Collective wealth leads to collective well-being

[beagle9]

This is my first attempt at creating a thread and I wasn't sure if this belongs in Politics or not but since the topic hits on several political issues of today I think it's probably fitting. To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society. That investment (taxes) would yield benefits like "free" medical care, dental care, education, maternity/paternity leaves, pre-k, among other benefits and programs provided for all citizens while also reducing the uncertainty millions of American feel everyday around these topics, the risk that millions of Americans take everyday for these topics, the lack of mobility and the the anxiety and stress that millions of Americans are under because of these issues. Reduced stress, reduced fear, reduced individual risk, reduced inequity in turn yields increased happiness, increased hope, increased societal investment, and increased collective well-being. There is a lot of detail that would go into taxation and what constitutes as "free" but that's something i'm open to discussing as this evolves.

People will often view higher taxes as a burden, and will also view higher taxes that would go towards increased government provided programs as socialist, however, if all citizens and companies truly contribute towards these programs and social programs by using the wealth we all create then it should be viewed as an investment, not a burden in my opinion. You are investing in the collective well-being of all people, including yourself, and if we are all contributing, if we are all putting our money into the effort, if we are all sacrificing a greater percentage of our personal gain for the greater collective good then what you end up with is a shared system that in essence purchases quality of life. No system is perfect, but closing the gap, creating a society that views success as something to share and not hoard, and putting the good of the many above the individual is in my opinion something to work towards.

Grace, I'm going to ask you the same question I ask all people who advocate collectivism. Why not let the individual be free and succeed and target aid to those who cannot help themselves? Instead of putting the government in charge of everything, and having everyone in social programs, why not specifically target those who actually need help? I get that you are going for a compassionate society, but allowing individuals to succeed in no way means that we can not help those who need it. Individualism does not mean society cannot be compassionate. It actually creates the means to help more people than collectivism could ever dream of.

Having to actually have a conversation like this in America now, uh is simply amazing because it shows just how far we have been dragged towards this bullcrap idea about collectivism.

The government feeling as if it has to intervene on behalf of people who act most of the time as if they just can't do it, and then we find out that they intentionally won't do it or have other ideas about how things should be in their world, has purdy much destroyed our upward mobility, and our modernization of the nation by way of our freedom of thought process being destroyed, and by our individualism being destroyed, thus disabling it to flourish in our society.

Conning our society to except this bullcrap collectivism is just that "A CON JOB".

 

[georgephillip]

Corporate taxation is DOUBLE taxation.

So WHAT?
Corporations are citizens, right?
Shareholders are citizens.
ALL citizens have an obligation to fund the government that makes their liberty possible.

 

[georgephillip]

Milton Friedman is a hero to me, just so you know. He was one of the greatest economic minds EVER!!!

I'm not surprised you're a fan of fascists.

What's your opinion of Pinochet and the thousands of executions that Milton's "free market" in Chile required?

Milton and Augusto: Can We Have an Efficient Economy AND Civil Liberties?

 

[georgephillip]

Tell me, what is the purpose of a corporation if NOT to maximize profits for shareholders? (this should be fun)

"WASHINGTON – Business Roundtable today announced the release of a new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation signed by 181 CEOs who commit to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders."

Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans’

 

[Mac-7]

but bernie bots like the one who started this thread are true socialists who just want other peoples wealth and dont care about the source

socialism kills innovation and economic growth

Capitalists believe incentive comes from the profit motive, i.e., the extraction of surplus value from workers for personal, material gain.

Profit doesn't have the same meaning in a socialist society because the exploitation that produces private fortunes is replaced by cooperation.

One works for the good of the community instead of oneself.

https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/governance/mission-vision-and-values/

Profit Incentive replaced by lethargy and lack of progress

 

[beagle9]

Anyone crying racism or throwing the race card willy nilly, and doing so as a way to gain votes or support by that method (i.e.constantly yelling fire in a crowded theater), should be investigated, and then locked up immediately if found to be insighting riots, violence or chaos as a result of dirty politicing. This lying race card bullcrap needs to stop, and this nation should act against people like Biden and/or anyone else who uses this method to stir up votes that are based on lies and inuendo's. The Democrats are operating in the lowest form of the lowest standards just to win an election. It's sickening, and consequences should come in the appropriate manors if found guilty of such mischievous mischief.

