War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[NYcarbineer]

noun
1.
a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches:
the wealth of a city.
2.
an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount:
a wealth of imagery.
3.
Economics.

1. 
   
2. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
3. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.

4.
rich or valuable contents or produce:
the wealth of the soil.
5.
the state of being rich; prosperity; affluence:
persons of wealth and standing.
6.
Obsolete, happiness.

I'm right. Fuck off

tell me if you possess a house a car etc that has a market value of 10 million and yet you owe 9,999,999 dollars in debt for all those things how wealthy are you?

Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society".

That is the definition/usage I was using. We can either argue about whether Adam Smith and I are misusing the word,

or, we could get back on topic. It's up to you.

We are talking about the wealth of people not of nations.

You do realize that any wealth the US government has is not yours don't you?

The wealth of people is their net worth is it not?

BTW the answer to my question I asked earlier was $1 if you couldn't figure it out.

Don't tell me what I'm talking about.

Nation - a large aggregrate of people.

Your entire premise is that your wealth is limited by someone else.

Your wealth has nothing to do with the nation's wealth and everything to do with your net worth.

Just curious are you a multi-millionaire?

 

[Boss]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

I can't imagine how far removed from actually producing anything of value you'd have to be to think that wealth is infinite. You probably think that money somehow just generates more money.

Wealth is infinite and money does just generate more money. In fact, most of the revenue produced by the super-wealthy is from their money generating money. Look, you've obviously staggered into the thread without reading it, but you should go back and read at least the first page. The "wealth is finite" argument was destroyed completely. It took all of one post before the meme was quickly switched to "well.... wealth isn't finite but isn't infinite either!"

Wealth is infinite because human ingenuity and creativity is infinite. There is no limit to how much wealth can be obtained or how many individuals can obtain it. How much ever wealth exists this year, there will be more wealth created next year.

 

[JoeNormal]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

I can't imagine how far removed from actually producing anything of value you'd have to be to think that wealth is infinite. You probably think that money somehow just generates more money.

Wealth is infinite and money does just generate more money. In fact, most of the revenue produced by the super-wealthy is from their money generating money. Look, you've obviously staggered into the thread without reading it, but you should go back and read at least the first page. The "wealth is finite" argument was destroyed completely. It took all of one post before the meme was quickly switched to "well.... wealth isn't finite but isn't infinite either!"

Wealth is infinite because human ingenuity and creativity is infinite. There is no limit to how much wealth can be obtained or how many individuals can obtain it. How much ever wealth exists this year, there will be more wealth created next year.

So tell me the mechanism by which the super wealthy generate money from money. Magic?

 

[The Rabbi]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

I can't imagine how far removed from actually producing anything of value you'd have to be to think that wealth is infinite. You probably think that money somehow just generates more money.

SO what limits your net worth? If someone else's net worth increases does yours decrease?

Is it what someone else makes? How does one person's salary influence how much your salary can be?

In any industry or or company, there's a certain sized market. That market can be grown to some degree but generally, individual industries or companies grow by increasing their market share. Within a company, the generally finite amount of money that's earned is distributed in some way to the people within it. If one guy gets more than he deserves, everybody else gets less. The difficulty is in determining a fair distribution.

You've shifted your analysis from "wealth" as an abstract concept, which is indeed unlimited, to wealth in the context of an individual corporation or industry.
That's a fallacy.

 

[edthecynic]

Making the bulk of total income naturally requires the rich to pay the bulk of taxes. If that income were spread around more we would have a broader tax base and perhaps they would not be so "oppressed".

If they are paying the taxes then what the hell does the left have to complain about?

They are finding legal loopholes to get out of paying taxes. I disagree they pay the bulk of the taxes.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes

The top 10% of earners pay more than 70% of all income taxes. There aren't as many loopholes as you think

Again, it is the top 10% of WAGE EARNERS, not the top 10% of wealth!
Learn the difference, take a lesson from your MessiahRushie Limbola:

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

You listen to Rush. i don't

And it's the people on this thread confusing income and wealth. But capital gains are reported on income tax filings so the so called wealthy that pay capital gains are paying income taxes.

Maybe you should figure out what you're talking about.

