Forum Post: Guys, let's make it clear, we are NOT trying to punish success.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 12:30 p.m. EST by jssk
(170)
from Naperville, IL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A lot of people here are arguing about people making billions, with the impression that we just hate all rich people. We don't.
If you get rich by doing good work, by selling albums, and so on, you deserved it. It's a fair game.
What's unfair is bank CEOs and fund managers getting big compensations proportionate to OTHER people's money, and not undertaking any loss when they fuck it up. In fact they still get fat bonuses when they mess it up, not to mention all the bailouts from the taxpayers.
It's those who made millions/billions in such manner, and the system enabling/encouraging them that we are against. We are not hating on all the rich.
Let's get the message straight.
So, okay, it's okay for a recording artist to make millions on the backs of the sound engineers who make a fraction of a fraction of that and the shipping people who only get a fraction of a fraction of a fraction ...
It's all the same, bud.
Where the real problem lies is not in these people making money - it's that they rig the game and buy out our politicians to ensure an non-level playing field.
I don't feel like this is quite the same as bailing out failing institutions so they can give themselves millions of dollars in bonuses. The sound engineer chose to do that work, I didn't choose to give a handout to insolvent banks. You said so yourself: it's that they rig the game and buy out our politicians to ensure an non-level playing field.
Correct.
It's not that they are making money or obscene amounts of money - it's that they are using this money to own our politicians and our system of government.
We will never be able to ramrod parity in salaries into corporate america. Unless we vote with our dollars and point out the greed. No referendum will change that from a political leader. It will always fail.
So, my point was direct it at the by-product of these actions ... not the amassing of money (which is a different problem).
That's why we need non-level tax brackets. But right now our tax rates are too level compared to the playing field.
Explain.
What we need, in my opinion, is money out of politics.
At least corporate money.
All money. Period.
Once you allow for one set of donators to unlimited donations, the system is broken.
Money out.
Then how are they gonna campaign?
In the past, candidates didn't campaign like they do now. They hit a few hotspots, traveled but there was no way to be all over. So they came up with the idea of political parties. That way you didn't need to know the candidate personally to understand his fundamental platform.
In today's world, I would argue that you can be in front of 80% of the population without need of parties and/or money with very little effort. There are so many free ways of voicing your political views and announcing your candidacy.
From 24-hour news networks that prosper from these elections to social media to political websites to personal websites. We don't need that much money to run anymore.
I would argue that campaigning, as it exists now, is little more than open lying to the masses. They say one thing to group A and something else to group B. Oftentimes in opposition. So, we never really know the candidate anyhow. But a single site wherein they are documented and answer questions to the MASSES is far more preferable.
I would also argue that if we were to reduce the debates to a year long process with one debate a month it would be more efficient. If this was the only media exposure a candidate had - their answers would have to reflect their true values and there would be no way to hide. My brother mentioned something like this off the cuff, and the more I reflect on it, the more it makes sense.
The idea of political campaigns have become fueled by bitter slander that is paid for by these donations. Ads that have the sole purpose of attacking candidates. This needs to end.
You have a very good point.
Before I always viewed the current campaign format as a way citizens can participate in political life by donating. More money gets your candidate wider audience and stronger support.
But now I guess the format of contribution can be shifted to online comments, retweets, etc. instead of money. That's a good idea. But then again those in the bottom of the society with limited or no computers and internet access are further left behind.
The people that are so low that they cannot get to a local library to access a computer and do not own televisions would most likely not have money to donate and contribute to the process overall as well.
Well, that's very true. And sad.
It is sad, but unfortunately it is the way of life.
Life organizes itself that way. For better or worse.
I don't know it is right or wrong to combat that natural process. If we chose to actually fight it, we would need a nation of enlightened people with very low egos. Otherwise it would implode.
I think one thing that distinguishes humanity from the animal kingdom is we don't let one another just die and wither. We still have the weak, the uniformed, and the unfortunate, but we provide a bottom line so everybody always has a chance.
It's sad so many people think they live in a jungle of every man for himself, and their earnings are results of only their own effort, not a fruit of the social system we all built together.
Public-ONLY financing of campaigns.
There's a pot of money set-aside for each election...and ONLY that money (not even your own money) can be used for campaigning.