If Trump, the Republicans or even Democrat's (whether in congress or other), do see it as being wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater, and yet they just sit back and let it go on, then they are all just as corrupt as the next guy or gal is. Time to recognize this bullcrap everytime it happens, and stop it in it's tracks. Enough of the dirty corrupt politics already. We the people are sick of it all.

Collectivism makes it easier to be exploited in these ways, and it is the very reason why this nation has operated in the way that it has for centuries to avoid such a problem.

Joe and his race card throwing is a great example of how a nation is not suppose to be run or act.

Trump 2020.. MAGA.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

3. It's not about redistribution of wealth it's about everybody contributing equally and creating a system that citizens invest in as a society. What he would have to do in exchange would depend on what he is wanting I guess.

They CANT contribute equally because they ARE poor.. That's why we have a graduated income tax where 1/2 the workers pay NOTHING in Fed Income taxes...

If it's NOT redistribution -- then what do want "everyone" to contribute EQUALLY? Time? Money? cheerleading services?

Contributions CANT be equal if it's money... But MAYBE public service, even tho the "poor leading poor" would be a terrible idea...

When I say equally I mean a basic flat % tax of around 25% that all people who have an income would pay and then an additional % of taxes based on your income bracket (foreign income included). Obviously the more you make the higher that rate becomes but I don't agree with the whole 90% tax that some politicians talk about. If you are below a certain income to where you are "poor" then the additional bracket tax wouldn't apply but the flat rate would still apply. The poor pay less overall and the rich pay more overall and so eventually creating a smaller gap between the two in my opinion but still allowing for a relatively high standard of living for all.

If the US could have taxes be upwards to 35%-50% of GDP then that would be a good range in my opinion to work with for more services that all could benefit from through that tax investment, but that means additional taxes for other areas and things such as a higher % of corporate taxes, higher sales tax, higher oil and gas taxes, power plant taxes, and other taxes such as higher capital gains taxes, a wealth tax, and the like.

Again though, Americans would have to ultimately understand that this would be an investment. You would be investing in quality of life for all Americans and would equally take part in the same services as all other Americans since we would all be paying for them. CEOs, doctors, cashiers, engineers, janitors, teachers, florists, managers, government employees, pilots, doesn't matter. We would all invest and pay in and we would all utilize the services. We aren't there yet as a country though in my opinion.

 

[flacaltenn]

What I am mainly focusing on is the aspects of individualism that yields itself to value the success of the individual above all else. That there can only be one winner.

The 1st sentence there is what I just addressed... To fix poverty, you DO most of the time have to change the "individualism" of the afflicted... If you've EVER TRIED to help by coaching GED or working Head Start as I have, you'd understand that.. There needs to be a buy-in from the AFFLICTED individual to work towards better "work preparedness" so that they contribute MORE to society than they take.

The 2nd sentence is a very bad misconception.. Rich people haven't EVER stole anything from me.. Not Bill Gates, not Serena Williams, not my Supermarket chain.. WHO exactly is STEALING from you? Money is NOT LIMITED.. When the economy GROWS, more people benefit. It is NOT a fixed pie for 300 million people to fight over...

The largest employer in the country is SMALL BUSINESS.. That's your hair shop, your gym, your tire store or gas station.. Are THEY stealing from you??? They do what they can to pay fair wages according to the SKILLS of the workforce.. There are some waitresses making MORE than "average" American salaries for instance..

This concept that "there is only one winner" is some kind of bad indoctrination disease that you've gotten from somewhere. Businesses START every day to serve the public.,. And they only start because SOMEONE took the RISK to do that. You don't LIKE RISK... There's that word again.. And some have to fail.. But the WINNERS all have a history of being losers.. But most eventually hit on a good or service that makes them LOTS of money.