But only when the Cap Gains are REALIZED, and then at a lower rate then wage income. Until the Cap Gain is realized/cashed in, it grows TAX FREE like an unlimited IRA but with no early withdrawal penalty and at a lower tax rate when cashed in no matter what your age. If you lose money on your Cap Gains you get to deduct it from your taxes, so Cap Gains are a risk free investment. And still the wealthy bitch that they are over taxed. They should have their taxes raised 1% automatically every time they bitch!

January 09, 2013
RUSH: Taxing wages at a higher rate than profits is wealth redistribution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

I can't imagine how far removed from actually producing anything of value you'd have to be to think that wealth is infinite. You probably think that money somehow just generates more money.

Wealth is infinite and money does just generate more money. In fact, most of the revenue produced by the super-wealthy is from their money generating money. Look, you've obviously staggered into the thread without reading it, but you should go back and read at least the first page. The "wealth is finite" argument was destroyed completely. It took all of one post before the meme was quickly switched to "well.... wealth isn't finite but isn't infinite either!"

Wealth is infinite because human ingenuity and creativity is infinite. There is no limit to how much wealth can be obtained or how many individuals can obtain it. How much ever wealth exists this year, there will be more wealth created next year.

Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society".

That, FYI, in case you missed it, is what I'm talking about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

I can't imagine how far removed from actually producing anything of value you'd have to be to think that wealth is infinite. You probably think that money somehow just generates more money.

SO what limits your net worth? If someone else's net worth increases does yours decrease?

Is it what someone else makes? How does one person's salary influence how much your salary can be?

In any industry or or company, there's a certain sized market. That market can be grown to some degree but generally, individual industries or companies grow by increasing their market share. Within a company, the generally finite amount of money that's earned is distributed in some way to the people within it. If one guy gets more than he deserves, everybody else gets less. The difficulty is in determining a fair distribution.

You've shifted your analysis from "wealth" as an abstract concept, which is indeed unlimited, to wealth in the context of an individual corporation or industry.
That's a fallacy.

Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society".

 

[JoeNormal]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

I can't imagine how far removed from actually producing anything of value you'd have to be to think that wealth is infinite. You probably think that money somehow just generates more money.

SO what limits your net worth? If someone else's net worth increases does yours decrease?

Is it what someone else makes? How does one person's salary influence how much your salary can be?

In any industry or or company, there's a certain sized market. That market can be grown to some degree but generally, individual industries or companies grow by increasing their market share. Within a company, the generally finite amount of money that's earned is distributed in some way to the people within it. If one guy gets more than he deserves, everybody else gets less. The difficulty is in determining a fair distribution.

You've shifted your analysis from "wealth" as an abstract concept, which is indeed unlimited, to wealth in the context of an individual corporation or industry.
That's a fallacy.

Well, if you never progress beyond the abstract then nothing is finite. But when the rubber meets the road, there are very finite limits to wealth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people are song and dancing around semantics because you can't cope with the core argument.

The distribution of a nation's produced wealth determines who is Rich, who is Poor, and who is in between.

 

[Boss]

In any industry or or company, there's a certain sized market. That market can be grown to some degree but generally, individual industries or companies grow by increasing their market share. Within a company, the generally finite amount of money that's earned is distributed in some way to the people within it. If one guy gets more than he deserves, everybody else gets less. The difficulty is in determining a fair distribution.

There is nothing finite about the amount of money a company can earn. Have you ever gone to the store to find it closed because they have earned the most they can earn in a day? I've never seen it, and I don't think many have. Markets are fluid and ever-changing. They can fluctuate greatly depending on all kinds of factors.

Money that is earned (profit) in a company, is most certainly distributed in many ways, but it's not all to the people within it in some way. Some money is used to pay expenses, taxes, fees, maintenance, advertising, public relations, expansion, upgrades, new technologies, etc. Sometimes money may have to pay off loans to investor capitalists. But with ANY capitalist company, the objective is to return a profit, so it's very unlikely the capitalist is squandering money on people who don't deserve the money. This totally defies the objective of all capitalists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

I can't imagine how far removed from actually producing anything of value you'd have to be to think that wealth is infinite. You probably think that money somehow just generates more money.

SO what limits your net worth? If someone else's net worth increases does yours decrease?

Is it what someone else makes? How does one person's salary influence how much your salary can be?