It seems it would just go under the table don't ya think?
Yes, there are always people to break the rules.
jssk, good thread..!! I totally agree. focus on this message and keep putitng it our their. bonusses big banks paid after receiving billions in TARP $$ is criminal. everyone knows that. stick to this point and keep hammering it home........
Thanks! Let's keep it up there.
So you are saying that become somene was successful they should be punished by having to pay higher taxes?
So when your church asks money from you you are saying you are being punished?
There is a difference between being asked to donate money of my own free will and being forced to pay a higher portion of money than the person standing next to me to the governemnt because I worked hard to get a better job and he sat at home on his couch
So you are saying people like teachers, firefighters and soldiers making a moderate live because they sat on their couch and didn't work hard? You think someone making 50M really worked 1000 times more than someone making 50K?
Think again.
5% of 50M will still be more money than 5% of 50K so they will still pay more. There is no need to punish them for succeeding in life by making them pay 50% while the other person pays 5%.
I know it would sound like the 50M man should pay just the same tax rate as the 50K man.
But think about it, it would be a lot easier for the 50M man to increase his wealth by 10% than the 50K man. Why? because the world is not linear. The richer you get, the easier things are, the less "work" is required for the same achievement. You have more information, more connections, more opportunities, some of which are your own work, but most of it, is merely because you are rich. That's where the increased tax rate comes from in my personal opinion.
I could be wrong. But one thing is for sure, if we have a flat rate tax, social inequality will be much much worse. And if you think inequality is not bad for everybody, then pretend I never said anything.
Lets put it this way. If you and I are in school together and you get an A on a test and I get a C on it should you then get punished for doing better on the test then me? I don't think so. So why is it that if you get a job as a CEO and I get a job as a mailroom clerk you shoudl get punished for that?
[Deleted]
Using that logic, inner cities should be paying an extremely high amount in personal property taxes.
Because my friend, this world is not a perfect mathematical model. In a simple formula, of course, we should pay a flat tax rate. But in this real world, people's success and resource get exponentially multiplied. Wen I am a CEO, I get all kinds of information, connections, influence, that will position me to make my next million effortlessly, compared to you, a mail clerk who doesn't have any of those intangible resources. And the increased tax rate, is on those things not quantified in but will inevitably result in money.
And the people on the top tend to think their achievements are solely the result of their own effort and talent, but a big part, if not a major part, in fact is a result of how our society is structured. For example, they would have chances to have lunch with a mayor, or a senator, thus gathering information, influencing policy, or at least building reputation for their future endeavors. A mail man doesn't get the chance simply because not enough resource hence importance are carried on one person to command his time. It's nobody's fault, it's just how the society is. And it's to the rich's advantage, it's an earning, it has to be taxed. Hard to quantify, but an increase in tax rate is the best we can do now.
Those that make more than $10mil per year live on 3% of that income. The rest is saved and invested. increasing the tax on that income won't change his living standard.
the $50k lives on 97% of his income. Are you trying to say that the man working for $50k is not working hard for it? Is not working hard enough? Is the 50k man more useless, more expendable? Is his life less valuable?
Society needs both the 50k and the 50mil man. But there is an inherent inequity when one man can use his influence on those in power to protect his earnings. You quibble about the fairness of making the rich man pay a little more, but what of the unfairness in rigging the game, making up the rules? What happens to your cry for fairness when the teacher is being paid by the A student?
It's called the social contract....look it up.
Does my church threaten me if I don't pay. No. Silly argument.
Neither are we. We are asking very nicely.
Then try and not pay your taxes and see how nice they are.
Current taxes commanded by law were not the topic here. If you didn't like them, you should have said something when they were passed years ago.
Are you suggesting another tax bracket above the top one with a higher marginal tax rate?
That is precisely punishing success. What are you suggesting?
Are you suggesting people making moderate income like teachers and firemen are failures?
Answer the question: Do you want to create a tax bracket above the existing one with a 100% tax rate to effectively create an income cap? You said the tax brackets are too level. They range from 10% to 35%. You do realize that if you tax the top too much, they'll just move or hide their money and deflate our economy even more, right?
