Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[dnsmith35]

Here's the thing. I don't care what you believe. It's no skin off my nose. I know the difference between income and wealth. You don't. You think that the varying, naturally occurring increases in wealth among the respective owners of the factors of production is . . . what? . . . evil? That's nuts. You think the market is a zero-sum-gain proposition, that wealth is a finite commodity. That's nuts. Hence, you're little pictures are not telling you what you think they are, and that's okay with me.

Carry on. . . .

Yes, keep believing in your myths and fairy tales lol

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Yes, of course, zero-sum game. Brain fart. I am aware the phrase's origin. That's what happens sometimes when you get past 50.

Moving on. . . .

Now for the sake of some, like Dante, who fancies himself to be a master logician and gave your post, that rash of argumentum ad nauseam, a thumbs up.

Of course the total income of any given year is finite, which is all you're really saying. Do tell. Who said it wasn't?

Answer: no one, Mr. Straw Man. Stay away from open flames.

The sum of any given fixed term is finite, for crying out loud!

I'm talking about the growth of wealth, especially, the increase in wealth and economic mobility of those emerging from the lower rungs of the economic ladder, which you keep implying to be the finite commodity of annual income. Apples and Oranges. For example, you're using the terms annual income and wealth interchangeably, jumping from one to the other. Your link has nothing to do with the creation and accumulation of new wealth. Pay attention. Wealth is not a finite commodity; hence, the market is not a zero-sum-game proposition.

Rates of taxation above a certain threshold, along with increased regulation and wealth-redistribution schemes like ObamaCare, stunt economic growth due to their negative impact on the factors of production. They impede the investment and productivity of wealth creation from the bottom up.

You're going on about some generic model of marginal rates of taxation relative to historical growth in GDP. I'm well-aware of the recent rash of duplicity proffered by the shills of crony capitalism that would keep the working poor and the middleclass dependent on a corporatist economic structure sponsored by Big Daddy government. And a good many of the nominally conservative politicians in Washington are feeding the same animal.



Hello! Yours is not the whole story. Got the informal logical fallacy of incomplete comparison, anyone?

Your propaganda, all your blather and that at the end of your Internet link, is nothing more than the rank stupidity of surplus value defined as the unpaid surplus labor of the working class: classic Marxist doggerel which confounds the finite sum of material resources/the finite sum of any given period of income with wealth. The latter is not a finite commodity, but the limitless accumulation of production capital ultimately bottomed on the emergence of new enterprises.

For instance, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has found support for the theory that taxes have no effect on economic growth by looking at the U.S. experience since World War II and the dramatic variation in the statutory top marginal rate on individual income.[1] They find the fastest economic growth occurred in the 1950s when the top rate was more than ninety percent.[2] However, their study ignores the most basic problems with this sort of statistical analysis, including: the variation in the tax base to which the individual income tax applies; the variation in other taxes, particularly the corporate tax; the short-term versus long-term effects of tax policy; and reverse causality, whereby economic growth affects tax rates. These problems are all well known in the academic literature and have been dealt with in various ways, making the CRS study unpublishable in any peer-reviewed academic journal.[3]

So what does the academic literature say about the empirical relationship between taxes and economic growth? While there are a variety of methods and data sources, the results consistently point to significant negative effects of taxes on economic growth even after controlling for various other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions, and monetary policy. In this review of the literature, I find twenty-six such studies going back to 1983, and all but three of those studies, and every study in the last fifteen years, find a negative effect of taxes on growth. Of those studies that distinguish between types of taxes, corporate income taxes are found to be most harmful, followed by personal income taxes, consumption taxes and property taxes.

What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth? | Tax Foundation

And once again:

In Theories of Surplus Value Marx conceded that the middleclass was actually growing under capitalism, not disappearing as he had previously held in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, and more honest Marxist theorists have since conceded that the working class is not a culturally homogeneous, but a culturally heterogeneous component of production comprised of competing interests, and one that has become increasingly economically mobile under capitalism from generation to generation. Strike (1) those fallacious critiques of capitalism, the guts of dialectic materialism, insofar as they pertain to the allegedly historical antagonism between the oppressed proletariat and the exploitative bourgeoisie, (2) the abject stupidity of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" and (3) the conceptualization of surplus value as an injustice or a problem to be solved, if not by bargaining than by compulsory wealth redistribution: what more must the world endure at the hands of this debacle before we toss it into the ash heap of history and move on?

Marxists disregard the rise in wages over time under capitalism as industries reinvest surplus value and grow. They gloss over the destructive results of over-bargaining industries into stagnation and bankruptcy.

Take a close look at Detroit.

