PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello gfm7175,
I appreciate you arguing your position without animosity. I disagree with it, but also see no reason to make it personal. We are discussing ideas, not feelings. Too bad more posters don't take that approach, but the endless personal attacks do keep the board moving right along...
Ideally, all one should have to do as a minimum is pay one's taxes and let our self-government organize where the funds can best be used. If one is feeling more generous than that one is free to donate to charity. Personally I like wealth, as most do, but it is a personal decision what kind of relationship one has with wealth. Many let it rule their lives. I use it as a tool. If it suits me to donate it to a good cause I do so. I am not super-wealthy either, but I am quite comfortable and have lots of toys. I established what I feel is a good relationship with wealth early on in life. I want enough wealth to be comfortable and then some, and after that I am not going to obsess over it or dedicate my life to acquiring it. After all, what is the point of wealth? To enjoy life? That is exactly what I am doing already, so why would I waste any more time seeking more wealth? That time comes out of my available time to enjoy life. And, as we all know, we only have so much time to be alive. Sooner or later your time has expired. Remember: Nobody gets out of this alive.
Great attitude.
If you will note, he said 'more equal.' I don't know of many people actually advocating for equal wealth through redistribution. I have not heard it here at JPP. I agree that different occupations are remunerated at differing levels. It doesn't always follow a strict relationship with education level, either. Some are able to become quite wealthy without much education while others are incredibly smart, but their contributions to society are not valued as highly. Thomas Edison had no college education.
Here, you are putting words in his mouth. This is a common conservative argument, but no liberal that I have ever heard has actually advocated for 'punishing success.' The reasoning for progressive taxation is not to punish success at all. That's not what taxation is all about. It is to generate enough revenue to run the country. We merely differ on what the government should be doing. Liberals feel that a country is great when it provides a minimum level of care for the needy. A country is judged not by how well the richest are doing, but by how it cares for the least fortunate. Conservatives always take the position that a country is great with the smallest government absolutely possible, and envision no social programs at all. They fantasize that the free market will provide for all, if only they apply themselves. What they overlook is that there is actually very little opportunity for an individual raised in poverty to rise above it. They ignore this fact and instead blame the poor for their own condition as a way to justify refusing to help them.
Everyone understands that. What conservatives ignore is that the country simply can not be great without aggressive progressive taxation. Some conservatives advocate for a flat tax, say 15% of what you earned. Rich, poor, all would pay the same percentage. Some envision that as fair. An intriguing argument, but it breaks down when you realize that the poor simply cannot pay this amount. they already pay everything they earn, most of it to the rich. Rent, food, transportation, etc consumes everything they earn.
If those programs are unconstitutional then bring a case. Good luck arguing it. The constitution says "Promote The General Welfare."
John's Crazy Socks
That was all fine and well back in the 1960's when the corporate executive earned 10-15 times what the average working man earned. That was an equitable income spread. Now that the figure has risen to 500 times the average worker, it is skewed toward the rich. And that way that figure continues to rise IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. Our economy will implode if this is allowed to continue.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Have you ever heard of Alfred Loomis? Don't feel bad if you haven't. He was a great man, but he didn't do what he did for notoriety. He simply wanted to make a great contribution to the free world, and realized he had the wits to do it. He was instrumental in the allied powers winning World War II. He created RADAR, a Computer, and put them together to invent RADAR-guided AA guns for Britain to fight off the relentless attacks of the Luftwaffe. I didn't even know this technology exist then. It was all kept secret for obvious reasons.
It turns out that Loomis was a great capitalist for a while, until he got super-rich. Then he turned his interests to non-profit science, using his own money for the common good. He made a capitalist fortune by correctly predicting the crash of 1929. Later, he used his own fortune to develop a science lab where he perfected his inventions. He gave his work to the US and British governments at no personal profit. He helped win the war.
Nicola Tesla invented the AC Motor. He didn't care about getting rich. He just wanted the public to have this great advancement. He gave his idea to Thomas Edison. Edison foolishly rejected it, because Edison was a strict capitalist, in it for the money, and Edison had already put a lot of work into selling DC electricity, having wired a few blocks of New York with it. He didn't want to tell his customers that there was now a better way to use electricity. Tesla left Edison and found George Westinghouse, another capitalist. Westinghouse seized Tesla's idea and became rich on it. He paid Tesla a flat fee. Tesla went on to use his money to try to invent wireless power transmission, something that never happened. He never stopped trying to improve the world, not for profit, but because he simply wanted to make advancements.
Jonas Salk was a doctor who went into research. He was convinced he could create a cure for Polio. He did it, and then gave it away for free, so the world could have it. He could have been fabulously wealthy if he had sold it, but he was happy to make this advancement for society and live his modest life. He had all he wanted already. He was happy.
There you go. Three very great people who did what they did not out of selfishness at all. There was no inherent selfishness involved with any of them. Now, they were all very great people and have achieved notoriety for their accomplishments. Can you imagine how many people are out there quietly giving of themselves for others and for society who are NOT famous? Incalculable. The thought that everybody is motivated by selfishness and greed is just plain wrong.