I agree about point #1. It's why i've emphasized culture change being vital to these ideas to potentially work.

Your second point is confusing though. I have not mentioned yet in this entire topic anything about rich people stealing, so i'm not sure how that relates to my second sentence which was entered on the attitude that many people have which is that winning is the top priority. As for the "one winner" comment the best example I can give is with sports, and in turn what is taught to millions of children (for this example ages up until puberty) through sports, and that is that there can only be one winner. You play to win. Win at all costs in may cases. If you don't win you lost. If you don't score you are slumping or not trying hard enough. Kids are taught these as values growing up and they contribute to idea that everything is a competition and that you can only succeed if you play to win. They grow up and then apply that same value to business in many ways and in turn teach it to their kids once they become adults.

I use this example because youth sports to me is a great example of how culture can change (in my personal opinion for the better) by making it less about individual achievement but more about collective enjoyment of sport. Same would go for life and business in my opinion after that. A person that is raised to fight and win, to beat the other person, to beat the other business, to see compromise and collaboration as weakness, to see someone less successful and associate their personal value as an American or even as a person to that to me that person is an example of a culture that is hostile to progress and togetherness.

Keep in mind I am not saying that there aren't lazy people or moochers on this planet and in this country, there are, but for many people raised in America if you aren't winning by a certain age or if you see not shot at winning then you have no shot at happiness or success and so what's the point? they give up. It's like how many people here view success and happiness as driving a Mercedes and getting that big title they've worked 20 years for, and that's normal in this country, would you agree? Whereas there are other people, admittedly me, that sees a Mercedes and a big title and it does nothing for me. On a personal note success and happiness to me is my little house, a great husband and cycling partner, my cuddly dog, morning coffee, cool co-workers, and weekly game night with friends. I work at my church and do interior design on the side and my husband has a small business as a carpenter. There are many people in this country that would look at us and wonder why we aren't trying to do more, to move up in our jobs, to grow our business, to get a bigger house, to have two cars instead of sharing our one because as a kid that's what you are taught in most households. Culture starts like that, and that's where it would need to start for the future in my opinion.

When a kid is raised to see something like healthcare as something that affects every American equally and that we are all part of the system and that our health isn't dependent on how much we win in life then you will see changes happen. Participating in our healthcare system through income taxes and sales taxes and so one will be viewed as an investment in our country's future as Americans and not as something that is to be thought of as having money taken from me to pay for slackers. We would be raised to believe that we are all in this together. Yes, I know that sounds naive on the surface, but culture takes time, and we got to our current system because of that too so it's not impossible.

I'm still trying to understand what you mean by "collective caring" in the culture... I asked you if that takes the form of money or time or community service or something else.. You CLAIM this is not forced income or wealth distribution, but as far as I can tell it is...

So I asked you questions above and you responded to the 1st two and maybe we made some progress... But the 3rd was very important to understanding your proposal here..

I pointed out the "money only" for a HS dropout to reach "income equity" would cost about $1.25Mill over that lifetime. And then I asked...

3) What would you REQUIRE of him in exchange for this redistribution? A GED, vocational school, a future clean criminal record, etc???

If it's JUST a culture change -- then ALL participants are gonna bend.. Including the ones who HAVE made poor choices or were just overwhelmed by crappy public education in the worst parts of town... What kind of CULTURAL change would you expect from this individual to pay their "fair share"???

Govt programs ALREADY COME with draconian demands on the participants.. Public housing is the worst.. Granny can get evicted if her Grandson/daughter brings illegal drugs or a gun on the premises for example.. So it's not like the govt is gonna be more flexible or understanding or compassionate.. It's just common sense that we require "cultural change" from EVERYONE... RIGHT???

 

[flacaltenn]

he poor pay less overall and the rich pay more overall and so eventually creating a smaller gap between the two in my opinion but still allowing for a relatively high standard of living for all.

