earned" because there is high demand for it. I see it as a complete sham and prime example of the inequities of capitalism, because no matter how many people demand her singing she still doesn't work very hard at all as it requires comparably little effort to the factory worker.

Quote:We don't. Max is like a woman. He can't think practically. We're pragmatists and Liberals are ideologues.

Lovely. Just more evidence of cons being anti-woman. And you're surprised this contraception debate is backfiring on you.

Quote:Spot on. And this is where emotion tends to overshadow reason among the populist-liberal crowd when it comes to fiscal matters. It's easy for any of us to show disdain (envy) toward the nepotism son who gets handed his daddy's factory on a silver platter. But in the knee-jerk reaction to "punish" the spoiled kid, what people fail to see is the larger picture.

And generally speaking, businesses don't run themselves, and Junior will still need to show savvy skills and business smarts to keep things running. If he didn't learn anything from the family business and goofed off at the country club, bad decisions and poor planning will catch up to him.

I don't want to punish anyone. I'm making it more fair. Is it fair that the son inherits the keys to a profitable factory that rakes in millions for him so long as he doesn't screw up, meanwhile a person born into a poor family with a crack addicted mother, um, doesn't? Capitalism is far from fair, so in order to keep it and SAVE it it needs to be regulated.

Yeah, his bad decisions will catch up with him, after years of raking in millions of dollars. And I'd imagine some of those factory workers could do as well or better if given the same opportunity. But they aren't, because that's capitalism run wild.

(02-20-2012 05:30 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The flaw that I see in your argument is that to make it you have to assume that there is some finite quantity of wealth out there, and all we have to do is allocate it more equitably and everyone will be happy.

Once again OWL, you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Kudos.

THIS seems to be a flaw in thinking that I see again and again when attempting to talk with liberals/progressives. There is no finite wealth pie and it is not a zero sum game.

What I find interesting is the degree to which Max and other liberals want to infringe on personal liberty to may the result more "equitable." What you can never get them to articulate is how much money is "fair" for someone to have. Or how much of their own money they are willing to be forced to hand over to make things more fair. My guess is if you went to Max and said he must give up 50% of his earnings so that they could redistributed he'd pitch an absolute fit. His entire post above is, quite frankly, repulsive to me and should be to anyone who values liberty.

What never occurs to these moronic liberals is that what constitutes "fair" is purely subjective. Ultimately what is fair is opportunity to make your life better. That's what government's role is. To safeguard your opportunity. Not take from those who have made more of their opportunity and give it to you in some warped sense of keeping things "fair."

What Max and other liberals advocate is what Tocqueville called soft despotism.

You look at intelligence... Not risk.

Those who start a venture can also lose everything, and often do... Many times. The fact that one chose to be a laborer... To work for someone else, to have a high probability of a job no matter WHo owned the company... While the other stood to make more, and was out of a job and likely his life savings if it didn't work. He probably went to the bank and signed his life away for the chance.

THAT is what this country is built upon. You can play it safe and work for someone else, or you can take a chance.

You seem to want to reward those who play it safe, but I doubt you'd make any of those workers give their money to the boss if the venture failed and he lost everything... Would you?


If you think it is unfair, then take half a dozen of the existing employees and have them build a business plan and go to the bank. A greedy capitalist would GLADLY loan money on such a sure bet... And then those people could either become filthy wealthy themselves, or share the wealth with their new employees.

Interestingly, despite the ability to do this, you rarely find even staunch democratic supporters like Oprah and Soros paying people on their payroll much more than is necessary. Oprah has unpaid interns on her staff. That's just pitiful that she gives more to her audience members than her staff

(02-20-2012 05:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Even in your worst case scenario, if I'm running the factory and raking in millions, I'm obviously providing hundreds, or more likely thousands, of people with better incomes than they will ever get from government welfare. I think we should be attracting those people. The more of them we have, the more Americans can have good-paying jobs.
The flaw that I see in your argument is that to make it you have to assume that there is some finite quantity of wealth out there, and all we have to do is allocate it more equitably and everyone will be happy. But if doing so makes this country less attractive to investment than other countries, then the quantity of wealth available to distribute goes down. How in your ideal world do we keep creating enough wealth to sustain the system?

I don't believe that justifies the disparity.

OK, fine.

