Hike Taxes, Hemorrhage Jobs

Just more proof of your abysmal reading comprehension.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL Poor Arthur, when all else fails drag out the personal attacks. You are so predictable.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The facts are you got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth again. You cannot have it both ways.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Liberty, that's a good thing surely.
You can do whatever you wish so long as you don't interfere with others doing as they wish.
But what if you can't do as you wish?
What if you are from a group of people who are disadvantaged by lack of education, decent housing, good parenting etc etc
Isn't it the duty of people with money to use their wealth so that everyone can be more free, or is liberty only about yourself?

So Steve Jobs left a Billion dollars.
Shame on him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then you advantage yourself by taking advantage of our free education, housing subsidies, food stamps, WIC programs etc.

Liberty means doing what you see fit and letting others do what they see fit. It is not supporting others to enforce a social agenda.

How much have you contributed so far?

 

Exactly, so as the kingpin of morality it is deficient.
It is only one of the things that make for the good life.

All those aids to help the poor are part of a social agenda.
They don't spring from strict Libertarianism.

 

I definitely don't think that liberty is the center of morality from which all other morality flows. It's just a desirable goal of citizens under a given government.

Agreed. "Strict Libertarianism" (actually "strict anything") is generally a bad idea.

 

Why do people around here keep using that term? It makes them sound like doddering old grandmothers.

Well, I'm convinced.

The subject wasn't "millionaires" as such. It was millionaire artists/designer/whatevers.

The implication that artists who are employed make money misses the point by several miles.

The starving artists are necessarily the ones who are not employed. Unemployment amongst artists is drastically higher than among comparably educated workers generally, despite the fact that they are leaving the arts in droves in the current recession because they can't support themselves.

 

The USA has the largest manufacturing output in the world.

On a per-capita basis, American manufacturing output outstrips that of China by a factor of 6 ( http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009104319/g20-manufacturing-output-capita ).

Your narrative might have held some water back in the 1970's or early 1980's, but by now we've already shuttered all of the crappy old factories, and replaced them with highly-automated high-value production. That's why the average salary of a factory worker in the US has exploded even as the manufacturing workforce has plunged - they're all highly-trained robotics specialists now. For example, Pittsburgh currently produces more steel than ever before - it just doesn't employ many people to do so (the nasty smoke and pollution is also gone), although it does employ a lot of people in the upstream- and downstream-steel-related industries. More generally, the entire world steel industry has seen a massive drop in employment over the past decades, even as steel output has exploded - it's an issue of technology, not location.

What's moved to Asia are manufacturing jobs, not manufacturing output. This is because only low-value-added, ultra-cheap manufacturing is labor-intensive these days. If you want to build something that would justify the costs of operating in the USA, you'll build high-value-added stuff that uses tons of advanced automation and very little human labor.

China stocks the shelves at Wal-Mart with sweatshop labor, while the USA has buildings full of custom robots building things like jetliners and gas turbines - and you say that the advantage in manufacturing technology is in China? China's advantage is very low labor costs, lack of environmental regulations, and currency manipulation, not technology.

 

Grandmothers? Lord have mercy.
Whoever uses that kind of cockamamie hifaluting language?
You mean Gramsters.

 

Yes he does and he contines on to say "forced labor is slavery" but that is nonsense.

A slave can not move to some other land but one being taxed can. If you continue to live in some country* you have accepted Rousseau's Social Contract. I.e. for being protected from abuse by those stronger you give up some of you hours of labor. I.e. you accept obligation to pay some "forced labor" if that is what you want to call taxation. If all receive the same protection from the state (as state's part of the Social Contract) then all owe the state the same number of their hours of labor.

In the case of Bill Gates, whose 40 billion wealth works out to an income of $150 per second** earned (calculation assumed he worked 14 hours per day since starting to invent Microsoft in a garage) 1% of his annual labor taken under the social contract is 0.01x150x365x24x60x60 = $47,304,000 but Bill Gate's fortune being protected by US laws is much greater benefit than Typical Joe American gets. Think in terms of how much both would need to pay a private insurance company to restore their wealth if it were stolen.

