On 2/23/2012 11:29 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/22/2012 3:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/22/2012 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:11 pm, wrote:
What did I say that would make you think that I don't think that people
who do more or work harder don't deserve to get more in return for
putting out more than others do? I call that fair. You do more you
should get more. I'm saying that principle isn't in operation very
much.
Too many people are getting gigantic pay where it's not warranted and
lots of people work very hard and get crap for pay. It's the disparity
between the 1% and the working people that I'm talking about. That's
what is screwing up the country not the minor things you just
mentioned.
Hawke
When you complain that the system is unfair. The fact is that the
system is fair for most people. You worry too much about a few
people that get a lot of money There are not that many of them.
There not only aren't that many of them, but if you seized all their
wealth and changed the tax system so that no one could acquire that kind
of wealth ever again, it wouldn't do one damned thing to improve the lot
anyone at the bottom. If all the super-rich - the 0.01% - had nearly all
their wealth confiscated, and if the tax system were rigged so that no
one ever again could amass that kind of wealth, there *still* would be
tens of millions of unwed mothers - out-of-wedlock births now account
for more than 30% of all births - and those children *still* would grow
up with ****ty prospects. There *still* would be a lot of idiots like
Hawke-Ptooey getting degrees in worthless fields like political science,
and they *still* would be unable to find a decent-paying job in the
modern economy.
You're too dumb to know the benefits that would come about if the super
rich were relieved of a good chunk of that wealth and it was
redistributed throughout the system.
There wouldn't be any. We'd all be poorer for it. There would be a
one-time injection of money that would all be wasted on bull****. What
happens when poor people buy brand new stuff they can't really afford?
It's ruined in a very short time.
The *key* thing is, taking that money would do *nothing* to make it
easier for people at the bottom to be more productive. Any money spent
on them would make them a bit happier for a very short time, kind of
like buying a double portion of ice cream makes a child happy for a
while, but it would not change their long term prospects in the least.
If you don't know it's better that
more people having more wealth than just a few having most of it
You have not shown, and you are unable to show, that it is any "better".
In addition, with more money available to way more people all kinds of
beneficial things would be done that never happen when all the money is
held by a privileged elite class.
Nope. There *WOULDN'T* be more money available to people. It would all
be spent immediately on extravagant **** that doesn't really make the
people at the bottom any better off. Okay, so you buy some deadbeat who
rambles around town in a ****ty polluting 1983 Dodge van a brand new car
- what is that car going to look like in two years? It's going to be a
dilapidated wreck. Meanwhile, that deadbeat's employment prospects have
not changed. So, he enjoyed having a nice car for two years, but in the
long run he's no better off - no better able to provide for himself.
The money seized would *NOT* be invested to yield a permanent
improvement in anyone's standard of living, that's for certain. What
happened when the State or California was rolling in more money than
they knew what to do with during the late 1990s? Did they invest any of
it? No - they spent every last goddamned dime of it, on new programs
they couldn't afford to keep funding after the bubble burst. It would
be no different if wealth were confiscated from rich people - it would
all be spent in the first year.
But there are a huge number of people that get pretty good wages. There
are a good many that screw up and do not save as much as they need to
save. They buy new cars and trucks Or they have more cars and trucks
than they need. Like you. You have two motor vehicles, you are not
married, and frankly I do not see why you need two vehicles. Or why
you need to carry a concealed weapon and spend so much time and money
at the range. Some of them smoke. Lot of them buy bottled water.
And buy things on credit cards. You have five acres. Do you have a
vegetable garden? Got a cell phone? Cable TV?
And none of that would change one iota even if there were punishing
income and wealth redistribution.
You don't have a clue the benefits that would come from what you call
punishing income and wealth redistribution.
I know exactly what would come of it: a one-time transfer of money that
would be squandered.
I know - *YOU* know - that seizing all of Bill Gates' and Warren
Buffett's wealth would not change the life prospects of anyone.