Marx moralistically imagined surplus value to be the unpaid surplus labor of the working class. But surplus value is in fact the stuff of reinvestment and growth, the startup costs of producing new products and services, future wage increases, more jobs of varying expertise and levels of compensation despite increased automation, improved living standards, strategic surpluses, which are essentially production costs, as they must be maintained and replaced. The latter are not distributable profit. And don't forget about the public infrastructure and the all those public services, for good or bad. Don't forget about all that governmentally funded research, the scientific, medical and technological advances thereof. Don't forget about the exploration of space and the oceans, and the scientific, medical and technological advances thereof. All these things in addition to the strictly business concerns of the private sector were paid for by capitalist systems . . . way beyond what any communist system could ever dream of. . . .

That's the complex reality and the magic of capitalism, but in the stagnant, make believe world of Marxism, that zero-sum-game fantasy, surplus value is merely the accumulation and centralization of transferable capital and power. Hence, the supposed fatal flaw or irresolvable contradiction of capitalism, namely, the falling profits-unemployment crisis of over-accumulation.

. . . In recent history, this supposed Achilles' heel of capitalism is in fact the wrecking ball of economic collectivism: the punitive taxation, regulation or nationalization of the means of production. Businesses that don't continuously innovate and grow, stagnant, shrink and die. Businesses besieged by overbearing governments go elsewhere and take their jobs with them . . . or die.

Privately owned surplus value is the economic lifeblood of the developed world. It's not a horded and withheld commodity. It's not a limited commodity either. . . .

"Wait a minute! Stop right there, Mister! Material resources are finite," the unimaginative rube of the zero-sum-game mentality hysterically exclaims.

. . . Human ingenuity—the essence of technological innovation, ever-increasing efficiency—is not finite! Privately owned surplus value is readily attainable for all the world, but for the meddling of corrupt and oppressive regimes. It is this factor that alludes the Marxist . . . or does he simply turn a blind eye on the obvious resolution of the supposed contradiction of capitalism? Pretend not to see it?

I'm not kidding. In every rendition of the supposed problem of over-accumulated capital I've ever read, the Marxist author invariably claims that this critique has never been satisfactorily answered by free-market theorists. The factor of human ingenuity and its effects on production capital have been understood for at least two centuries. Marxism is sheer political ideology posing as an economic science propagated by rank sociopaths. If this supposed flaw of capitalism were real, capitalism would have universally collapsed long before now. In the meantime, the only economic paradigm that has collapsed every time it's been tried is communism precisely because it stifles the very factor its theorists obtusely disregard: human incentive and ingenuity. --M.D. Rawlilngs

What the left wing extremists refuse to admit is, wealth is not a zero sum game. Yes, as you stated at any specific point in time there is a specific amount of wealth. But in the very next moment wealth can go up, or down. The point is, over time wealth can be increased by increased production or decreased by reductions of productions. It is asinine to contend that the rich are taking from the less wealthy. Their investments pay off more, and it does not detract from lessor earning people. It is one of the most basic economic principles. Production causes wealth. It is as simple as that.

One other thing that our current left wing extremist will not admit, it is easy to prove that under the proper conditions supply side economics does improve the economy. It is very difficult to prove that demand side economics improves the economy.

If the government choses to engage in Keynesian economics, they would do better concerning themselves only about government spending which directly increased demand across the board. Effectively like following Eisenhower's example and put the $500 billion Obama threw at the poor and spend it on true shovel ready infrastructure projects.

FDR tried for 8 years to buy our way out of the great depression by hiring people for the CCW and the WPA for minimum wages and giving to the poor. None of it worked. It took a war time mobilization, huge sums of money spent to buy war machinery, which got us out of the depression.

 

[bendog]

issues of morality naturally come up when you steal from someone at the point of a gun!

Define the morality you are referring to, please.

The question seems to circle around whether the mere act of earning "too much" money is immoral - are people who do this somehow harming society and, if so, should government pursue remedial measures (aka "wealth redistribution").

With all respect, I think this illustrates our differences. I would agree with you, and the corporatism 'thing,' if the discussion was about "rich" having too much, and "poor' not enough ... an issue of morality or even civics based on the rights of individual citizens or even groups.

But, I think morality and even "class warfare" may not be an issue. The issue could also be that consumers are having less real dsposable income to spend, and thereby create less econ demand, because as a result of de-unionization and globalization, the market of capital to labor has been affected in way to make it different than it was in say ..... 1980. So, taxing profit in the form of dividends or retained corp earnings, or capital gains when stock is sold, and using the proceeds for things like healthcare and public higher education, to which all citizens have an equal chance to access.

 

[boedicca]

Because taking money from the people who earned it is a moral issue.

How can you come here to oppose the redistribution of wealth while the supporting the distribution of over 100 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillion dollars to the Jewish State in order to finance the Palestinian Holocaust?


