Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

George, I want to come back to something we sort of skimmed over earlier. I was hoping to get some insight into whether it's the pure fact of income inequality that you think is wrong, or is it that you think that, in the current state of things, most of that income inequality isn't legitimate. Do you, in fact, think there is such a thing as legitimate income inequality?

It seems like these questions must be answered before we can address whether there is a problem and how we might fix it if there is.

I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.

There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.

And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is less subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a more convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.

What are your markets "free" of?
Undue democratic regulations or the undue monopolistic influence of the richest 0.01% of humanity?

"Social credit is an interdisciplinary distributive philosophy developed by C. H. Douglas (1879–1952), a British engineer, who wrote a book by that name in 1924. It encompasses the fields of economics, political science, history, accounting, and physics.

"Its policies are designed, according to Douglas, to disperse economic and political power to individuals.

"Douglas wrote, 'Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self-development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic.'"

 

[dblack]

I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.

There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.

And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is less subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a more convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.

What are your markets "free" of?
Undue democratic regulations or the undue monopolistic influence of the richest 0.01% of humanity?

Coercion.

It's not a just means of distributing economic power in my view, regardless of whether it represents the will of the majority. In the end, it's more likely to produce the kind of undue inequities we want to prevent.

 

[georgephillip]

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.

Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.


I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.

taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue

Only ignorant trolls missed how the US spent its way to prosperity between 1941-45.
Command Economy maybe?
Why do you have problems with the words TOTAL REVENUES for the 1980s, which, of course, includes Corporate Ronnie's spike in FICA taxes which essentially shifted the tax burden from the richest individuals to actual workers. I suppose those ethically challenged enough to conflate tax hikes for the majority and tax cuts for the minority might be retarded enough to actually believe TOTAL REVENUE increases in the 80s came from tax cuts.

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

 

[Bombur]

Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
Show me.

Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.

higher capital-gains taxes only inhibits the capital holders from budging from where they are now... and mebbe moving their money into areas that can create appreciable economic growth...

bujt I 'spect you're too dense to understand what I'm talking about...

Taxes on labor impact the labor market too.

Last I checked the labor market has been having issues for decades and the capital market has been fine.

 

[Bombur]

Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
Show me.

Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.

The government already had one bite at that apple( Capital gains).
I've heard this music before. You flaming libs are incensed that you cannot get your sticky hands on capital gains income.
Why is it you feel entitled to take from people that which you have no right?

Labor faces multiple layers of taxation too.

If your main complaint is with the corp tax then have at it. I am not a fan of it myself.

 

[asaratis]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Do you have any grasp whatsoever on the history of civilization? We have come from the days of Royal Families and tax -paying serfs to the day that a black community organizer can be elected President.

You want income equality? You want communism!

You want to see what communism does to a country? Look at Cuba and North Korea.

Democracy and capitalism have created the Middle Class, those hardworking people who strive to be rich by employing the poor and paying them for their WORK.

Take away the incentive (profits of capitalism) and you regress to serfdom, widespread poverty and starvation.

Your ideology is flawed.

 

[Bombur]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Do you have any grasp whatsoever on the history of civilization? We have come from the days of Royal Families and tax -paying serfs to the day that a black community organizer can be elected President.

You want income equality? You want communism!

You want to see what communism does to a country? Look at Cuba and North Korea.

Democracy and capitalism have created the Middle Class, those hardworking people who strive to be rich by employing the poor and paying them for their WORK.

Take away the incentive (profits of capitalism) and you regress to serfdom, widespread poverty and starvation.

Your ideology is flawed.

Capitalism has been great because it moved us away from a system where those who owned the means of production had all the power. Capitalism can move us back to that reality if we are not careful. Capitalism has no intent and no guarantees and people will rise up against it if they feel they are getting a raw deal.

 

[gipper]

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.

Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.


I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.

taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue

Only ignorant trolls missed how the US spent its way to prosperity between 1941-45.
Command Economy maybe?
Why do you have problems with the words TOTAL REVENUES for the 1980s, which, of course, includes Corporate Ronnie's spike in FICA taxes which essentially shifted the tax burden from the richest individuals to actual workers. I suppose those ethically challenged enough to conflate tax hikes for the majority and tax cuts for the minority might be retarded enough to actually believe TOTAL REVENUE increases in the 80s came from tax cuts.

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

Here is another book you should consider reading.

Whether it’s Michael Moore or the New York Times, Hollywood or academia, a growing segment in America is waging a war on capitalism. We hear that greedy plutocrats exploit the American public; that capitalism harms consumers, the working class, and the environment; that the government needs to rein in capitalism; and on and on. Anticapitalist critiques have only grown more fevered in the wake of corporate scandals like Enron and WorldCom. Indeed, the 2004 presidential campaign has brought frequent calls to re-regulate the American economy.

