plazul wrote: So who pays the rich?generally speaking, the rich are paid by those who purchase their goods and services.
And what is money?a means of exchanging value, without having to hand over a stapler when you wish to acquire some tomatoes.
The tax system is really just a social contract. Our money has no real value except the intangible value that it derives from the system.i disagree. money does have value, that's what makes it money, a means of exchanging value. the marketplace sets the value, not 'the system' (unless that's what you mean by the system).
It's up to government to achieve a distribution balance that creates an optimum environment for labor and market forces.not historically. the government is in place to keep the peace, to settle quarrels, etc.. Meddling by the government in the marketplace is more often than not a colossal failure, no matter what the political system of the government. no, i'm not some 'free market freak'. commerce is the bedrock of civilization, just look at history. it is commerce that comes first, then government second. unfortunately, government seems to think it comes first.
When the rich are *taxed* they aren't really losing anything of value if you look at it philosophically. um, i don't know how to parse that. the rich lose value just as anyone else loses value when they are taxed. taxes are moneys taken by force from those who have them.
The government and the system is just saying, here's what we've decided you're worth. We've assigned you X amount of value, read credit, and we believe that others should receive X amount of value for helping you get to this point.i just don't understand the above. 'helping you get to this point'? with rare exception, person A generates value from his/her efforts. person B pays person A for the fruits of those efforts. person B made a choice to pay person A, and got something of value in return - where does the idea come from that, having paid for something, and received something in return, person B is owed something further in return? the formula doesn't work. it doesn't make sense.
The others are the taxpayers and laborers that helped to build the infrastructure and the society in which your enterprise achieved success. but you're speaking as if this all happens in a vacuum. say person A has become wealthy selling, for example, a gearing mechanism. that gearing mechanism is superior to other gearing mechanisms, and other industries find it desireable, so are willing to pay a premium for the high quality of that product. that gearing mechanism is used in, among other things, roadway grading equipment. that equipment is used to build and maintain the roads that person A drives on, as well as millions of other people. by selling that high quality gearing mechanism, the company that makes grading equipment benefits from lower maintenance, meaning the equipment can be kept in use for longer intervals. that means the guy who runs that grader earns more money. the grading equipment company sells more graders, so they profit. the public which uses the roads enjoys better maintained roads.
it all works together. you can substitute as the product person A creates such things as pens, or tomatoes, or light bulbs or whatever. each person's contribution of value generally goes to the greater good, in some form or another. the pen helps build the infrastructure we all use. the tomatoes keep us fed, the light bulbs let us work late at night formulating long rambling postings on internet forums. :-5
And yes, the poor are factored into the equation as a cost of doing business in a just society. All in all, it's a pretty good deal for entrepreneurs in America.i would submit that, in a just society, which i believe ours is, it is *not* necessary to forcibly take money from the rich to give to the poor. the charitable works in our nation are incredible, even with our current system. if people are taxed less - all other things being equal - they *will* give more to charity, which directly helps the poor. i know that when i was making my biggest bucks in the dot-com boom, i also gave massive amounts to charity. i did so not for the tax deductions, i did so because *i* felt a desire to give back to those less fortunate. i'm just some guy living in suburbia. there are millions of others like me. given the opportunity to help, people will do so. it simply is not necessary to *take* money from people to give to others less fortunate. doing so means the government expects the worst from its citizens, rather than the best. that's not a healthy government, particularly when the evidence clearly suggests the best is the norm.
Of course, government has to be careful not to get to a point of diminishing return both in taxation and investment in society. That's something for the federal reserve and the politicians to work out. And I realize that fairness is a subjective thing.you are aware that the federal reserve is a business - a corporation - not a government agency, yes?
At any rate, Paul, I know you think I'm a leftie but have you ever stopped to consider what's in it for me? well, although it may sound trite, i'm not big on labels. you may indeed be a lefty - i believe you've said so in as many words yourself.
But i don't believe it informs the dialogue in any useful way.
I could just say, hey, I've got mine and to hell with everybody else. some portion of the population does feel that way, no doubt. the majority do not. and that's where the crux of this difference lies, in whether we trust or distrust each other. i prefer a government and a society that gives the benefit of the doubt, absent evidence to the contrary.
But I care about the future of our country and I think investment in human capital is the best way to build prosperity. The people I oppose think people are just a disposable commodity and they'll dispose of a lot of people if we let them.i'm sure there are people who view other people as a disposable commodity. most people however, do not. if you really believe that most on the right/conservative side hold that view, then you're mistaken. that attitude, in my opinion, only serves to further polarize the debate in our country. *most people are good, honest, hardworking, and reasonably charitable towards their fellow man*. it doesn't matter whether they're conservative or liberal. i'm quite certain there are people on the left/liberal side who also view people as commodities. i suppose we could get into a pissing match about whether there are *more* of those kinds of people on the left or right - the problem is, we're talking about the tiny minority, rather than the vast majority. if it turns out that 1% of liberals view people as commodities, and 2% of conservatives, well, perhaps that means there's double the number of conservatives who view people as commodities - but it once again ignores the vast majority who do not.
john kerry is filthy rich. he's a liberal, therefore he's 'good people'. teresa heinz kerry is filthy rich. she used to be a republican, now she's a democrat. so she used to be bad people, viewing people as commodities, but now that she's a democrat, she's good people.
george bush is filthy rich. he's a conservative. therefore, he's bad people.
simplistic formulas like that, which seem to be de riguere, are turning this country into a land of warring factions. it's very sad.
i'm rambling here. i'll shut up now.
I'm curious to see what plazul has to say on this topic.