That is extremely hypocritical.

.

I don't think the concern about the redistribution of wealth, so much as it is TO WHOM DO WE REDISTRIBUTE IT? I have mixed emotions about Israel. First, they have the right to defending itself. So long as the Palestinian terrorists shoot missiles into Israel they have the right to try and stop them. But there is a difference between stopping them and killing hundreds of innocent Palestinians. Maybe they should infiltrate Gaza and Surreptitiously find and destroy the missile sites and cave entrances.

I do believe we should support those who cannot work. We should educate those who can but do not have marketable skills. Beyond that it is hard to justify.

Sounds lovely, but history proves how damaging it is when We (The Government) tries to run individuals lives for them.

 

[boedicca]

Define the morality you are referring to, please.

The question seems to circle around whether the mere act of earning "too much" money is immoral - are people who do this somehow harming society and, if so, should government pursue remedial measures (aka "wealth redistribution").

With all respect, I think this illustrates our differences. I would agree with you, and the corporatism 'thing,' if the discussion was about "rich" having too much, and "poor' not enough ... an issue of morality or even civics based on the rights of individual citizens or even groups.

But, I think morality and even "class warfare" may not be an issue. The issue could also be that consumers are having less real dsposable income to spend, and thereby create less econ demand, because as a result of de-unionization and globalization, the market of capital to labor has been affected in way to make it different than it was in say ..... 1980. So, taxing profit in the form of dividends or retained corp earnings, or capital gains when stock is sold, and using the proceeds for things like healthcare and public higher education, to which all citizens have an equal chance to access.

ORLY?

It Never Ever Ever happens in a state run system that all citizens have an equal chance to access. Polically corrected cronies will have far superior access with dregs left over for the Hoi Poloi.

 

[bripat9643]

First of all, why do you say morally?

Because taking money from the people who earned it is a moral issue.

How can you come here to oppose the redistribution of wealth while the supporting the distribution of over 100 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillion dollars to the Jewish State in order to finance the Palestinian Holocaust?


That is extremely hypocritical.

.

What makes you think I support that? In my ideal world, individuals would each conduct their own foriegn policy.

However, so long as the federal government is giving out foreign aid, Israel is the country I least object to receiving it.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, keep believing in your myths and fairy tales lol

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Yes, of course, zero-sum game. Brain fart. I am aware the phrase's origin. That's what happens sometimes when you get past 50.

Moving on. . . .

Now for the sake of some, like Dante, who fancies himself to be a master logician and gave your post, that rash of argumentum ad nauseam, a thumbs up.

Of course the total income of any given year is finite, which is all you're really saying. Do tell. Who said it wasn't?

Answer: no one, Mr. Straw Man. Stay away from open flames.

The sum of any given fixed term is finite, for crying out loud!

I'm talking about the growth of wealth, especially, the increase in wealth and economic mobility of those emerging from the lower rungs of the economic ladder, which you keep implying to be the finite commodity of annual income. Apples and Oranges. For example, you're using the terms annual income and wealth interchangeably, jumping from one to the other. Your link has nothing to do with the creation and accumulation of new wealth. Pay attention. Wealth is not a finite commodity; hence, the market is not a zero-sum-game proposition.

Rates of taxation above a certain threshold, along with increased regulation and wealth-redistribution schemes like ObamaCare, stunt economic growth due to their negative impact on the factors of production. They impede the investment and productivity of wealth creation from the bottom up.

You're going on about some generic model of marginal rates of taxation relative to historical growth in GDP. I'm well-aware of the recent rash of duplicity proffered by the shills of crony capitalism that would keep the working poor and the middleclass dependent on a corporatist economic structure sponsored by Big Daddy government. And a good many of the nominally conservative politicians in Washington are feeding the same animal.



Hello! Yours is not the whole story. Got the informal logical fallacy of incomplete comparison, anyone?

Your propaganda, all your blather and that at the end of your Internet link, is nothing more than the rank stupidity of surplus value defined as the unpaid surplus labor of the working class: classic Marxist doggerel which confounds the finite sum of material resources/the finite sum of any given period of income with wealth. The latter is not a finite commodity, but the limitless accumulation of production capital ultimately bottomed on the emergence of new enterprises.



And once again:

In Theories of Surplus Value Marx conceded that the middleclass was actually growing under capitalism, not disappearing as he had previously held in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, and more honest Marxist theorists have since conceded that the working class is not a culturally homogeneous, but a culturally heterogeneous component of production comprised of competing interests, and one that has become increasingly economically mobile under capitalism from generation to generation. Strike (1) those fallacious critiques of capitalism, the guts of dialectic materialism, insofar as they pertain to the allegedly historical antagonism between the oppressed proletariat and the exploitative bourgeoisie, (2) the abject stupidity of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" and (3) the conceptualization of surplus value as an injustice or a problem to be solved, if not by bargaining than by compulsory wealth redistribution: what more must the world endure at the hands of this debacle before we toss it into the ash heap of history and move on?

