On 2/23/2012 5:09 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:29:20 -0800, 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. If you don't know it's better that
more people having more wealth than just a few having most of it then
you never learned the first thing about economics.

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. You don't seem to know the first thing
about anything, history, politics, economics, any of it. Did you learn
anything in school? And by the way, what is your great success you
achieved from having a degree in economics. We know it didn't make you
rich. Did it even get you an average paying job or are you like the rest
of those econ majors who can't make a dime as an economist? So shut up
about my degree. I didn't have to have it. I only got it because I felt
like it.

The question that comes to mind is "how will this redistribution of
wealth take place? From reading your posts you seem to assume that
there will be a large tax imposed on the rich to strip them of their
wealth. But the result of that exercise to simply to increase the
amount of money available to the government. How will this windfall be
distributed to the proletariat? Will the present crop of layabout's
that are presently sucking on the government tit become bloated with
money? Or will the offer to become wards of the state be tendered to
more of the lower orders in order to lure any borderline cases into
the government's care?

It would take place mainly through taxation. The burden of paying the
nation's bills would be shifted away from the poor and middle class and
back to the wealthy and the corporations. It wouldn't be overnight but a
gradual change over time that shifted taxes from the lower to the upper
class would take place.

Just today I heard once again that the poor even though they don't pay
federal income taxes are still paying the same percentage of their
earnings as everyone else does. They pay in payroll taxes, sales taxes,
excise taxes, and others but in the end they are paying in close to a
third of their wages too. That would end immediately. Somebody making
ten or fifteen thousand a year ought not have to pay anything in taxes.

But over time the taxes would become more progressive to the point where
those with all the wealth would lose some percentage of that wealth and
it would then either go to or be used for the benefit for everyone else.
Then after a number of years you would see a reversal of what we just
saw over the last three decades where the rich gained so much and
everyone else gained nothing. In the end the rich would still be rich.
Just not as rich as now. So a billionaire might only be worth 500 or 750
million. I don't think that is really much of a hardship. Do you?
Meanwhile as the rich lost some percentage of wealth it would trickle
back into the hands of the middle and lower classes. In the end America
would look more like it did in the fifties and sixties as far as who
owned the wealth in America. So what's so bad about that?

Hawke