No, having an income cap would be ludicrous, I never implied that. Look at our effective tax rate curve, it's pretty flat under 35% after 500K, it needs to extend the slope into the higher income levels. There are a few ways of doing it, I'm not interested in how they do it.
And as a result, the lower half of the curve can be reduced to make sure size of the government doesn't increase, only the the distribution is changed.
And stop portraying them as economy darlings, our real problem is the middle class doesn't have any money to hide, not the millionaire hiding there money.
the speaker is obnoxious and slightly misleading, but the point stands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
Well, I'm all for limiting the size of government. But the notion "government is the problem" is over simplifying it.
Does not compute. If you think government is the answer, then why do you want to limit the size of government?
I think you agree with Paul a lot more than you think, but the peer pressure is getting to you and you don't want to admit you are a closet libertarian in liberal clothing.
Think on it. No need to respond.
The libertarian party? I'm not familiar with it. But I'm sure I'm not in any closet and I would honestly love to be in an environment where I can have such thing as "peer pressure". I'm just someone believing in freedom and fairness.
I don't think government is the answer, it's just a clumsy and necessary tool we need to have and are reluctant to pay for. Maybe one day in the future society newer forms of public service can replace centralized government. But as of right now, I admit it's necessity.
In principle I believe in freedom and fairness which are best achieved with minimal governmental interference, but in areas where distorted human behavior tend to cause unfairness, government regulation becomes necessary. Like, say, speed limits. And the financial industry happens to be one of such areas with deep economic impact to not only those in the same business but the whole society. And the rules there, call it policies or business models, whatever, all together generated a lot of unfair, and undeserved, success as I mentioned in the main post. That's what I think needs to be fixed.
As for the tax brackets, here is my response to another comment:
Because my friend, this world is not a perfect mathematical model. In a simple formula, of course, we should pay a flat tax rate. But in this real world, people's success and resource get exponentially multiplied. Wen I am a CEO, I get all kinds of information, connections, influence, that will position me to make my next million effortlessly, compared to you, a mail clerk who doesn't have any of those intangible resources. And the increased tax rate, is on those things not quantified but will inevitably result in money. And the people on the top tend to think their achievements are solely the result of their own effort and talent, but a big part, if not a major part, in fact is a result of how our society is structured. For example, they would have chances to have lunch with a mayor, or a senator, thus gathering information, influencing policy, or at least building reputation for their future endeavors. A mail man doesn't get the chance simply because not enough resource hence importance are carried on one person to command his time. It's nobody's fault, it's just how the society is. And it's to the rich's advantage, it's an earning, it has to be taxed. Hard to quantify, but an increase in tax rate is the best we can do now.
I never said that or even once implied that. Success isn't a binary state where a salary above or below $X dictates success or failure. Nice try to twist my words, but it's revealing your lack of confidence.
The simple facts are:
1) You say you don't want to punish success.
2) You want to introduce another extremely high tax bracket with an even larger tax rate.
So, how is that not punishing someone who was very successful with a tax penalty?
[Deleted]
No I shouldn't. I didn't force those consumers to steal the neighbor's parking spots. Where's the personal responsibility for their actions? That's the problem. We don't want to take responsibility for our own actions in this country anymore, because we have this giant list of scapegoats we can blame. That person that stole someone's parking spot is in the wrong, not the business owner.
A smart business owner would find a way to expand his or her parking lot to accommodate more customers, because each customer that doesn't stop in because the lot is full is a missed opportunity, which will eventually add up to more than the cost of expanded parking.
Because it's not punishment. Richer people enjoy more and take more advantage from our society and system. They should contribute more to maintain it.
Nobody's forcing anything. Everything has to be passed by a congress elected by everybody, right?
So, as someone frequenting the OWS website, you have confidence in the Congress as a body that represents everyone fairly?
Are you sure you're in the right place?
I know they are bad. But, unfortunately, that's the only way we have to make a decision, right? We don't want to actually fight each other.
So you think the best that we can do is to let the corrupt politicians pick a number out of thin air and say any income above $X is an immoral number, and should be clawed back by the government to redistribute to their sweetheart corporate sponsors?
Wow, what a great movement.
And, they are paying more. A lot more. I agree with raising that marginal rate on the existing top bracket by a few percent. I do not agree with a clawback bracket above it to cap personal income.