Marxists disregard the rise in wages over time under capitalism as industries reinvest surplus value and grow. They gloss over the destructive results of over-bargaining industries into stagnation and bankruptcy.

Take a close look at Detroit.

Marx moralistically imagined surplus value to be the unpaid surplus labor of the working class. But surplus value is in fact the stuff of reinvestment and growth, the startup costs of producing new products and services, future wage increases, more jobs of varying expertise and levels of compensation despite increased automation, improved living standards, strategic surpluses, which are essentially production costs, as they must be maintained and replaced. The latter are not distributable profit. And don't forget about the public infrastructure and the all those public services, for good or bad. Don't forget about all that governmentally funded research, the scientific, medical and technological advances thereof. Don't forget about the exploration of space and the oceans, and the scientific, medical and technological advances thereof. All these things in addition to the strictly business concerns of the private sector were paid for by capitalist systems . . . way beyond what any communist system could ever dream of. . . .

That's the complex reality and the magic of capitalism, but in the stagnant, make believe world of Marxism, that zero-sum-game fantasy, surplus value is merely the accumulation and centralization of transferable capital and power. Hence, the supposed fatal flaw or irresolvable contradiction of capitalism, namely, the falling profits-unemployment crisis of over-accumulation.

. . . In recent history, this supposed Achilles' heel of capitalism is in fact the wrecking ball of economic collectivism: the punitive taxation, regulation or nationalization of the means of production. Businesses that don't continuously innovate and grow, stagnant, shrink and die. Businesses besieged by overbearing governments go elsewhere and take their jobs with them . . . or die.

Privately owned surplus value is the economic lifeblood of the developed world. It's not a horded and withheld commodity. It's not a limited commodity either. . . .

"Wait a minute! Stop right there, Mister! Material resources are finite," the unimaginative rube of the zero-sum-game mentality hysterically exclaims.

. . . Human ingenuity—the essence of technological innovation, ever-increasing efficiency—is not finite! Privately owned surplus value is readily attainable for all the world, but for the meddling of corrupt and oppressive regimes. It is this factor that alludes the Marxist . . . or does he simply turn a blind eye on the obvious resolution of the supposed contradiction of capitalism? Pretend not to see it?

I'm not kidding. In every rendition of the supposed problem of over-accumulated capital I've ever read, the Marxist author invariably claims that this critique has never been satisfactorily answered by free-market theorists. The factor of human ingenuity and its effects on production capital have been understood for at least two centuries. Marxism is sheer political ideology posing as an economic science propagated by rank sociopaths. If this supposed flaw of capitalism were real, capitalism would have universally collapsed long before now. In the meantime, the only economic paradigm that has collapsed every time it's been tried is communism precisely because it stifles the very factor its theorists obtusely disregard: human incentive and ingenuity. --M.D. Rawlilngs

What the left wing extremists refuse to admit is, wealth is not a zero sum game. Yes, as you stated at any specific point in time there is a specific amount of wealth. But in the very next moment wealth can go up, or down. The point is, over time wealth can be increased by increased production or decreased by reductions of productions. It is asinine to contend that the rich are taking from the less wealthy. Their investments pay off more, and it does not detract from lessor earning people. It is one of the most basic economic principles. Production causes wealth. It is as simple as that.

One other thing that our current left wing extremist will not admit, it is easy to prove that under the proper conditions supply side economics does improve the economy. It is very difficult to prove that demand side economics improves the economy.

If the government choses to engage in Keynesian economics, they would do better concerning themselves only about government spending which directly increased demand across the board. Effectively like following Eisenhower's example and put the $500 billion Obama threw at the poor and spend it on true shovel ready infrastructure projects.

FDR tried for 8 years to buy our way out of the great depression by hiring people for the CCW and the WPA for minimum wages and giving to the poor. None of it worked. It took a war time mobilization, huge sums of money spent to buy war machinery, which got us out of the depression.

The only thing that ended mass unemployment was sending all the unemployed off to fight that Germans.

 

[bripat9643]

Define the morality you are referring to, please.

The question seems to circle around whether the mere act of earning "too much" money is immoral - are people who do this somehow harming society and, if so, should government pursue remedial measures (aka "wealth redistribution").

With all respect, I think this illustrates our differences. I would agree with you, and the corporatism 'thing,' if the discussion was about "rich" having too much, and "poor' not enough ... an issue of morality or even civics based on the rights of individual citizens or even groups.