We're already there... The top 5% of wage earners pay about 65% of ALL income tax.. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing.. How much MORE "progressive" can you get???

Who Pays Income Taxes?

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $515,371) paid nearly 39 percent of all income taxes, up slightly from the previous tax year’s 37 percent share. The amount of taxes paid in this percentile is nearly twice as much their adjusted gross income (AGI) load.

The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 70 percent of all income taxes paid – up slightly from 2016 – while half of all tax filers paid 97 percent of all income tax revenue. Indicating the degree of progressivity in the code, the bottom 50 percent of earners took home 11 percent of total nationwide income while owing 3 percent of all income taxes.

Now -- if you're saying the MIDDLE class need to contribute more (and even at 25% most of them WOULD be) -- you're probably right.. Because there's 30 times MORE of them than the 1% at the top and that makes a BIGGER difference than hiking taxes on the 1%....

EVEN WITH a "flat tax" the top 5% would STILL pay the majority of the taxes. And you can see that from the MIDDLE set of bars in the chart... Once income is ADJUSTED and deductions taken, our "progressive tax" structure is pretty flat..

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

What I am mainly focusing on is the aspects of individualism that yields itself to value the success of the individual above all else. That there can only be one winner.

The 1st sentence there is what I just addressed... To fix poverty, you DO most of the time have to change the "individualism" of the afflicted... If you've EVER TRIED to help by coaching GED or working Head Start as I have, you'd understand that.. There needs to be a buy-in from the AFFLICTED individual to work towards better "work preparedness" so that they contribute MORE to society than they take.

The 2nd sentence is a very bad misconception.. Rich people haven't EVER stole anything from me.. Not Bill Gates, not Serena Williams, not my Supermarket chain.. WHO exactly is STEALING from you? Money is NOT LIMITED.. When the economy GROWS, more people benefit. It is NOT a fixed pie for 300 million people to fight over...

The largest employer in the country is SMALL BUSINESS.. That's your hair shop, your gym, your tire store or gas station.. Are THEY stealing from you??? They do what they can to pay fair wages according to the SKILLS of the workforce.. There are some waitresses making MORE than "average" American salaries for instance..

This concept that "there is only one winner" is some kind of bad indoctrination disease that you've gotten from somewhere. Businesses START every day to serve the public.,. And they only start because SOMEONE took the RISK to do that. You don't LIKE RISK... There's that word again.. And some have to fail.. But the WINNERS all have a history of being losers.. But most eventually hit on a good or service that makes them LOTS of money.

I agree about point #1. It's why i've emphasized culture change being vital to these ideas to potentially work.

Your second point is confusing though. I have not mentioned yet in this entire topic anything about rich people stealing, so i'm not sure how that relates to my second sentence which was entered on the attitude that many people have which is that winning is the top priority. As for the "one winner" comment the best example I can give is with sports, and in turn what is taught to millions of children (for this example ages up until puberty) through sports, and that is that there can only be one winner. You play to win. Win at all costs in may cases. If you don't win you lost. If you don't score you are slumping or not trying hard enough. Kids are taught these as values growing up and they contribute to idea that everything is a competition and that you can only succeed if you play to win. They grow up and then apply that same value to business in many ways and in turn teach it to their kids once they become adults.

I use this example because youth sports to me is a great example of how culture can change (in my personal opinion for the better) by making it less about individual achievement but more about collective enjoyment of sport. Same would go for life and business in my opinion after that. A person that is raised to fight and win, to beat the other person, to beat the other business, to see compromise and collaboration as weakness, to see someone less successful and associate their personal value as an American or even as a person to that to me that person is an example of a culture that is hostile to progress and togetherness.