Then I'll build my factory overseas, in some place where they are more happy to have me providing work for its citizens than they are worried about possible disparity. So how do you make your economy work then?

Quote:I don't have to assume a finite quantity of wealth to favor wealth redistribution to take care of the needs of the poor. The argument you're making now is the same that was said when Social Security was passed in 1935, when the Great Society was passed in 1965, etc. The rich individuals haven't exactly bolted for the bottom of the ocean (or whatever it is they do in Atlas Shrugged, which no I have not read). We redistribute wealth and remain productive and the pie continues to grow.

This is what I don't understand. The left is constnantly complaining about capital flight, that companies aren't staying here and paying "their fair share" of taxes. But when they propose policies that would cause capital flight to intensify, somehow they just forget about capital flight and dismiss the concerns out of hand.

Mitt Romney hasn't left the US, but his money is in the Caymans. And he's far better than most, because he at least has his Cayman Islands companies invest in the US. Or look at what GE is doing. And those are both taking place under current law, as are thousands if not millions of others. If you can't see that this is already a problem, and will only get worse if the changes proposed by the left take effect, then I'm pretty sure you'll never understand so there's no point in trying to explain it. I can explain it, but I can't make you understand it.

(02-20-2012 06:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 05:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Even in your worst case scenario, if I'm running the factory and raking in millions, I'm obviously providing hundreds, or more likely thousands, of people with better incomes than they will ever get from government welfare. I think we should be attracting those people. The more of them we have, the more Americans can have good-paying jobs.
The flaw that I see in your argument is that to make it you have to assume that there is some finite quantity of wealth out there, and all we have to do is allocate it more equitably and everyone will be happy. But if doing so makes this country less attractive to investment than other countries, then the quantity of wealth available to distribute goes down. How in your ideal world do we keep creating enough wealth to sustain the system?

I don't believe that justifies the disparity.

OK, fine.

Then I'll build my factory overseas, in some place where they are more happy to have me providing work for its citizens than they are worried about possible disparity. So how do you make your economy work then?

My guess is he makes a law saying you can't do that, or taxes you an exorbitant amount of money to punish you for doing so.

Only an idiot thinks that there isn't a way for foreign companies to avoid most us taxes and penalties.

We cant keep Iran from building nukes despite blockades and sanctions etc etc... But we can make foreign companies pay taxes.

(02-20-2012 06:49 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 06:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 05:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Even in your worst case scenario, if I'm running the factory and raking in millions, I'm obviously providing hundreds, or more likely thousands, of people with better incomes than they will ever get from government welfare. I think we should be attracting those people. The more of them we have, the more Americans can have good-paying jobs.
The flaw that I see in your argument is that to make it you have to assume that there is some finite quantity of wealth out there, and all we have to do is allocate it more equitably and everyone will be happy. But if doing so makes this country less attractive to investment than other countries, then the quantity of wealth available to distribute goes down. How in your ideal world do we keep creating enough wealth to sustain the system?

I don't believe that justifies the disparity.

OK, fine.
Then I'll build my factory overseas, in some place where they are more happy to have me providing work for its citizens than they are worried about possible disparity. So how do you make your economy work then?

My guess is he makes a law saying you can't do that, or taxes you an exorbitant amount of money to punish you for doing so.

My guess, too. There are ways around that. Pull an Anheuser-Busch and get bought by a foreign company. Or do a complete spin-off of the foreign subs (not without a tax price, but a far cheaper one than going forward as a US-based company). What operations remain in the US cannot remain competitive and will eventaully go bankrupt.

And if you close those avenues, then companies will be trapped in a non-competitve situation. They will simply all go bankrupt becasue there will be no way to avoid it.

Max, how would you react if you were told that as a lawyer you could earn no more than 40k...because that is what's fair. Would you still want to be a lawyer? How could future attorneys afford to pay for school earning that income? Who would want to be a lawyer? Society values craftsmen more than attorneys so we'll pay carpenters 75k...

I think your share of the wealth should be capped at 40k....

If Donald Trump didn't exist, how many jobs would never have been created? Take this all the way down to the people who sell things to the people with those jobs and then some. If Trump had to give a huge percentage of his corp and personal income to the government, would the government have created to same high paying, tax paying jobs Trump did?

