Wealth Inequality Is A National Emergency

[PostmodernProphet]

You do have a reading disability.

yours is universal.....you think the policies that destroyed VZ was "progress".....

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Oh, I am so sorry. I did not know that you were too fucking stupid to understand the meaning "so did". I realize I should have though considering how many times in the past you have shown what a dumb fuck you are.

Now tell me where Christ said not to help those in need. Then you can explain just how it was never an American idea since the Founding Fathers say your a stupid fucking liar.

Of course, if it is left up to you, and other POS like Trump, it will not be that way for much longer:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/helping-others-is-the-american-way

Translation: I got my ass handed to me on a silver platter. You claimed the Karl Marx quote was the American way. Sorry stupid but it has nothing to do with helping others.

 

[PoliTalker]

Taxation is legal and required to run the nation.

No taxation, no USA.

Therefore, taxation is moral.

That means the argument is about the level of taxation, not the taxation itself.

 

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm7175,

I noticed a glaring omission in your version of factors involved in success. Being born into a wealthy family is a tremendous advantage in acquiring wealth. Donald Trump was raised to do one thing: acquire wealth through the failed win/lose philosophy. He mostly failed at business, but his outrageous character was a big hit on Reality TV, where shock factor sells advertising.

Yes, being born wealthy is an advantage, just like being born poor is a disadvantage. I agree there.

Where I disagree is when you say that Trump mostly failed at business... How so? He has been very successful at real estate. Yes, several companies of his went bankrupt. That happens. That isn't "failure", though, when he still has many other successful ventures which far outweigh his ventures that ended up failing.

 

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm7175,



Corporate executives often get their jobs not strictly because of their qualifications, but who they know. Contacts are everything in that process. There are thousands of people with very good grades and high GPA who graduate with MBA, but if they don't graduate from an Ivy League School, if they don't have the background and family contacts, they are frequently overlooked for top corporate leadership positions. They are well qualified to do the work, but they don't get the job because they don't have the contacts, don't rub shoulders at the right country club. People are groomed from birth for those select few positions. Some outsiders get in occasionally, but the norm is to take those with connections.

Yes, "who you know" sure does help, but if you don't have the ability, you are going to fail, no matter who you know.

 

[Mason Michaels]

U.S. sees biggest wealth gap since the Roaring '20s

https://www.axios.com/wealth-gap-ri...rJDGNo3-IyewRz-HfJ4l8Wavg1vDw83EUNBuo-drVPQkQ

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm7175,

Yes, being born wealthy is an advantage, just like being born poor is a disadvantage. I agree there.

Thank you.

Where I disagree is when you say that Trump mostly failed at business... How so? He has been very successful at real estate. Yes, several companies of his went bankrupt. That happens. That isn't "failure", though, when he still has many other successful ventures which far outweigh his ventures that ended up failing.

If Trump had any sense of decency (which he surely does not,) he would use his profits from his successful businesses and pay back all the people that he stiffed in his many bankruptcies. Repeated bankruptcies are not normal. Most people, if they ever go into bankruptcy, don't ever 'come back.' The only reason Trump had so many chances is because his father bailed him out after he failed. Most people do not have a multi-millionaire father to do that.

And we are still left to wonder what the details are surrounding Trump's use of Russian money after the US banks would no longer loan to him. Just who in Russia has millions of dollars to lend? Usually, anybody who has that much money in such a corrupt economy didn't get it legally. Was Trump the recipient of illegal money being laundered? Did he really pay all his taxes? Or did he pull the same old tricks he has done his whole life - falsify reports of his wealth and where the money came from...

 

[Old Trapper]

Translation: I got my ass handed to me on a silver platter. You claimed the Karl Marx quote was the American way. Sorry stupid but it has nothing to do with helping others.

Yes, you did get your ass handed to you on a platter, as usual, and now you are doing what you do best, doubling down on your ignorance. Karl Marx comment was about HELPING OTHERS as were the teachings of Christ. As to the Founding Fathers, read what I posted asshole, and quit being a f**king idiot. You are not that smart. In fact, a horses ass is smarter then you. Ever hear of a "Barn Raising" you f**king idiot? That is the American way, not the fucked up "me first" attitude fools like you support.