Keep in mind I am not saying that there aren't lazy people or moochers on this planet and in this country, there are, but for many people raised in America if you aren't winning by a certain age or if you see not shot at winning then you have no shot at happiness or success and so what's the point? they give up. It's like how many people here view success and happiness as driving a Mercedes and getting that big title they've worked 20 years for, and that's normal in this country, would you agree? Whereas there are other people, admittedly me, that sees a Mercedes and a big title and it does nothing for me. On a personal note success and happiness to me is my little house, a great husband and cycling partner, my cuddly dog, morning coffee, cool co-workers, and weekly game night with friends. I work at my church and do interior design on the side and my husband has a small business as a carpenter. There are many people in this country that would look at us and wonder why we aren't trying to do more, to move up in our jobs, to grow our business, to get a bigger house, to have two cars instead of sharing our one because as a kid that's what you are taught in most households. Culture starts like that, and that's where it would need to start for the future in my opinion.

When a kid is raised to see something like healthcare as something that affects every American equally and that we are all part of the system and that our health isn't dependent on how much we win in life then you will see changes happen. Participating in our healthcare system through income taxes and sales taxes and so one will be viewed as an investment in our country's future as Americans and not as something that is to be thought of as having money taken from me to pay for slackers. We would be raised to believe that we are all in this together. Yes, I know that sounds naive on the surface, but culture takes time, and we got to our current system because of that too so it's not impossible.

I'm still trying to understand what you mean by "collective caring" in the culture... I asked you if that takes the form of money or time or community service or something else.. You CLAIM this is not forced income or wealth distribution, but as far as I can tell it is...

So I asked you questions above and you responded to the 1st two and maybe we made some progress... But the 3rd was very important to understanding your proposal here..

I pointed out the "money only" for a HS dropout to reach "income equity" would cost about $1.25Mill over that lifetime. And then I asked...

3) What would you REQUIRE of him in exchange for this redistribution? A GED, vocational school, a future clean criminal record, etc???

If it's JUST a culture change -- then ALL participants are gonna bend.. Including the ones who HAVE made poor choices or were just overwhelmed by crappy public education in the worst parts of town... What kind of CULTURAL change would you expect from this individual to pay their "fair share"???

Govt programs ALREADY COME with draconian demands on the participants.. Public housing is the worst.. Granny can get evicted if her Grandson/daughter brings illegal drugs or a gun on the premises for example.. So it's not like the govt is gonna be more flexible or understanding or compassionate.. It's just common sense that we require "cultural change" from EVERYONE... RIGHT???

His requirement would be to contribute in both labor investment and investment through taxation to help pay for the services he and all others would receive. If he contributes, he benefits, otherwise you can't expect to receive without trying to contribute.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

he poor pay less overall and the rich pay more overall and so eventually creating a smaller gap between the two in my opinion but still allowing for a relatively high standard of living for all.

We're already there... The top 5% of wage earners pay about 65% of ALL income tax.. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing.. How much MORE "progressive" can you get???

Who Pays Income Taxes?

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $515,371) paid nearly 39 percent of all income taxes, up slightly from the previous tax year’s 37 percent share. The amount of taxes paid in this percentile is nearly twice as much their adjusted gross income (AGI) load.

The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 70 percent of all income taxes paid – up slightly from 2016 – while half of all tax filers paid 97 percent of all income tax revenue. Indicating the degree of progressivity in the code, the bottom 50 percent of earners took home 11 percent of total nationwide income while owing 3 percent of all income taxes.

Now -- if you're saying your saying the MIDDLE class need to contribute more (and even at 25% most of them WOULD be) -- you're probably right.. Because there's 30 times MORE of them than the 1% at the top and that makes a BIGGER difference than hiking taxes on the 1%....



In the chart above,

Yes I am saying that the middle class would need to contribute more. Upwards to 25% or so. Like I said above in my previous post, all people who earn an income would pay a flat tax rate along with an addition step/progressive tax % in addition to that based on the income bracket.

 

[flacaltenn]

What I am mainly focusing on is the aspects of individualism that yields itself to value the success of the individual above all else. That there can only be one winner.