Thus it is far from slavery (as professor Sandel foolish argues) if Bill Gate is taxed even a million dollars per year - he still is not pay as much in his "confiscated time," his "forced labor," his "taxation" as Joe American does in his taxes.

What everyone has is a right to his own life, his own hours, his own labor, except each and all owe at least the same fraction of their life under Rousseau's Social Contract, if they CHOOSE to remain under that government's protection, laws, etc. If they don't like paying their Social Contract dues / fees - leave.

*Assuming you can leave. I will agree that the people held in East Germany behind the wall and killed for attempting to leave were slaves of the state.

** Professor Sandel noted that it is economically foolish for Bill Gates to spend his day picking up an unlimired supply of $100 bills for example blown around by the wind in field

 

Yes, but just because there is a current recession doesn't mean they will die penniless though, the fact is you exaggerate to make a point, but your basic point is meaningless since clearly artists can make a decent income in the US, indeed I suspect every "fact" you have spouted you have just made up.

You know, the posting equivilent of horsepucky.

 

Unlike the part where you cited Yo Yo Ma and various millionaire fashion designers as representative of artist income in the USA. That was a totally understated, statistically-valid bit of information, with no exaggeration to the point of fallacy done for cheap rhetorical value. Such being, obviously, far beneath the likes of adoucette. As we see routinely around here.

Interesting - if $50k is "a decent income" now (and we note that many of those art/design/fashion jobs are in expensive cities), then you must be implying that $200k+ is a very high income. "Rich," even.

Good for you.

Gosh Darned Horsepuckey! Shut the front door! Rats! Shoot!

Now git off my lawn, you danged whippersnappers!

 

OMG! You can't really believe that. You're just kidding, right? :huh:

 

Except, that's a total Strawman of your making since that wasn't stated as being representative of artist income in the USA now was it?

I specifically used it to rebut Joe's claim that "the best ones are the ones who really enjoy what they do and are not in it for the money. They are in it because they love what they do. ”

But clearly, as the supplied link shows, the best ones usually do turn being the best into a pile of money.

It is decent enough to rebut your "millions die penniless" nonsense.

And Median annual earnings of salaried multi-media artists and animators were $50,360 in May 2004. The middle 50 percent earned between $37,980 and $70,730, which shows that the more skilled you are the higher your salary is, which typically comes with age, which is why the highest 10 percent earned more than $94,260.

So yeah, that's a decent income over time.

And if you are finally making $200k after 40 years of work (salaries typically rise with experience you know) you would not be considered rich, since most of your working years were likely at far lower salaries.

Arthur

 

Well at a return of 5% on his money, taxed at current CG rates, that would actually be $300 million per year.

Arthur

 

A rash judgement, which I withdraw.
Possibly he has left a large proportion of his wealth to some foundation.
I do feel however that the engine of the economy benefits by wealth being recirculated rather than accumulated.

Some very wealthy people are now taking the step of using their wealth during their lives.
Maybe Jobs would have done so as well, had he not died prematurely.

 

Steve Jobs created jobs and his wife is involved in improving education. She feels that “to whom much is given, much is expected.” We should be able to choose, if and how we wish to share our wealth. Is our government more capable of managing and redistributing wealth? I don't think so.

Here is a quote from this topic in numerous forums “Does an Intellectual Life Endanger Peace of Mind?”

Maybe in this case we should model the altruistic behavior of the vampire bat. They remember those who do not return the favor.

Do Rousseau’s ideas even contain any sort of unifying locus at all? His work is very contradicting. Is he a socialist, an individualist or something else? We surrender to laws that we establish for our own protection of our liberties, not to have them violated by the majority. Rousseau felt that if people are informed they could always make the best choice for themselves. Is the majority well informed? I don't think so.