But the anticapitalist arguments are pure bunk, as Thomas J. DiLorenzo reveals in How Capitalism Saved America. DiLorenzo, a professor of economics, shows how capitalism has made America the most prosperous nation on earth—and how the sort of government regulation that politicians and pundits endorse has hindered economic growth, caused higher unemployment, raised prices, and created many other problems. He propels the reader along with a fresh and compelling look at critical events in American history—covering everything from the Pilgrims to Bill Gates.

 

[RKMBrown]

"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.

Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.

I could've sworn remembering tax revenue skyrocketing.

What do you remember about the FICA tax rate in the 1980s?

FICA tax is not Income Tax. Two different animals so not even remotely associated with the issue being discussed. With regard to SS we didn't have many choices the prior generations had already screwed future generations so the rates had to go up for that system to pay for the retired folks to get their discounted SS checks.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.

Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.


I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.

taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue

Only ignorant trolls missed how the US spent its way to prosperity between 1941-45.
Command Economy maybe?
Why do you have problems with the words TOTAL REVENUES for the 1980s, which, of course, includes Corporate Ronnie's spike in FICA taxes which essentially shifted the tax burden from the richest individuals to actual workers. I suppose those ethically challenged enough to conflate tax hikes for the majority and tax cuts for the minority might be retarded enough to actually believe TOTAL REVENUE increases in the 80s came from tax cuts.

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

You are confused. Your teachers failed you in a serious way. WWII saw the destruction of European production. American production benefited from said destruction. It was a world war economy in which we benefited economically. Giving credit for said benefits to the economic policy is ludicrous. Any policy would have worked.

 

[Darkwind]

And yet, not a one of you bastards can come up with a better system.

 

[ilia25]

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.

Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.


I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.

taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue

Look at your chart again. It is truncated to demonstrate your point, but even so it shows that revenues had dropped once the taxes were cut and remained depressed ever since -- they never returned to the pre-Reagan trend.

Yes the tax revenues eventually started to rise thanks to inflation and growing economy. But they remained lower than they would be if not for the tax cuts. And that lead to the biggest expansion in government deficit in the post-war history.

BTW, it was George H. W. Bush who called it voodoo economics, and it turned out this way.

 

[RKMBrown]

Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
Show me.

Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.

Poor people with capital gains pay the same rate, but don't let the facts spoil your rant.

Effective is one of those "adjectives" that libtards like to use to show how life isn't fair. First they argue for progressive income taxes and vote for separate taxes for different types of income. Then they argue what they built sucks because it means not everyone pays the same tax rates on all types of income. It's nutz. I don't think it's possible to please a libtard. We could give them all of everyone assets and income and they would still bitch it's not enough.

 

[Bombur]

Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.

Poor people with capital gains pay the same rate, but don't let the facts spoil your rant.

Effective is one of those "adjectives" that libtards like to use to show how life isn't fair. First they argue for progressive income taxes and vote for separate taxes for different types of income. Then they argue what they built sucks because it means not everyone pays the same tax rates on all types of income. It's nutz. I don't think it's possible to please a libtard. We could give them all of everyone assets and income and they would still bitch it's not enough.

People use the term "effective" rate because stupid people often assume the highest marginal rate is the effective rate.

 

[Doubletap]

“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. ”
― Ayn Rand

 

[RKMBrown]

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.

Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.


I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.

taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue

Look at your chart again. It is truncated to demonstrate your point, but even so it shows that revenues had dropped once the taxes were cut and remained depressed ever since -- they never returned to the pre-Reagan trend.

Yes the tax revenues eventually started to rise thanks to inflation and growing economy. But they remained lower than they would be if not for the tax cuts. And that lead to the biggest expansion in government deficit in the post-war history.

BTW, it was George H. W. Bush who called it voodoo economics, and it turned out this way.

Uhmmm the chart says "inflation adjusted." It's on the frigging chart. Thus takes into effect inflation. Thus does not show inflation. It shows increase in revenue in spite of inflation not because of inflation. The chart shows revenue going up as tax rates go down. Duh.

Granted that does not necessarily mean revenue went up "because" rates went down.

The mistake libtards, like you, make is not understanding that humans are good at avoiding high tax rates.

 

[Indeependent]

“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. ”
― Ayn Rand

I agree...disband our military...NOW!

 

[Bombur]

“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. ”
― Ayn Rand

I agree...disband our military...NOW!

Ayn Rand is great for horribly stupid quotes. Hopefully he posts some more. How about that one about owning the sweat off your brow or whatever.

 

[Indeependent]

“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. ”
― Ayn Rand

I agree...disband our military...NOW!

Ayn Rand is great for horribly stupid quotes. Hopefully he posts some more. How about that one about owning the sweat off your brow or whatever.

There's nothing more dangerous than a Jewish atheist.

 

[RKMBrown]

“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. ”
― Ayn Rand

I agree...disband our military...NOW!

Why disband our military? Some force is required to defend the country, dumb ass.