The 1st sentence there is what I just addressed... To fix poverty, you DO most of the time have to change the "individualism" of the afflicted... If you've EVER TRIED to help by coaching GED or working Head Start as I have, you'd understand that.. There needs to be a buy-in from the AFFLICTED individual to work towards better "work preparedness" so that they contribute MORE to society than they take.

The 2nd sentence is a very bad misconception.. Rich people haven't EVER stole anything from me.. Not Bill Gates, not Serena Williams, not my Supermarket chain.. WHO exactly is STEALING from you? Money is NOT LIMITED.. When the economy GROWS, more people benefit. It is NOT a fixed pie for 300 million people to fight over...

The largest employer in the country is SMALL BUSINESS.. That's your hair shop, your gym, your tire store or gas station.. Are THEY stealing from you??? They do what they can to pay fair wages according to the SKILLS of the workforce.. There are some waitresses making MORE than "average" American salaries for instance..

This concept that "there is only one winner" is some kind of bad indoctrination disease that you've gotten from somewhere. Businesses START every day to serve the public.,. And they only start because SOMEONE took the RISK to do that. You don't LIKE RISK... There's that word again.. And some have to fail.. But the WINNERS all have a history of being losers.. But most eventually hit on a good or service that makes them LOTS of money.

I agree about point #1. It's why i've emphasized culture change being vital to these ideas to potentially work.

Your second point is confusing though. I have not mentioned yet in this entire topic anything about rich people stealing, so i'm not sure how that relates to my second sentence which was entered on the attitude that many people have which is that winning is the top priority. As for the "one winner" comment the best example I can give is with sports, and in turn what is taught to millions of children (for this example ages up until puberty) through sports, and that is that there can only be one winner. You play to win. Win at all costs in may cases. If you don't win you lost. If you don't score you are slumping or not trying hard enough. Kids are taught these as values growing up and they contribute to idea that everything is a competition and that you can only succeed if you play to win. They grow up and then apply that same value to business in many ways and in turn teach it to their kids once they become adults.

I use this example because youth sports to me is a great example of how culture can change (in my personal opinion for the better) by making it less about individual achievement but more about collective enjoyment of sport. Same would go for life and business in my opinion after that. A person that is raised to fight and win, to beat the other person, to beat the other business, to see compromise and collaboration as weakness, to see someone less successful and associate their personal value as an American or even as a person to that to me that person is an example of a culture that is hostile to progress and togetherness.

Keep in mind I am not saying that there aren't lazy people or moochers on this planet and in this country, there are, but for many people raised in America if you aren't winning by a certain age or if you see not shot at winning then you have no shot at happiness or success and so what's the point? they give up. It's like how many people here view success and happiness as driving a Mercedes and getting that big title they've worked 20 years for, and that's normal in this country, would you agree? Whereas there are other people, admittedly me, that sees a Mercedes and a big title and it does nothing for me. On a personal note success and happiness to me is my little house, a great husband and cycling partner, my cuddly dog, morning coffee, cool co-workers, and weekly game night with friends. I work at my church and do interior design on the side and my husband has a small business as a carpenter. There are many people in this country that would look at us and wonder why we aren't trying to do more, to move up in our jobs, to grow our business, to get a bigger house, to have two cars instead of sharing our one because as a kid that's what you are taught in most households. Culture starts like that, and that's where it would need to start for the future in my opinion.

When a kid is raised to see something like healthcare as something that affects every American equally and that we are all part of the system and that our health isn't dependent on how much we win in life then you will see changes happen. Participating in our healthcare system through income taxes and sales taxes and so one will be viewed as an investment in our country's future as Americans and not as something that is to be thought of as having money taken from me to pay for slackers. We would be raised to believe that we are all in this together. Yes, I know that sounds naive on the surface, but culture takes time, and we got to our current system because of that too so it's not impossible.

I'm still trying to understand what you mean by "collective caring" in the culture... I asked you if that takes the form of money or time or community service or something else.. You CLAIM this is not forced income or wealth distribution, but as far as I can tell it is...

So I asked you questions above and you responded to the 1st two and maybe we made some progress... But the 3rd was very important to understanding your proposal here..