In any industry or or company, there's a certain sized market. That market can be grown to some degree but generally, individual industries or companies grow by increasing their market share. Within a company, the generally finite amount of money that's earned is distributed in some way to the people within it. If one guy gets more than he deserves, everybody else gets less. The difficulty is in determining a fair distribution.

You've shifted your analysis from "wealth" as an abstract concept, which is indeed unlimited, to wealth in the context of an individual corporation or industry.
That's a fallacy.

Well, if you never progress beyond the abstract then nothing is finite. But when the rubber meets the road, there are very finite limits to wealth.

Their defending the Rich getting richer by pretending there's a magic money tree where the rest of us can go to be rich too, and it's no one's fault but our own that we're not all millionaires too.

 

[edthecynic]

How about the almost 50% of people paying no income taxes pay their share?

Because they are paying sales taxes, medicare taxes, social security taxes, fees, excise and a bunch of other taxes.

Why is it that plutocrat apologists like to pretend the income tax is the only one we have?

But they dont pay income taxes.
How is it fair for libs to scream that "the rich" ought to pay more of their income when many middle class people and working class people aren't paying anything?

If I receive 10 million dollars a year in capital gains, that is my "income".It is what I show on my tax returns. By law I get to pay a specific tax known as the "capital gains tax". By bribing politicians I get to pay a lower tax on my capital gains than you do on your W2 income. But income is income. W2 or capital gains.

What the fuck is wrong with you people. Just plain stupid or what? That's twice where I've read the capital gains isn't "income". What the fuck you think it is; outgo?

Again, it is only "income" if it is REALIZED, so if your capital assets grew by 10 million and you only cashed in 1 million, you are taxed ONLY on that 1 million and at a lower rate than wages depending on how long you held the capital asset before you realized any income from it. The remaining 9 million are untaxed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In any industry or or company, there's a certain sized market. That market can be grown to some degree but generally, individual industries or companies grow by increasing their market share. Within a company, the generally finite amount of money that's earned is distributed in some way to the people within it. If one guy gets more than he deserves, everybody else gets less. The difficulty is in determining a fair distribution.

There is nothing finite about the amount of money a company can earn. Have you ever gone to the store to find it closed because they have earned the most they can earn in a day? I've never seen it, and I don't think many have. Markets are fluid and ever-changing. They can fluctuate greatly depending on all kinds of factors.

Money that is earned (profit) in a company, is most certainly distributed in many ways, but it's not all to the people within it in some way. Some money is used to pay expenses, taxes, fees, maintenance, advertising, public relations, expansion, upgrades, new technologies, etc. Sometimes money may have to pay off loans to investor capitalists. But with ANY capitalist company, the objective is to return a profit, so it's very unlikely the capitalist is squandering money on people who don't deserve the money. This totally defies the objective of all capitalists.

So you admit that it is fundamental to capitalism that the capitalist has every right to exploit workers to any extent he is able in pursuit of the objective of profit...

 

[Boss]

You people are song and dancing around semantics because you can't cope with the core argument.

The distribution of a nation's produced wealth determines who is Rich, who is Poor, and who is in between.

No dancing around semantics, you are absolutely correct here. But you are essentially admitting the wealth is not finite. It is produced, therefore it has no limit. Now while you can argue that wealth from a particular sector is finite because you can only manufacture so much product per year and people will only buy so much of it... but you've not included all the wealth generated through creativity and talent, people writing books or playing pro sports, people recording records or designing artwork, inventing new technologies, discovering new drugs... on and on and on!

Wealth is endless. Millions of people, every single day, go out there and create MORE wealth than existed the day before. The supply cannot be depleted, it is INFINITE!

 

[JoeNormal]

In any industry or or company, there's a certain sized market. That market can be grown to some degree but generally, individual industries or companies grow by increasing their market share. Within a company, the generally finite amount of money that's earned is distributed in some way to the people within it. If one guy gets more than he deserves, everybody else gets less. The difficulty is in determining a fair distribution.

There is nothing finite about the amount of money a company can earn. Have you ever gone to the store to find it closed because they have earned the most they can earn in a day? I've never seen it, and I don't think many have. Markets are fluid and ever-changing. They can fluctuate greatly depending on all kinds of factors.