I appreciate you arguing your position without animosity. I disagree with it, but also see no reason to make it personal. We are discussing ideas, not feelings. Too bad more posters don't take that approach, but the endless personal attacks do keep the board moving right along...
Ideally, all one should have to do as a minimum is pay one's taxes and let our self-government organize where the funds can best be used. If one is feeling more generous than that one is free to donate to charity. Personally I like wealth, as most do, but it is a personal decision what kind of relationship one has with wealth. Many let it rule their lives. I use it as a tool. If it suits me to donate it to a good cause I do so. I am not super-wealthy either, but I am quite comfortable and have lots of toys. I established what I feel is a good relationship with wealth early on in life. I want enough wealth to be comfortable and then some, and after that I am not going to obsess over it or dedicate my life to acquiring it. After all, what is the point of wealth? To enjoy life? That is exactly what I am doing already, so why would I waste any more time seeking more wealth? That time comes out of my available time to enjoy life. And, as we all know, we only have so much time to be alive. Sooner or later your time has expired. Remember: Nobody gets out of this alive.
Great attitude.
If you will note, he said 'more equal.' I don't know of many people actually advocating for equal wealth through redistribution. I have not heard it here at JPP. I agree that different occupations are remunerated at differing levels. It doesn't always follow a strict relationship with education level, either. Some are able to become quite wealthy without much education while others are incredibly smart, but their contributions to society are not valued as highly. Thomas Edison had no college education.
Here, you are putting words in his mouth. This is a common conservative argument, but no liberal that I have ever heard has actually advocated for 'punishing success.' The reasoning for progressive taxation is not to punish success at all. That's not what taxation is all about. It is to generate enough revenue to run the country. We merely differ on what the government should be doing. Liberals feel that a country is great when it provides a minimum level of care for the needy. A country is judged not by how well the richest are doing, but by how it cares for the least fortunate. Conservatives always take the position that a country is great with the smallest government absolutely possible, and envision no social programs at all. They fantasize that the free market will provide for all, if only they apply themselves. What they overlook is that there is actually very little opportunity for an individual raised in poverty to rise above it. They ignore this fact and instead blame the poor for their own condition as a way to justify refusing to help them.
Everyone understands that. What conservatives ignore is that the country simply can not be great without aggressive progressive taxation. Some conservatives advocate for a flat tax, say 15% of what you earned. Rich, poor, all would pay the same percentage. Some envision that as fair. An intriguing argument, but it breaks down when you realize that the poor simply cannot pay this amount. they already pay everything they earn, most of it to the rich. Rent, food, transportation, etc consumes everything they earn.
If those programs are unconstitutional then bring a case. Good luck arguing it. The constitution says "Promote The General Welfare."
John's Crazy Socks
That was all fine and well back in the 1960's when the corporate executive earned 10-15 times what the average working man earned. That was an equitable income spread. Now that the figure has risen to 500 times the average worker, it is skewed toward the rich. And that way that figure continues to rise IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. Our economy will implode if this is allowed to continue.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Have you ever heard of Alfred Loomis? Don't feel bad if you haven't. He was a great man, but he didn't do what he did for notoriety. He simply wanted to make a great contribution to the free world, and realized he had the wits to do it. He was instrumental in the allied powers winning World War II. He created RADAR, a Computer, and put them together to invent RADAR-guided AA guns for Britain to fight off the relentless attacks of the Luftwaffe. I didn't even know this technology exist then. It was all kept secret for obvious reasons.
It turns out that Loomis was a great capitalist for a while, until he got super-rich. Then he turned his interests to non-profit science, using his own money for the common good. He made a capitalist fortune by correctly predicting the crash of 1929. Later, he used his own fortune to develop a science lab where he perfected his inventions. He gave his work to the US and British governments at no personal profit. He helped win the war.
Nicola Tesla invented the AC Motor. He didn't care about getting rich. He just wanted the public to have this great advancement. He gave his idea to Thomas Edison. Edison foolishly rejected it, because Edison was a strict capitalist, in it for the money, and Edison had already put a lot of work into selling DC electricity, having wired a few blocks of New York with it. He didn't want to tell his customers that there was now a better way to use electricity. Tesla left Edison and found George Westinghouse, another capitalist. Westinghouse seized Tesla's idea and became rich on it. He paid Tesla a flat fee. Tesla went on to use his money to try to invent wireless power transmission, something that never happened. He never stopped trying to improve the world, not for profit, but because he simply wanted to make advancements.
Jonas Salk was a doctor who went into research. He was convinced he could create a cure for Polio. He did it, and then gave it away for free, so the world could have it. He could have been fabulously wealthy if he had sold it, but he was happy to make this advancement for society and live his modest life. He had all he wanted already. He was happy.
There you go. Three very great people who did what they did not out of selfishness at all. There was no inherent selfishness involved with any of them. Now, they were all very great people and have achieved notoriety for their accomplishments. Can you imagine how many people are out there quietly giving of themselves for others and for society who are NOT famous? Incalculable. The thought that everybody is motivated by selfishness and greed is just plain wrong.
This is your brain on moron; don't be one. 