 

[gfm7175]

Over the past few years in "debating" the right wing I am constantly amazed at just how ignorant of the Bible, and the history of the country they really are. And because of that ignorance they then rely on lies, and distortions, to make their point. Trump does the same thing so he then becomes their idol.

I call this the 'lack of understanding' mantra, and typically ignore it on sight.

Because of this weakness, and I get tired of correcting them, in this post I am going to ignore all of the lies told by GFM, and his demonstration of ignorance, and address just one sentence that clearly shows what I am speaking of, and then they will lie some more to cover up for their ignorance.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You are dismissing my arguments as absurd without counterargument. You are also redefining the word 'lie' to mean 'disagree'. I am not 'lying' to you, I am rather 'disagreeing' with you.

If they had any integrity they would try to educate themselves, and thus end the ignorance. However, that would actually require working their brain cells, and they cannot do that anymore then they can admit to their abject stupidity.

Insult Fallacy. Insults are not arguments. 'Lack of intelligence' and 'lack of understanding' mantras both ignored on sight.

Christ taught in Matthew 6:19-24:

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. . . . No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."

That is accumulation.

He's not saying that one cannot be rich in an earthly sense. He's saying that one ought not worship money (that heavenly things should come before earthly things, and that people who have been blessed with earthly riches ought to use those riches to serve God and to help out people in need). He wants us to be content with what we have, whether that is much or little. He is not condemning wealth in and of itself, but is rather condemning improper attitude towards it.

Later in Mark 10:17–25 Jesus dealt with a rich young ruler who wanted eternal life—so long as he isn’t asked to sacrifice his great wealth. When Jesus tells him to sell all he has and give it to the poor, he’s disheartened. He goes away sorrowful, for he has great possessions. Don't accumulate, but use your wealth to help others.

Jesus then warns the wealthy “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

The passage there was all about exposing that man's heart... That man ultimately valued his earthly wealth above God. In other words, that man's wealth was his god, not God himself. He was giving up eternal life for his earthly possessions. It's all about where one is placing their worship. One can have lots of money, yet place their worship in God. Christ doesn't condemn wealth or wealth accumulation; he instead condemns the worship of it, and condemns the trusting of wealth instead of trusting him.

As to the Founding Fathers, they came from a country that support the aristocracy, and wanted no part of it in the New country. And even though most were Deists they also understood the dangers of the accumulation of great wealth by the few:

https://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

Just a tad bit more the inform the useful idiots who can only fantasize about what I would do:

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." The Federalist No. 51, James Madison.

"The balance of power in a society, accompanies the balance of property in land. The only possible way, then, of preserving the balance of power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue,is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society; to make the division of the land into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates." John Adams From a letter to James Sullivan, 1776.

I couldn't find an argument present in all of this to respond to...

 

[Old Trapper]

Will Bernie give two of his three residences to a less fortunate family.
Will he give his millions to others less fortunate.
Bernie is willing to share the wealth as long as it’s not his wealth.

What will all these Hollywood elites say if the liberals take 70% to 90% of their earnings over 10 million.
Why wait for a liberal to be elected, why not give it to the government now. Hypocrites

Why is it the only excuse you fools can find for your own greed, and the greed of those you support, is the greed of others?

And then you call them "hypocrites".

 

[gfm7175]

Since neither one of you has that 70 IQ, let me explain something to your more foolish nature.

Not all men are created equal with abilities, intellect, or desires.

ALL men are created equal with certain rights given to them by God in whatever form you envision him/her as.

But tell me, of all the people of working age how many are not working?

Now answer this if you dare. Of all those who are working how many are paid a salary that allows them to live without government assistance?

I stopped reading after the bolded part...

 

[gfm7175]

Why is it the only excuse you fools can find for your own greed, and the greed of those you support, is the greed of others?