But, I think morality and even "class warfare" may not be an issue. The issue could also be that consumers are having less real dsposable income to spend, and thereby create less econ demand, because as a result of de-unionization and globalization, the market of capital to labor has been affected in way to make it different than it was in say ..... 1980. So, taxing profit in the form of dividends or retained corp earnings, or capital gains when stock is sold, and using the proceeds for things like healthcare and public higher education, to which all citizens have an equal chance to access.

You don't think looting people is a moral issue because you're a libturd. Thieves also don't think stealing is a moral issue. The minute you admit redistribution is a moral issue you have to come up with a moral defence for it, and there is none.

 

[Agit8r]

The question seems to circle around whether the mere act of earning "too much" money is immoral - are people who do this somehow harming society and, if so, should government pursue remedial measures (aka "wealth redistribution").

With all respect, I think this illustrates our differences. I would agree with you, and the corporatism 'thing,' if the discussion was about "rich" having too much, and "poor' not enough ... an issue of morality or even civics based on the rights of individual citizens or even groups.

But, I think morality and even "class warfare" may not be an issue. The issue could also be that consumers are having less real dsposable income to spend, and thereby create less econ demand, because as a result of de-unionization and globalization, the market of capital to labor has been affected in way to make it different than it was in say ..... 1980. So, taxing profit in the form of dividends or retained corp earnings, or capital gains when stock is sold, and using the proceeds for things like healthcare and public higher education, to which all citizens have an equal chance to access.

You don't think looting people is a moral issue because you're a libturd. Thieves also don't think stealing is a moral issue. The minute you admit redistribution is a moral issue you have to come up with a moral defence for it, and there is none.

So, what are some examples of redistribution that you take issue with?

 

[bripat9643]

With all respect, I think this illustrates our differences. I would agree with you, and the corporatism 'thing,' if the discussion was about "rich" having too much, and "poor' not enough ... an issue of morality or even civics based on the rights of individual citizens or even groups.

But, I think morality and even "class warfare" may not be an issue. The issue could also be that consumers are having less real dsposable income to spend, and thereby create less econ demand, because as a result of de-unionization and globalization, the market of capital to labor has been affected in way to make it different than it was in say ..... 1980. So, taxing profit in the form of dividends or retained corp earnings, or capital gains when stock is sold, and using the proceeds for things like healthcare and public higher education, to which all citizens have an equal chance to access.

You don't think looting people is a moral issue because you're a libturd. Thieves also don't think stealing is a moral issue. The minute you admit redistribution is a moral issue you have to come up with a moral defence for it, and there is none.

So, what are some examples of redistribution that you take issue with?

I take issue with taxation, period. It's indistinguishable from stealing, and therefore it's morally indefensible. The crime is compounded when committed solely so the proceeds (swag) can be transferred to some political constituency.

 

[Dad2three]

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

On those where rates don;'t matter? Or those with the lowest sustained EFFECTIVE and marginal rates in 80+ years?


DEMAND creates jobs, demand is driven by those at the bottom, so yes, the payroll tax holiday, that not ONE GOPer opposed it's demise, would've saved jobs!

Weird how the ONLY tax increase the GOP was for, was one hitting the bottom 90% the hardest!

On those where rates don;'t matter?

Which are those?

Or those with the lowest sustained EFFECTIVE and marginal rates in 80+ years?

Some rates are lower than recently. Like capital gains.
Some are higher, like the top income tax brackets.
Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

DEMAND creates jobs, demand is driven by those at the bottom

Does raising taxes on business cause job loss? Cause business creation to shrink? Cause demand by the newly unemployed to shrink?

the payroll tax holiday, that not ONE GOPer opposed it's demise, would've saved jobs!

Bush's tax cuts saved the middle class more than the payroll tax holiday.

All a bunch of right wing garbage, I'm shocked.

Yes, capital gains were cut to 15% under Dubya, besides benefiting the MOST wealthy among US 9top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends) , how does 20% it is today hurt job creation?


EFFECTIVE rates SUSTAINED haven't been this low since before the GOP great depression!!!

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years


NO RECENT TAX INCREASE HAS STUNTED GROWTH, PROOF? Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases where he created 3 new brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6%, the economy lost jobs right?

lol

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most, BUT that doesn't refute the FACT that NO ONE in the GOP fought to stop the payroll tax holiday from increasing, first time in decades the GOP supported increasing taxes, of course it hit those on the bottom 90% NOT those 'job creators'


CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

YEAH, CUTTING TAXES CREATES JOBS *Shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

Those are irrefutable facts.

Nope, OPINIONS distorted....

What is opinion about the statement that $16 billion is less than 0.5% of last year's spending?

Grow a brain.

 

[Dad2three]

We still have some capitalism to pay for the socialist black holes.