Money that is earned (profit) in a company, is most certainly distributed in many ways, but it's not all to the people within it in some way. Some money is used to pay expenses, taxes, fees, maintenance, advertising, public relations, expansion, upgrades, new technologies, etc. Sometimes money may have to pay off loans to investor capitalists. But with ANY capitalist company, the objective is to return a profit, so it's very unlikely the capitalist is squandering money on people who don't deserve the money. This totally defies the objective of all capitalists.

What I was trying to get you to see is that money on its own does nothing. It's people who perform various functions who generate that wealth and energy is their force multiplier. When energy production peaks or plateaus, overall wealth generation will also plateau and the distribution of that wealth will not be the only problem that capitalism will face.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people are song and dancing around semantics because you can't cope with the core argument.

The distribution of a nation's produced wealth determines who is Rich, who is Poor, and who is in between.

No dancing around semantics, you are absolutely correct here. But you are essentially admitting the wealth is not finite. It is produced, therefore it has no limit. Now while you can argue that wealth from a particular sector is finite because you can only manufacture so much product per year and people will only buy so much of it... but you've not included all the wealth generated through creativity and talent, people writing books or playing pro sports, people recording records or designing artwork, inventing new technologies, discovering new drugs... on and on and on!

Wealth is endless. Millions of people, every single day, go out there and create MORE wealth than existed the day before. The supply cannot be depleted, it is INFINITE!

A person is not infinite.

 

[Contumacious]

So you admit that it is fundamental to capitalism that the capitalist has every right to exploit workers to any extent he is able in pursuit of the objective of profit...

So you admit that it is fundamental to parasitism that the lazy motherfucker has every right to exploit the taxpayers and neighbors to any extent he is able in pursuit of the object of theft.

.

 

[Boss]

So you admit that it is fundamental to capitalism that the capitalist has every right to exploit workers to any extent he is able in pursuit of the objective of profit...

Let's be clear, any capitalism is 'exploitation' from the Marxist perspective. The capitalist is capitalizing on a need for a product or service in order to realize a profit. He IS exploiting that need, but there IS a need being fulfilled. In a free market, there is competition which mitigates greedy exploitation. You will fill your needs with a capitalist who provides the best product or service at the best price.

Workers can't be exploited in a free market system because there is competition. When one capitalist starts exploiting his "workers" they can go to another capitalist and not be exploited. Or maybe they open a competing capitalist business that doesn't exploit employees.... the options are amazing in a free market capitalist system.

Where you find real exploitation of workers is in closed societies who establish various classes of people and make certain people 'workers' who have no options to be anything else. This is why a fella in China gets $1 a day to make thousands of pairs of $200 Nikes.

 

[Boss]

You people are song and dancing around semantics because you can't cope with the core argument.

The distribution of a nation's produced wealth determines who is Rich, who is Poor, and who is in between.

No dancing around semantics, you are absolutely correct here. But you are essentially admitting the wealth is not finite. It is produced, therefore it has no limit. Now while you can argue that wealth from a particular sector is finite because you can only manufacture so much product per year and people will only buy so much of it... but you've not included all the wealth generated through creativity and talent, people writing books or playing pro sports, people recording records or designing artwork, inventing new technologies, discovering new drugs... on and on and on!

Wealth is endless. Millions of people, every single day, go out there and create MORE wealth than existed the day before. The supply cannot be depleted, it is INFINITE!

A person is not infinite.

A person's ability to create and have ingenuity is infinite. Sorry.

 

[Skull Pilot]

tell me if you possess a house a car etc that has a market value of 10 million and yet you owe 9,999,999 dollars in debt for all those things how wealthy are you?

Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society".

That is the definition/usage I was using. We can either argue about whether Adam Smith and I are misusing the word,

or, we could get back on topic. It's up to you.

We are talking about the wealth of people not of nations.

You do realize that any wealth the US government has is not yours don't you?

The wealth of people is their net worth is it not?

BTW the answer to my question I asked earlier was $1 if you couldn't figure it out.

Don't tell me what I'm talking about.

Nation - a large aggregrate of people.

Your entire premise is that your wealth is limited by someone else.

Your wealth has nothing to do with the nation's wealth and everything to do with your net worth.

Just curious are you a multi-millionaire?

Doesn't matter

So now tell me how did my increase in net worth in the past 12 months affect your net worth?