And then you call them "hypocrites".

He actually makes a good point there... Those people all have a concentration of wealth, but they worship that wealth instead of worshipping God... They ought to use their vast wealth to help others who are less fortunate. Contrary to liberalism, I do not support compelling them to do so, but through self-governance and charity, they ought to do so.

I also believe that if Bernie and others spout off those types of beliefs, that they ought to be practicing those beliefs themselves BEFORE they suggest/compel others to do so.

 

[gfm7175]

Will Bernie give two of his three residences to a less fortunate family.
Will he give his millions to others less fortunate.
Bernie is willing to share the wealth as long as it’s not his wealth.

What will all these Hollywood elites say if the liberals take 70% to 90% of their earnings over 10 million.
Why wait for a liberal to be elected, why not give it to the government now. Hypocrites

Spot on!

 

[PoliTalker]

We have to tax really big money more.

Capital Gains over a certain amount should be taxed at the same rate as earned income. Anything less is punishing work.

It is ridiculous that people with big incomes from investing should be taxed less than people with big incomes from working.

Ray Dalio, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates have all pledged to donate more than half of their fortunes to charity in their lifetime.

Trump and ilk should be forced to do the same or leave most of it to the government. No more handed down fortunes and handed down power.

The USA made it possible for them to get so rich. Let them take care of the country that gave them the power.

 

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm7175,

What you have done is make the case that all taxation is theft.

Essentially, yes...

That's ridiculous. Government has to be funded. Taxes must be levied.

No, it doesn't. There doesn't even NEED to be a government (I would argue that having one is better, however).

It doesn't really matter what you want to call it, 'punishing success,' whatever. That's just words. The purpose of taxation has nothing to do with treatment of success. It is to run the government.

Does taxation itself punish success?? No, it doesn't. Does PROGRESSIVE taxation punish success?? Yes, it does. We used to run the government solely on tariffs (no income tax, etc...) and we had the Industrial Revolution and ran the country just fine WITHOUT taxation. That's back when the federal government was very small and didn't require much money to fund. That's also when our currency was backed by gold and wasn't inflated to piss... Now, the federal government is extremely bloated, consisting mostly of unconstitutional agencies and such, and not even all the richest of the rich people in our country could fund our current government.

If running the government is immoral then that probably fits nicely with the view that government itself is immoral. And that is incorrect because without government we would not even have a nation to have an economy IN.

I've heard that position espoused before, but I don't find government itself (or running it) to be evil or immoral, as we ran it in a much more moral way back during the Industrial Revolution. At this point, though, I would say that the current federal government is essentially theft, and is mostly evil/immoral.

As to the bolded, government is not necessary to have a nation nor an economy.

You must accept taxation as proper and correct.

No, I don't have to, and I don't accept that.

It is actually a good thing.

No, it is not. It is theft. It is immoral.

You should be proud to pay your taxes.

I, as well as our Founding Fathers, would say precisely the opposite. Being compelled to pay taxes (essentially, theft) does not make me feel good.

You can feel good when you pay your taxes because you then are pulling your weight, pulling your share of the load.

If I was charitably donating my wealth by means of self-governance and free will, that would be one thing. But being forcibly compelled to pay taxes (essentially, theft) is another...

You are a part of things. You make America function. You are investing in America, and ensuring that America will be there for you and your descendants.

Correct. I contribute to society. Having my money stolen from me through taxation is not necessary to do that.

Paying your taxes makes you a good man. You are part of the producers. You can be a proud member of society when you pay your taxes.

I can be part of the producers, and a proud member of society, WITHOUT paying any taxes. Heck, before the early 1900s, that's what America WAS...

Tariffs are one thing (fine)... Excise taxes are one thing... Income taxes are another (not fine)... Social Security/Medicare taxes are another... Death taxes are another...

Taxing never made a rich man poor.

Maybe, maybe not... But it is still theft, and it is still immoral.

 

[gfm7175]

We have to tax really big money more.

I don't think so.