True, Walmaret and McD's is sucking a lot off of US

Nope. They provide jobs and inexpensive consumer goods. Walmart enables millions of people to live better than they could otherwise. On the other hand, our socialist education system makes our population stupid, and does it at great cost.

And pay wages low enough to suck BILLIONS of fthe Gov't in WELFARE to survive, that's Walmart entire Biz model

 

[Agit8r]

So, what are some examples of redistribution that you take issue with?

I take issue with taxation, period. It's indistinguishable from stealing, and therefore it's morally indefensible. The crime is compounded when committed solely so the proceeds (swag) can be transferred to some political constituency.

Well, good luck with that.

 

[Dad2three]

History shows no such thing. Reagan lower the top marginal rate from 70% at the beginning of his two terms to 28% by the end.

Yes, 70% to 50% in 1981 AND the 50% rate was there until 1987. HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan? Or 70% under LBJ? Gaawwwddd forbid, Ike's 90%+ most have killed the US economuy right?

HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan?

Lots of economic activity that people didn't want to undertake at 70% was more attractive at 50%.

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

WHAT WERE YOU SAYING? Even though Reagan BLEW up spending that benefited the 'private sector' and he allowed the S&L crisis to expand as a bubble when he ignored regulator warnings that had started in 1984!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

How does living in the same geographical area as someone else entitle them to anything I have earned? I didn't agree to the EITC, so when did I "acknowledge" it? That's just your weasel attempt to claim I agreed to it. "Living in a vacuum" is a non sequitur. Is that your way of claiming your entitled to rob me?

I can't imagine any rationalizations lamer than yours.

No one gets what you've earned. Our democratically elected, representative government gets to tax you. It's called 'the real world'

Rape and murder are also part of the "real world." The question is, how is it justified. You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income. Utter horseshit. Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason.

If you so hate the US Constitution try and convince others to amend it (good luck with an attitude like yours ) or move out of country like Rush and some whacko progressives have claimed they would do

It's funny how liberals can't have this discussion without coming off like a bunch of thugs.

You move out of the country, asshole.

Reality check!

Rape and murder are illegal, taxes are not.

Reality check part two: A twofer: (1) "You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income." (2) "Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason."

two dishonest and disingenuous statements?

1. & 2. The actual claim is -- you simply being a citizen of the USA and claiming all the rights and benefits of that citizenship, get to be charged with the duty and responsibilities that come with US citizenship.

2. Actually, our government (yes it's yours too) does not get to legally or morally kill anyone or throw anyone into prison -- without reason.

Out Of The Country: actually, this liberal asked why you don't try and convince fellow citizens to change the country or why don't you get out of a country you claim to hate?

It is YOU who just told me to get out of the country. Or was it only a suggestion and if so prompted by what reasoning, your warped reasoning? See?
[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

 

[bendog]

The question seems to circle around whether the mere act of earning "too much" money is immoral - are people who do this somehow harming society and, if so, should government pursue remedial measures (aka "wealth redistribution").

With all respect, I think this illustrates our differences. I would agree with you, and the corporatism 'thing,' if the discussion was about "rich" having too much, and "poor' not enough ... an issue of morality or even civics based on the rights of individual citizens or even groups.

But, I think morality and even "class warfare" may not be an issue. The issue could also be that consumers are having less real dsposable income to spend, and thereby create less econ demand, because as a result of de-unionization and globalization, the market of capital to labor has been affected in way to make it different than it was in say ..... 1980. So, taxing profit in the form of dividends or retained corp earnings, or capital gains when stock is sold, and using the proceeds for things like healthcare and public higher education, to which all citizens have an equal chance to access.

You don't think looting people is a moral issue because you're a libturd. Thieves also don't think stealing is a moral issue. The minute you admit redistribution is a moral issue you have to come up with a moral defence for it, and there is none.

I find you obnoxious and ignore you.

 

[dblack]

Define the morality you are referring to, please.

The question seems to circle around whether the mere act of earning "too much" money is immoral - are people who do this somehow harming society and, if so, should government pursue remedial measures (aka "wealth redistribution").

With all respect, I think this illustrates our differences. I would agree with you, and the corporatism 'thing,' if the discussion was about "rich" having too much, and "poor' not enough ... an issue of morality or even civics based on the rights of individual citizens or even groups.

But, I think morality and even "class warfare" may not be an issue. The issue could also be that consumers are having less real dsposable income to spend, and thereby create less econ demand, because as a result of de-unionization and globalization, the market of capital to labor has been affected in way to make it different than it was in say ..... 1980. So, taxing profit in the form of dividends or retained corp earnings, or capital gains when stock is sold, and using the proceeds for things like healthcare and public higher education, to which all citizens have an equal chance to access.

You seem to be arguing expediency over morality. But I think wealth redistribution fails to achieve either of those goals.