I pointed out the "money only" for a HS dropout to reach "income equity" would cost about $1.25Mill over that lifetime. And then I asked...

3) What would you REQUIRE of him in exchange for this redistribution? A GED, vocational school, a future clean criminal record, etc???

If it's JUST a culture change -- then ALL participants are gonna bend.. Including the ones who HAVE made poor choices or were just overwhelmed by crappy public education in the worst parts of town... What kind of CULTURAL change would you expect from this individual to pay their "fair share"???

Govt programs ALREADY COME with draconian demands on the participants.. Public housing is the worst.. Granny can get evicted if her Grandson/daughter brings illegal drugs or a gun on the premises for example.. So it's not like the govt is gonna be more flexible or understanding or compassionate.. It's just common sense that we require "cultural change" from EVERYONE... RIGHT???

His requirement would be to contribute in both labor investment and investment through taxation to help pay for the services he and all others would receive. If he contributes, he benefits, otherwise you can't expect to receive without trying to contribute.

He CAN'T contribute thru taxation because he's gonna end up getting subsidized to SURVIVE.. If not direct money - it would be in the form of Food Stamps or EITC, housing assistance or MediCAID... How you gonna PROMOTE him higher into the job market so HE CAN?????

That's the question... If your aim is to reduce the gap -- tossing money and programs at him doesn't FIX a thing.. It just covers up the problem you set out to solve...

Need to PROMOTE the poor.. Not promote their menial jobs by artificially inflating the wages with "living" or "universal minimum" income proposals..

So what CULTURE CHANGES are you gonna require of the 6 or 10 million of THOSE people at the bottom of the gap? REQUIRE GEDs? REQUIRE vocational training? Require staying legally out of trouble???

 

[flacaltenn]

he poor pay less overall and the rich pay more overall and so eventually creating a smaller gap between the two in my opinion but still allowing for a relatively high standard of living for all.

We're already there... The top 5% of wage earners pay about 65% of ALL income tax.. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing.. How much MORE "progressive" can you get???

Who Pays Income Taxes?

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners (with incomes over $515,371) paid nearly 39 percent of all income taxes, up slightly from the previous tax year’s 37 percent share. The amount of taxes paid in this percentile is nearly twice as much their adjusted gross income (AGI) load.

The top 10 percent of earners bore responsibility for 70 percent of all income taxes paid – up slightly from 2016 – while half of all tax filers paid 97 percent of all income tax revenue. Indicating the degree of progressivity in the code, the bottom 50 percent of earners took home 11 percent of total nationwide income while owing 3 percent of all income taxes.

Now -- if you're saying your saying the MIDDLE class need to contribute more (and even at 25% most of them WOULD be) -- you're probably right.. Because there's 30 times MORE of them than the 1% at the top and that makes a BIGGER difference than hiking taxes on the 1%....



In the chart above,

Yes I am saying that the middle class would need to contribute more. Upwards to 25% or so. Like I said above in my previous post, all people who earn an income would pay a flat tax rate along with an addition step/progressive tax % in addition to that based on the income bracket.

Well they'd pretty HAVE TO with all the free stuff you want to guarantee.. In even MODERATELY socialist countries the taxes on middle class, their middle class is carrying the BULK of the taxes.. Because of all the free stuff and benefits... Norway Sweden top rate is in the 50 to 60% range.. But the BIG DIFF is this.....

This chart shows WHERE that highest tax rate kicks in as a MULTIPLE of the "average income"... Folks in those moderate socialist countries get hit with the WORST BRACKET for being just 50% more than the average..

THAT better bring some REALLY REALLY REALLY good services to the middle class in return... Or there would be revolts.. Doesn't even cover their high VAT taxes..

But STILL -- you're not changing "the income gap"... Which is what you set out to do... You've just created monstrous, unfriendly, uncompassionate, one size fits all "programs" for healthcare for everyone.. But the POOR still are poor...

