Iâll try to delineate my response since the both of you raised quite a lot.
I don't know. The typical rich generally give people jobs; you know, a paycheck.
That paycheck is disproportionately smaller than the profit that company and its stakeholders are making from that very workforce. Iâm not saying you canât make a profit in business (in fact, you must), but when itâs disproportionately too large compared to what youâre paying your employees, the gap between classes widens, and owners get richer and laborers get poorer. Sure, the laborers feel theyâre doing well: they have decent paying jobs and are happy to not be unemployed given the unemployment rates these days (to take the example a little further). But what the laborers donât realize is that the profit margin of the company for which they work is so large they are actually diminishing their relative wealth working for said company. In the long run, the workers lose. You know, the whole âthe rich get richer and the poor get poorerâ facet of the American Dream that no one likes to talk about.
Forcing people to share is unfair. In fact, forcing people to be fair by manipulating and taking their property is unfair.
Itâs all relative. If you value life (not just yours and your familyâs, but strangersâ), then itâs more unfair to allow others to suffer than it is to force people to share what they have too much of. There are reasons why the fable of Robin Hood is so well loved.
You're assuming that they only way to be rich is to take advantage of others. This is an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant statement to make.
Mutually beneficial transactions are only one small facet of the way in which the economy works. Most transactions are not mutually beneficial. Since the cost of products and services is the same throughout all classes, the value of these products and services differ for each class. The easiest way for someone to get richer in the economy weâve structured, is for someone else to get poorer. Plain and simple. It is not a Zero Sum per se, but the relative growth in wealth for both sides is not proportional either, like it seems youâre implying it can be. The relative increase in the workers' wealth compared to the ownersâ wealth diverges. Not everyone can be rich. Thatâs the idea it seems youâre implying. That somehow, something comes from nothing. This is clearly not true.
Let's say you want a pair of shoes. You have 100 dollars on you. You see a pair of shoes that you want. You buy the shoes for 20 dollars. To you, the shoes were worth more than your 20 dollars, otherwise you wouldn't have made the trade. You leave with a pair of shoes, the rich man leaves with 20 more dollars. The rich made money without having to screw over someone's life.
This is an extremely over-simplified view on how the economy works. It assumes everyone values that $20 the same, or even has the $100 you presuppose.
I made no such assumption or assertion. I simply stated that I personally have not been able to understand why someone, unless they are in some way jealousâ¦
That is exactly what you were insinuating, or else youâd not even have said it. Why even bring up jealousy at all then? People who call âjealouslyâ are often the jealous ones: projection, they call it psychological circles.
⦠blatantly stereotypical, vaguely bigoted, and grossly misinformed statements about someone simply because of their income.
Wow, you have a penchant for exaggeration. I bet you sell used cars for a living. (thatâs a joke used to illustrate a point) ⦠There: now you have your âblatantly stereotypical, vaguely bigoted, and grossly misinformed statementâ that you want to pin on me. Everything I said earlier was true, just not sugar-coated. Iâve not said anything like what youâve alleged, except the statement directly above, assuming youâre a used car salesman based on your word usage, to show you just what a statement like youâre accusing me of saying is actually like.
And then you go on stating that wealthy people live in 'wasteful opulence'. How do you know? Do you know all wealthy people, or even a large amount of them?
You canât be that naïve. Itâs so easy to find multiple examples of the rich living in wasteful opulence. Do you remember the TV show Robin Leachâs Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous? If not, go watch a few episodes: youâll see exactly what Iâm saying about the super richâs need for unnecessary luxury and extravagance. There is a more recent show similar to the one I've mentioned called Cribs. I think they both do well to show what I'm talking about.
Furthermore being upper middle class, as you say you are, in America means that you are part of the MOST WASTEFUL category of citizen in the world.
Really, is there a need to SCREAM your point? Use of caps is unneeded, I can read just fine. If you need to emphasize, try bolded characters instead. And you say Iâm the one being emotional?
I pay every penny of my taxes, with pleasure. I donât live in America: I happen to live in a country where I can more readily see my tax dollars going to good use, and so Iâm glad to pay them. Those committing tax evasion and worse to secure their wealth for themselves are the âMOST WASTEFULâ category of citizen on the planet. My bathroom faucets donât cost your whole familyâs yearly income. That would be a waste. There is absolutely no way to justify that. I donât care what anyone says. Your use of the word âwasteâ seems to revolve more around the excessive refuse, trash, garbage the US upper-middle class generates, not the waste of useless extravagance Iâm talking about.
⦠people who have money tend to spend it accordingly.
Thereâs no way you actually believe that, right? There is absolutely no way to justify extreme luxury as appropriate expenditures. No way.
Increasing the initial taxes on these people decreases the amount they can put directly into the private sector which is detrimental to the national economy.
Actually, it has the opposite effect. The disproporitonality of relative growth in wealth between the workers and owners of which I mentioned earlier is somewhat alleviated, because the relative growth curves are forced to diverge less quickly. It brings the classes closer together, which is what weâre trying to do, right?
I understand that there are many different ideas as to what approach would be most beneficial to our nation and our economy regarding how citizens are taxed, who pays how much, and even what businesses and organizations should or should not be taxed.
Of course, itâs what weâre debating.
I personally don't subscribe to the idea (that you seem to, as stated in your post) that people should pay more to the government because they make moreâ¦
Well, I think itâs one of the better ways to rebalance our society. Tax according to income, and Net Worth as well. Or, and as ludicrous as it sounds, remove all cash from the system and role out the use of a credits-only economy, and charge each class proportionate to their income and Net Worth for the same goods and services everyone uses, so that the same value is lost to everyone all the time. Maybe not the same value, but at least similar. Those shoes (from NoNameC68âs example) would not be such a loose call if they cost proportionately a similar amount as for people close to, or under, the poverty line.
Honestly I'd like to see one bit of evidence to support your bigotry toward the wealthy, because from here it likes blind speculation and emotional ranting.
For a visual representation of âwasteful opulenceâ, seek out some of the episodes of the shows I referenced. Thereâs such a thing as enjoying success, and then thereâs ridiculous extravagance. The former is great; the latter has been one of our societyâs downfalls from time immemorial.
You have made some very derogatory assertions which are not grounded in reality, and if that's really the route you are going to keep going with discussion then it's probably best if you stop while you're ahead.
My comments are all statements of personal observation. Youâve called me a bigot. Youâre the one being derogatory, imo. Iâve not made any âderogatory assertionsâ at all. If youâre talking about my statement about the rich living in wasteful opulence: itâs true. Not for everyone rich, but many, too many. If youâre talking about my saying the rich typically horde their riches: itâs true. How else do you think they stay rich? Why else do they hire the best accountants and tax attorneys affordable to keep Uncle Samâs hand out of their pockets? If youâre talking about my saying you remind me of my daughter calling her friend âjealousâ, itâs because itâs true. Only the immature scream âu jellyâ as a means of exalting themselves and putting down others.
And what do you mean âstop while youâre aheadâ? Ahead in what? Is this a threat? Weâre not competing here, just debating. Iâm just trying to share my opinion on the OP. Is this not a forum for free exchange of ideas?
Look, letâs just agree to disagree, ok? Thatâs the only way this debate will end, since weâre all steadfast in our opinions. Out of respect for your positions as mods on this site, Iâll let you both have the last comment. I wonât respond to them. Iâve already said what I have to say. Iâm done now.