What I find most interesting is the willingness of so many of the left to simply assume that wealthy people didn't earn their money and use that as an excuse to go after it. It raises a couple of important questions: first, what does it mean to 'earn' money? and second, doesn't it seem wrong to simply assume that everyone who accumulates a lot of wealth hasn't earned it?

 

[Dad2three]

Relative to proving the housing bubble was caused primarily by the government, ranging from Carter's CRA, Clinton's push to house America, and Bush's continuation of Clinton's policy. One should note that the beginning of the inflationary trend started in 1997 and continued through Bush to 2006.

Weird, so there was a housing bubble? AND?

BANKSTERS CREATED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations. CRA? LOL

How about the subprime auto Biz and commercial real estate bubbles at the same time as Dubya's subprime bubble? lol

FACTS on Dubya's great recession
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Are you really that stupid? The primary cause of the housing bubble was low interest used to push housing to more people who could not previously qualify. That started during Clinton's term and the inflation cycle started in 1997.

It is obvious you can't read a graph or you wouldn't make such stupid comments.

I did not say CRA CAUSED the bubble. I said it contributed to it because the concept of providing home ownership to more of the less wealthy. CRA was not enforced during Carter's administration even though that is when it was passed. Clinton was the one who STARTED to push more home ownership BECAUSE OF CRA, but it was the government policies of low interest, low or no down payments continued into Bush's administration which fueled the inflation because of the heated housing market which led to the balloon and subsequent crash. Lenders were not necessarily covered by CRA, but when Fannie and Freddie allowed lower lending standards (sub prime) they had to follow suit to stay in business, and that was part of the deregulation.

New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.​

Wait! Government did cause the housing bubble. - CSMonitor.com

In the 2000s, of course, malinvestment appeared largely in real estate, the result of government programs designed to relax underwriting standards and otherwise increase investment in particularly risky real-estate assets. In other words, ABCT tells us to look for malinvestment during the boom, but not where that malinvestment will show up.

Paul Krugman asserts, for example, that the “Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom.” Actually, no. A new NBER paper (gated) on the CRA is causing quite a stir. Authored by four economists from NYU, MIT, Northwestern, and Chicago, the paper is the first to use instrumental-variables regression to distinguish changes in bank lending caused by the CRA from changes that would likely have happened anyway. (The authors use the timing of loan decisions relative to the dates of CRA audits to identify the effect of the CRA on lending.) The results suggest that CRA enforcement did, contra Krugman, lead banks to make substantially riskier loans than otherwise.

Rahan said, "“
The key then to understanding the recent crisis is to see why markets offered inordinate rewards for poor and risky decisions. Irrational exuberance played a part, but perhaps more important were the political forces distorting the markets. The tsunami of money directed by a US Congress, worried about growing income inequality, towards expanding low income housing, joined with the flood of foreign capital inflows to remove any discipline on home loans. And the willingness of the Fed to stay on hold until jobs came back, and indeed to infuse plentiful liquidity if ever the system got into trouble, eliminated any perceived cost to having an illiquid balance sheet."

I’d reverse the order of emphasis — credit expansion first, housing policy second — but Rajan is right that government intervention gets the blame all around.​

In other words Dad2three, you are looking at old guesses and opinions instead of the more recent ECONOMIC STUDIES which prove the typical left wing assertions were WRONG.

GAAAWWWWWDDD NOT THE ZOMBIE LIE

LOL


YEAH, A LAW AROUND FOR 30 YEARS AND WEAKENED ENFORCEMENT UNDER DUBYA, CAUSED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE, LOL

Debunking the CRA Myth – Again

One of the pernicious myths surrounding CRA is that it encouraged banks to make risky loans to low‐ and moderate‐income borrowers.

This argument has been made primarily by conservative think tanks, like American Enterprise Institute, who find it convenient to include CRA in their general position against governmental intervention in the private market.

But efforts to blame CRA for the most recent crisis reflect a deep misunderstanding of the scope and scale of CRA and its implementation. Indeed, the “blame the CRA” story has been refuted by industry leaders and researchers time and time again. Unfortunately, this narrative refuses to go away.


In this paper, center researchers review the research evidence on CRA and show that there is no credible research to support the assertion that CRA contributed to an increase in risky lending during the subprime boom. In particular, they present a detailed rebuttal of a recent paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, titled “Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending,” which purports to find evidence that “yes, it did.” The study is severely flawed, both in terms of the empirical analysis and in the authors’ interpretation of the results, and thus fails to contribute to the existing literature on both the strengths and weaknesses of CRA.