(02-20-2012 08:10 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Max, how would you react if you were told that as a lawyer you could earn no more than 40k...because that is what's fair. Would you still want to be a lawyer? How could future attorneys afford to pay for school earning that income? Who would want to be a lawyer? Society values craftsmen more than attorneys so we'll pay carpenters 75k...
I think your share of the wealth should be capped at 40k....

Better question, Max, what if your income as a lawyer here was capped at $40K, but you could earn an unlimited amount anywhere else in the world. Would you stay here? How many of your colleagues do you believe would stay here? Be honest.

Republicans miss the point on this whole issue. People are not going to stop earning because taxes are too high. But they will find ways to earn under conditions where taxes are lower. And unless they all do it the way Mitt Romney has done, that can only mean a mass exodus of jobs and economic activity and wealth. The left insists that won't happen. But it is happening now.

(02-20-2012 05:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I don't want to punish anyone. I'm making it more fair. Is it fair that the son inherits the keys to a profitable factory that rakes in millions for him so long as he doesn't screw up, meanwhile a person born into a poor family with a crack addicted mother, um, doesn't? Capitalism is far from fair, so in order to keep it and SAVE it it needs to be regulated.

Max, is it fair that my grandparents planted an apple tree and now I get to eat the apples long after they're gone? Would you have some apple regulator oversee the apple tree, give me an allotment of apples and take the rest away to give to people who had nothing to do with the tree?

The person born to a crack mother plays the hand he's dealt, just like the rest of us. Don't hold me responsible for the decisions of others that I played absolutely no part in.

(02-20-2012 06:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You look at intelligence... Not risk.

Those who start a venture can also lose everything, and often do... Many times. The fact that one chose to be a laborer... To work for someone else, to have a high probability of a job no matter WHo owned the company... While the other stood to make more, and was out of a job and likely his life savings if it didn't work. He probably went to the bank and signed his life away for the chance.

THAT is what this country is built upon. You can play it safe and work for someone else, or you can take a chance.

You seem to want to reward those who play it safe, but I doubt you'd make any of those workers give their money to the boss if the venture failed and he lost everything... Would you?


If you think it is unfair, then take half a dozen of the existing employees and have them build a business plan and go to the bank. A greedy capitalist would GLADLY loan money on such a sure bet... And then those people could either become filthy wealthy themselves, or share the wealth with their new employees.

Interestingly, despite the ability to do this, you rarely find even staunch democratic supporters like Oprah and Soros paying people on their payroll much more than is necessary. Oprah has unpaid interns on her staff. That's just pitiful that she gives more to her audience members than her staff

The worker who takes a job working for that company/"risk taker" is taking a risk too, that the company can give him his next paycheck.

Even in your best case hypothetical about the entrepreneur who built the factory from the ground up on a dream as opposed to being handed it, I'm still not that sympathetic. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to him if we still had debtors prisons and no bankruptcy laws and limited liability corporate structures. But as it is entrepreneurs can fail many times with businesses, hit it big on one of them, and ride the gravy train. Not that I begrudge them the fruits of their success, but the reward/risk balance is out of whack in a pure free market.

If the venture failed the worker probably worked for up to a month for free and probably is struggling to make ends meet far more than the factory owner and corporate shareholder.

Not everyone can make sound business decisions. Not everyone can perform the blue collar jobs either, though more can. However, the distribution of income purely by demand for a skill or ownership of the means of production isn't fair at all. I'm not saying take the factory away from the successful factory owner, but let's raise his taxes a few percentage points to insure that the needs of the most unfortunate among us are taken care of.

Quote:OK, fine.

Then I'll build my factory overseas, in some place where they are more happy to have me providing work for its citizens than they are worried about possible disparity. So how do you make your economy work then?

I'd make you pay higher taxes, as Obama has proposed. When you're willing to bring the manufacturing jobs back to the US, you'll get a tax break.

If the only labor you're willing to provide is exploited labor, then good riddance. Besides, the widgets you're making are probably marketed for consumption here, so it's cheaper to make them here everything else being equal. Even CAT is moving plants back home for that reason.

Quote:Only an idiot thinks that there isn't a way for foreign companies to avoid most us taxes and penalties.

We cant keep Iran from building nukes despite blockades and sanctions etc etc... But we can make foreign companies pay taxes.