Capital Gains over a certain amount should be taxed at the same rate as earned income. Anything less is punishing work.

It is ridiculous that people with big incomes from investing should be taxed less than people with big incomes from working.

I agree here. I do not think that investment income should have an advantage over a wage/salary... If income is going to be taxed, it should all be taxed the same, no matter the source of it. I, however, do not support income taxation to begin with, as it is essentially theft.

Ray Dalio, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates have all pledged to donate more than half of their fortunes to charity in their lifetime.

This is the model that I appreciate. Self-governance and charity, rather than compulsion.

Trump and ilk should be forced to do the same or leave most of it to the government. No more handed down fortunes and handed down power.

This is the model that I condemn. Why should he be forced to do the same? I will note that Trump already does donate quite a bit of his money to charity (one example is not accepting his President's pay). There are many other examples.

The USA made it possible for them to get so rich. Let them take care of the country that gave them the power.

I thought you wanted everyone to carry their own weight, such as wanting me to be happy and proud to pay my taxes, but now you only want "the rich" to take care of the country?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm7175,

Essentially, yes...


No, it doesn't. There doesn't even NEED to be a government (I would argue that having one is better, however).


Does taxation itself punish success?? No, it doesn't. Does PROGRESSIVE taxation punish success?? Yes, it does. We used to run the government solely on tariffs (no income tax, etc...) and we had the Industrial Revolution and ran the country just fine WITHOUT taxation. That's back when the federal government was very small and didn't require much money to fund. That's also when our currency was backed by gold and wasn't inflated to piss... Now, the federal government is extremely bloated, consisting mostly of unconstitutional agencies and such, and not even all the richest of the rich people in our country could fund our current government.


I've heard that position espoused before, but I don't find government itself (or running it) to be evil or immoral, as we ran it in a much more moral way back during the Industrial Revolution. At this point, though, I would say that the current federal government is essentially theft, and is mostly evil/immoral.

As to the bolded, government is not necessary to have a nation nor an economy.


No, I don't have to, and I don't accept that.


No, it is not. It is theft. It is immoral.


I, as well as our Founding Fathers, would say precisely the opposite. Being compelled to pay taxes (essentially, theft) does not make me feel good.


If I was charitably donating my wealth by means of self-governance and free will, that would be one thing. But being forcibly compelled to pay taxes (essentially, theft) is another...


Correct. I contribute to society. Having my money stolen from me through taxation is not necessary to do that.


I can be part of the producers, and a proud member of society, WITHOUT paying any taxes. Heck, before the early 1900s, that's what America WAS...

Tariffs are one thing (fine)... Excise taxes are one thing... Income taxes are another (not fine)... Social Security/Medicare taxes are another... Death taxes are another...


Maybe, maybe not... But it is still theft, and it is still immoral.

Thanks for your answers. I now understand your position better. I completely disagree with most of it, but it's good to know why you hold your position. That helps me feel better about my reasoning for my own position, which I maintain is realistic and logical.

The world our nation existed in before the early 1900's doesn't exist any more. The industrial age brought amazing advancements - some good, some terrible - changing us forever. We no longer live in the pre-industrial age, so we cannot have a pre-industrial age government. Industrialization brought multitudes of new problems which have to be dealt with. New threats to longevity, threats to labor, threats to the environment, threats to consumers and workers. We couldn't live on whale oil forever - we were decimating their populations. Westward expansion ended when we connected the coasts. Industrialization brought us World Wars and the need for standing armies. New chemicals caused new diseases and new demands on the health care system. Health care technology improved and became more expensive. You cannot explore the moon and solar system on tariffs.

New threats to our democracy came, both foreign and domestic. The minimum standard of living has been raised. We have a New Deal. We live in The Great Society. We are not going back.

We simply cannot go back to the horse and buggy, and we cannot go back to a nation without taxes. There is no hidden magic valley where John Galt runs a perpetual motion machine with Dagny Taggart, and there is no such thing as Reardon metal.