 

[georgephillip]

Profit Incentive replaced by lethargy and lack of progress

A key question is how profit is distributed.
Compare these two capitalists Robert Beyster and Jeff Bezos:

Our Founder

"From the outset, Beyster knew he wanted to create a company built around employee ownership that encouraged a culture of entrepreneurship.

"Beyster said making money was never the motivation for his startup. Instead, he simply wanted to 'perform research in a productive environment' alongside talented scientists and engineers on issues of national importance..."

At the time of his death Dr. Beyster had stock worth about $27 million. It would have been worth close to $2 billion if he hadn't shared with his employees.

Bezos currently has a net worth of about $120 billion.

How many millionaire Amazon employees would be created if Greedy Jeff shared the same proportion of "his" wealth as Dr. Beyster?

 

[TNHarley]

How regressive of you OP.
This isnt the 1200s anymore.
Its time for my fellow statist posters to grow the Fuck up

 

[TNHarley]

Everyone is a bigot.
It isnt possible for a huge govt completely filled with bigotry to be equal.

 

[Norman]

Many people agree with the OP

 

[Mac-7]

Profit Incentive replaced by lethargy and lack of progress

A key question is how profit is distributed.
Compare these two capitalists Robert Beyster and Jeff Bezos:

Our Founder

"From the outset, Beyster knew he wanted to create a company built around employee ownership that encouraged a culture of entrepreneurship.

"Beyster said making money was never the motivation for his startup. Instead, he simply wanted to 'perform research in a productive environment' alongside talented scientists and engineers on issues of national importance..."

At the time of his death Dr. Beyster had stock worth about $27 million. It would have been worth close to $2 billion if he hadn't shared with his employees.

Bezos currently has a net worth of about $120 billion.

How many millionaire Amazon employees would be created if Greedy Jeff shared the same proportion of "his" wealth as Dr. Beyster?

Thats a commendable idea

but people like Dr Bysters are rare

 

[georgephillip]

Many people agree with the OP

How many people has capitalism killed in the last five years?

CAPITALISM KILLS OVER 20 MILLION A YEAR : LateStageCapitalism

 

[Yarddog]

This is my first attempt at creating a thread and I wasn't sure if this belongs in Politics or not but since the topic hits on several political issues of today I think it's probably fitting. To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society. That investment (taxes) would yield benefits like "free" medical care, dental care, education, maternity/paternity leaves, pre-k, among other benefits and programs provided for all citizens while also reducing the uncertainty millions of American feel everyday around these topics, the risk that millions of Americans take everyday for these topics, the lack of mobility and the the anxiety and stress that millions of Americans are under because of these issues. Reduced stress, reduced fear, reduced individual risk, reduced inequity in turn yields increased happiness, increased hope, increased societal investment, and increased collective well-being. There is a lot of detail that would go into taxation and what constitutes as "free" but that's something i'm open to discussing as this evolves.

People will often view higher taxes as a burden, and will also view higher taxes that would go towards increased government provided programs as socialist, however, if all citizens and companies truly contribute towards these programs and social programs by using the wealth we all create then it should be viewed as an investment, not a burden in my opinion. You are investing in the collective well-being of all people, including yourself, and if we are all contributing, if we are all putting our money into the effort, if we are all sacrificing a greater percentage of our personal gain for the greater collective good then what you end up with is a shared system that in essence purchases quality of life. No system is perfect, but closing the gap, creating a society that views success as something to share and not hoard, and putting the good of the many above the individual is in my opinion something to work towards.

Well we do currently invest in our infrastructure through property taxes, and other taxes but I think more so..... Collective Self responsibility would lead to more Collective wealth more so than "collected wealth" by people who work for the federal government.
While there is a place for charity from the government, it needs to be noted that the proper order should be Self responsibility, then responsibilty from ones family, then friends and community, and then finally the government.
reason being is when someone is raised to believe they will receive a check and a pass regardless of their actions,
it will bring up an individual who is irresponsible. The more that becomes common place, he more you will have an irresponsible society.