Do you believe that the individual matters? Do we have the right to own personal property, which others may be denied the use of? Does the majority trump the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property? Are “WE THE PEOPLE” analogous to a thug gang? Why didn’t this thug gang take down those evil, rich capitalists long ago? Obviously, they provided so much prosperity that the worker was living better than he ever had before. You make it sound as if the rich do not contribute or give back to society at all.

Let’s flip it around. If the majority wants the right to an individuals “justly” acquired property, can that individual then ask, if the needs of the less fortunate are legitimate? Do they try to educate themselves? Do they work hard? Are they penny-wise? Do they do drugs, commit crimes, continually make poor choices, etc. Will they give back to society?

Do you feel that this “eat the rich” mentality is a higher intellectual and moral plain? Without using logic and reason, it really boils down to your own expectations, self-image, and desires than fulfilling a real need. People traveling down this path and pushing their weight around are only disguising themselves with touchy-feely political correctness. Another term for this behavior is “idiot compassion”. It only adds fire to the “us and them” mentality, which inhibits genuine compassion at its core.

 

Where do you think people like Jobs keep their money?

Hint, not under their mattress.

They invest it (and even if they give it to a foundation, the foundation invests it while waiting fo use it).

Their investments put the money back into circulation.

Of course they also build nice homes, and thus pay substantial property taxes.
Of course they also spend it on things, and thus support those who make the things they buy.

Arthur

 

Embeded in this is the spore of your mistake. No one is questioning the right of Jobs or his family to dispose of his wealth. The right of an individual do dispose of their wealth is not the issue, although conservatives/Republicans would have us believe it is. The question is what is what portion of the cost of government should be born by people like Jobs?

Jobs would not be wealthy were it not for the benefits this society and this government afforded him. Government services are not free though some people seem to think they should be. The question is how should the expense of government be paid and who should pay them.

Two, a capitalist society works best when you have a large group competing for good and services. Society needs competition in order to be efffecient and effective. When you have large quantites of capital tied up in the hands of the few, there is no longer a need to compete. You have the monopoly senario play out. And in those times governement, can play a valuable roll in capital redistribution and keeping society productive and efficient.

We have been there and done all of this before. It was called The Industrial Revolution and the age of the Robber Barrons. The most prosperious time man has known has been in a system in which government does redistribute income and actively manage the money supply and economy - the post Great Depression era.

Sure the individual matters. That is one reason we have a Bill of Rights. But it does not mean the individual gets to do whatever he or she wants. We do need laws to govern our collective behavior. And we do need to pay our collective expenses. And the founders of this country recognized that fact. That is why they created the Constitution.

The question here is how do we make the best of our capitalist economy? What we have right now is a capital clot. Trillions of dollars are sitting in bank accounts and not being invested in the economy leading to a demand shortage. History has shown us that this is the time government needs to intervene and spend to get capital flowing through the economy again - increasing demand and restoring competition and capitalistic effeciency.

No one is or has said the wealthy do not contribute to society. No one is saying capitalists are evil or bad. That is just right wing hyperbole/nonsense.

Again you are creating straw man arguements and missing the point. There is a cost to government. And government does provide a service to entrepeneurs and individuals - to the wealthy and the poor. The real questions are what should be cost of government be and who should pay for it?

 

Our Constitution pretty clearly spells out what sort of wealth redistribution the government can do. Choosing a country with a different Constitution would be a good option if you disagree with the principles in that document.

Of course. You can ask anything you wish.

Nope. But there is no "eat the rich" plan so the question is sort of pointless. It's like asking if you think your "kill the poor" plan is morally supportable.

Taxation is an ugly fact of life. Progressive taxation was implemented so the government could be supported with minimal overall impact to quality of life and the economy in general. That is a good goal, one that is largely accomplished by progressive taxation.