UNC Center for Community Capital


Fed Study Debunks Conservative Myth That Affordable Housing Policies Caused Subprime Crisis

We find no evidence that lenders increased subprime originations or altered pricing around the discrete eligibility cutoffs for the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) affordable housing goals or the Community Reinvestment Act. Our results indicate that the extensive purchases of risky private-label mortgage-backed securities by the GSEs were not due to affordable housing mandates.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-005.pdf


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up



The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


CRA? LOL

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia?

For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.



CRA were less likely to default than Subprime Mortgages — Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.

BANKSTER:


Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.

"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."


Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register


KEEP TRYING BUBBA!!!!

 

[bendog]

[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

No one gets what you've earned. Our democratically elected, representative government gets to tax you. It's called 'the real world'

Rape and murder are also part of the "real world." The question is, how is it justified. You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income. Utter horseshit. Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason.

If you so hate the US Constitution try and convince others to amend it (good luck with an attitude like yours ) or move out of country like Rush and some whacko progressives have claimed they would do

It's funny how liberals can't have this discussion without coming off like a bunch of thugs.

You move out of the country, asshole.

Reality check!

Rape and murder are illegal, taxes are not.

Reality check part two: A twofer: (1) "You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income." (2) "Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason."

two dishonest and disingenuous statements?

1. & 2. The actual claim is -- you simply being a citizen of the USA and claiming all the rights and benefits of that citizenship, get to be charged with the duty and responsibilities that come with US citizenship.

2. Actually, our government (yes it's yours too) does not get to legally or morally kill anyone or throw anyone into prison -- without reason.

Out Of The Country: actually, this liberal asked why you don't try and convince fellow citizens to change the country or why don't you get out of a country you claim to hate?

It is YOU who just told me to get out of the country. Or was it only a suggestion and if so prompted by what reasoning, your warped reasoning? See?
[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

Well, I'm not certain that a tax that plain and simply and openly was to take from some to give to others would be legal. I don't see the morality either. But, if a tax is levied to benefit the general welfare of all, and if it's tied to a power given to the govt that levies it, then its simply a political matter. And elections have consequences.

And that's the distinction I tried to make to dblack. If the govt's purpose in providing some benefit (or paying for a benefit that was not previously supported by revenue) is a benefit aimed at society as a whole, then I don't see an objection on the basis of corporatism.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

analysis

[MENTION=29220]Wiseacre[/MENTION]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

"are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth?" The earned income tax credit and other things like it throughout the history of what we call 'capitalism' has been an acknowledgement that we live in a society as a group of individuals. Nothing exists in the vacuum libertarians and other kooks think it can or does.

To "deny people" some sort of social welfare "support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society" does not rule out the kinds of support like earned income tax credits.

see?

[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

[MENTION=29220]Wiseacre[/MENTION]

"are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth?" The earned income tax credit and other things like it throughout the history of what we call 'capitalism' has been an acknowledgement that we live in a society as a group of individuals. Nothing exists in the vacuum libertarians and other kooks think it can or does.

To "deny people" some sort of social welfare "support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society" does not rule out the kinds of support like earned income tax credits.

see?

How does living in the same geographical area as someone else entitle them to anything I have earned? I didn't agree to the EITC, so when did I "acknowledge" it? That's just your weasel attempt to claim I agreed to it. "Living in a vacuum" is a non sequitur. Is that your way of claiming your entitled to rob me?

I can't imagine any rationalizations lamer than yours.

No one gets what you've earned. Our democratically elected, representative government gets to tax you. It's called 'the real world'

If you so hate the US Constitution try and convince others to amend it (good luck with an attitude like yours ) or move out of country like Rush and some whacko progressives have claimed they would do

[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

No one gets what you've earned. Our democratically elected, representative government gets to tax you. It's called 'the real world'

Rape and murder are also part of the "real world." The question is, how is it justified. You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income. Utter horseshit. Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason.

If you so hate the US Constitution try and convince others to amend it (good luck with an attitude like yours ) or move out of country like Rush and some whacko progressives have claimed they would do

It's funny how liberals can't have this discussion without coming off like a bunch of thugs.

You move out of the country, asshole.

Reality check!

Rape and murder are illegal, taxes are not.

Reality check part two: A twofer: (1) "You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income." (2) "Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason."

two dishonest and disingenuous statements?

1. & 2. The actual claim is -- you simply being a citizen of the USA and claiming all the rights and benefits of that citizenship, get to be charged with the duty and responsibilities that come with US citizenship.

2. Actually, our government (yes it's yours too) does not get to legally or morally kill anyone or throw anyone into prison -- without reason.

Out Of The Country: actually, this liberal asked why you don't try and convince fellow citizens to change the country or why don't you get out of a country you claim to hate?

It is YOU who just told me to get out of the country. Or was it only a suggestion and if so prompted by what reasoning, your warped reasoning? See?
[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]