Uh, it's not just foreign corporations. Almost the same percentage of foreign and domestic companies--roughly 2/3--don't pay any taxes here. In fact, it would seem domestic companies are doing a better job skirting US taxes than foreign ones.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/eco...ate_taxes/

Quote:My guess, too. There are ways around that. Pull an Anheuser-Busch and get bought by a foreign company. Or do a complete spin-off of the foreign subs (not without a tax price, but a far cheaper one than going forward as a US-based company). What operations remain in the US cannot remain competitive and will eventaully go bankrupt.

And if you close those avenues, then companies will be trapped in a non-competitve situation. They will simply all go bankrupt becasue there will be no way to avoid it.

An Anheuser Busch getting bought out does nothing to skirt the tax breaks (ideally, a rise in taxes with an exemption for companies who manufacture here) I would propose. Foreign corporations are taxed at the same rate as domestic corporations, and when the corporation, foreign or domestic, moves jobs to the US, they get the same tax break. Now getting bought out by a foreign corporation probably means you're no longer being taxed on sales to say, Ireland, but that's not a way around my "build plants here for tax breaks" plan. Same goes for the spinoffs. In fact, not only can we get domestic companies to manufacture here but we can get foreign companies to move plants here.

Our consumer market is a huge card for us to play and it's foolish not to exercise this leverage. Companies around the world, no matter their location, sell primarily to Americans and every trade or business conducted here is within our taxing jurisdiction. It makes sense to manufacture near their target markets for logistics and PR/marketing purposes, and we can further incentivize their doing so using the tax system. We can have jobs and have those jobs pay liveable wages too. Yes we can!

Quote:Max, how would you react if you were told that as a lawyer you could earn no more than 40k...because that is what's fair. Would you still want to be a lawyer? How could future attorneys afford to pay for school earning that income? Who would want to be a lawyer? Society values craftsmen more than attorneys so we'll pay carpenters 75k...

I think your share of the wealth should be capped at 40k....

Thats, what do you call it again? A strawman? I never said anything about capping anybody's earnings. I want to tax progressively.

Quote:If Donald Trump didn't exist, how many jobs would never have been created? Take this all the way down to the people who sell things to the people with those jobs and then some. If Trump had to give a huge percentage of his corp and personal income to the government, would the government have created to same high paying, tax paying jobs Trump did?

God, Donald Trump is a terrible example because his casinos ruin lives, and many of the people working for him don't get paid because his ventures keep going bankrupt. But more to the point, yes, the government distributing money to the poor and middle class helps the economy and creates jobs because those people spend a greater percentage of what they earn on consumption which is the primary driver of demand (Consumer demand makes up 70 percent of the US economy), which leads to creation and expansion of businesses to meet that demand.

Quote:Better question, Max, what if your income as a lawyer here was capped at $40K, but you could earn an unlimited amount anywhere else in the world. Would you stay here? How many of your colleagues do you believe would stay here? Be honest.

Republicans miss the point on this whole issue. People are not going to stop earning because taxes are too high. But they will find ways to earn under conditions where taxes are lower. And unless they all do it the way Mitt Romney has done, that can only mean a mass exodus of jobs and economic activity and wealth. The left insists that won't happen. But it is happening now.

Again, I'm not arguing for caps. But to answer your question $40k isn't all that comfortable but it would take a lot for me to leave my friends and family. I'd say if I was convinced I could make $150k in Canada or $200k in western Europe, I'd go there. And I'd rather stay here and make $40k than work in any 3rd world country for any salary. If you raise the cap to $100k though I'd stay here no matter what. That number would probably rise dramatically though after I got kids. Anyway, no it's not all about the almighty dollar for me and I think that's true for most people. Corporations are different because they're profit machines, so we have to speak their language ($$$).

Quote:Max, is it fair that my grandparents planted an apple tree and now I get to eat the apples long after they're gone? Would you have some apple regulator oversee the apple tree, give me an allotment of apples and take the rest away to give to people who had nothing to do with the tree?

The person born to a crack mother plays the hand he's dealt, just like the rest of us. Don't hold me responsible for the decisions of others that I played absolutely no part in.

Well it seems kind of ridiculous to go to that trouble for one apple tree, but if it were practical, yes I'd make you share.

Someone has to be held responsible for the decisions of the crack addicted mother. You would give 100% of the responsibility to the child and tell him to play the hand he was dealt? Or would you spread the responsibility out across society so that we can all chip in 0.00001% to ease his burden? Why not?