 

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm7175,

Thanks for your answers. I now understand your position better. I completely disagree with most of it, but it's good to know why you hold your position. That helps me feel better about my reasoning for my own position, which I maintain is realistic and logical.

Thanks for yours too.

The world our nation existed in before the early 1900's doesn't exist any more. The industrial age brought amazing advancements - some good, some terrible - changing us forever. We no longer live in the pre-industrial age, so we cannot have a pre-industrial age government. Industrialization brought multitudes of new problems which have to be dealt with. New threats to longevity, threats to labor, threats to the environment, threats to consumers and workers. We couldn't live on whale oil forever - we were decimating their populations. Westward expansion ended when we connected the coasts. Industrialization brought us World Wars and the need for standing armies. New chemicals caused new diseases and new demands on the health care system. Health care technology improved and became more expensive. You cannot explore the moon and solar system on tariffs.

Would you have some specific examples of the claims you made that I bolded above?

The rest seems reasonably stated, as technologies do change over time. Obviously, a government as large as ours cannot be funded on tariffs and excise taxes alone. I don't think we need a government nearly as large as ours currently is though, as I think a lot of things could be better handled either privately or on a State/Local level.

New threats to our democracy came, both foreign and domestic.

The USA is not a democracy. It is, rather, a Federated Republic. It is ruled by a Constitution, not by a mob of people. But yes, there are more threats now than before.

The minimum standard of living has been raised. We have a New Deal. We live in The Great Society. We are not going back.

We simply cannot go back to the horse and buggy, and we cannot go back to a nation without taxes. There is no hidden magic valley where John Galt runs a perpetual motion machine with Dagny Taggart, and there is no such thing as Reardon metal.

Standard of living has increased (to where even the poorer people in our country are typically better off than people in most other countries) due to Capitalism. The New Deal and Great Society policies were largely unconstitutional, and bloated our government to the behemoth it is today. We technically COULD go back to a nation without taxes (just tariffs and excise taxes), but it would likely be quite painful to do at this point, as we are too deep into these social welfare programs, and have too much debt as a result of bloated government.

 

[Nordberg]

Thanks for yours too.


Would you have some specific examples of the claims you made that I bolded above?

The rest seems reasonably stated, as technologies do change over time. Obviously, a government as large as ours cannot be funded on tariffs and excise taxes alone. I don't think we need a government nearly as large as ours currently is though, as I think a lot of things could be better handled either privately or on a State/Local level.


The USA is not a democracy. It is, rather, a Federated Republic. It is ruled by a Constitution, not by a mob of people. But yes, there are more threats now than before.


Standard of living has increased (to where even the poorer people in our country are typically better off than people in most other countries) due to Capitalism. The New Deal and Great Society policies were largely unconstitutional, and bloated our government to the behemoth it is today. We technically COULD go back to a nation without taxes (just tariffs and excise taxes), but it would likely be quite painful to do at this point, as we are too deep into these social welfare programs, and have too much debt as a result of bloated government.

Of course, this is not just wrong, but right wing wong. https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/facts 40 million going hungry and living in abject poverty.

 

[Old Trapper]

Essentially, yes...


No, it doesn't. There doesn't even NEED to be a government (I would argue that having one is better, however).

.


Maybe, maybe not... But it is still theft, and it is still immoral.

Tell me. Is someone standing over you with a gun forcing you to stay on this immoral country?

As long as you remain in this country you agree to follow its laws, its customs, and its social contract. For doing so you enjoy the protections of its military, its police department, its fire department, its economy, the highways you drive on, the electricity that runs your house, and numerous others those taxes pay for.

But you would rather give all that you can to the wealthiest Americas who already own 90% of the wealth in the country, and then whine like the subservient servant you are when someone suggests that perhaps they should pay more.

As for your anarchist comments, you would starve to death without others to help you. And at no time in the history of mankind has it been shown man is capable of controlling his behaviour without a government to enforce the laws necessary for a civilized society.

And just for your information, those taxes prior to the early 1900's, and the 16th. Amendment, were paid by only one class, the wealthy.