Also, yes, you are forced to pay taxes. If I don't pay taxes the government uses guns to force me to give them money. How does that line up with "Nobody's forcing anything"?
When I said "nobody's forcing anything" I meant a common decision can only be made when a majority of us agree, such as in the form of a congress (defunct, I know) bill. You are twisting my words now.
Well, do you think the current tax bracket numbers were picked out of thin air too?
Why do these people make all this money? Because the own the Fed. Wake up.
Exactly! Wall Street and Corporate corruption and criminality is not success, it is corruption and criminality...
Well if Wall Street is your clear target, then would you consider supporting this idea of targeting the movement and its objectives towards Wall Street?
Here's the link to MY thread:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-to-take-down-wall-street-nonviolently-and-with/
You are confusing who got "bailed out".
In the managed takeover of Bear Sterns, etc., owners of the corporations were essentially wiped-out - as they should have been. Even today, most banks are worth only a fraction of what they once were. No money went to support owners of banks.
Money did go to guarantee that financial contracts of failed companies were sound. Without that, the entire financial system would have collapsed.
Employees are compensated for their work - and if they don't perform, they either don't get their bonus, or they're fired. It's not fair to target employees who are doing their jobs.
"Employees are compensated for their work - and if they don't perform, they either don't get their bonus, or they're fired. It's not fair to target employees who are doing their jobs."
There are many stories of executives taking out up front bonuses on deals that are likely to blow up in their face later (see Joe Cassano at AIG)
I am in favor of encouraging companies to impose claw-back provisions in employee bonus agreements.
Another idea is to encourage companies to give bonuses for work over a period of multiple years - not just a single year.
Both of these ideas would better align the long-term interests of owners of these companies with long-term interests of their employees.
But it's not fair to condemn people who did something which was/is permissible. We just need to foster changes to what's permissible going forward.
I would agree with that.
"Even today, most banks are worth only a fraction of what they once were. No money went to support owners of banks."
I think you are mistaken.... we have seen multiple mergers of the top banks creating the top 6 that owns assets exceeding 60% of our GDP
I'm not mistaken. Little-or-no public/government money went to owners of banks. Lots of money was LENT under TARP. And some money was GIVEN to help unwind failed financial institutions (Bear Sterns).
Show me a bank/financial institution which was given money by the Gov't.
I should have left the second sentence out.... but my response was obviously to your first statement.
So I don't understand what you disagree with?
Who's to evaluate their job performance? Especially when the fate of our entire society is chained to their malpractices (like you said, the financial system would have collapsed)?
Indeed...this is the "moral hazard" argument: if Gov't bails-out bad/failed behavior, then there's nothing to discourage bad behavior.
But remember...equity owners of bad/failed financial institutions were NEVER bailed-out - they lost their shirts.
And if they employed bad employees, they failed. And lost their shirts.
true
Wiki Occupy Wall Street
http://www.wikioccupywallst.org
United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .
In effect making money is not really a true success. Is a bowel movement success? Is swatting a fly? Is driving a car, eating a bowl of soup?? Making money is a process, it truly means very little. What you do with the money and how the money makes you act, that's far more important. Do you become the money?
Money is a token measuring your contribution to the society. And recently some parts of the system are making it lose this function.
They hate this word "success" They never tasted it.
"selling albums?" what decade are you stuck in? But agree, capitalism NEEDS to have failure in order to succeed. Business (banks included) MUST FAIL
It was just an expression. Focus on the message, not the wording.
I don't think that there is one person on the planet that worked hard enough to make a billion dollars. I don't hate rich people and most rich people have not done anything immoral to gain that much wealth. I'm mad that the system in place allows for that much disparity.
Agree.
What, selling albums is work? Why do the celebs get a pass? Many of the A list celebs make more than CEOs, and their salaries are definitely not proportional.
http://blogs.payscale.com/content/2008/12/wealthiest-celebrities.html
Don't fall for this psychological crap from any one percent goon. It's an obvious attempt to divert our attention from the obscene, unjust, immoral, and illogical concentration of wealth. Donald Trump went on record the other day telling us to blame the government instead of Wall Street and the richest one percent. His goons are obviously online and on air trying to divert our attention. Don't fall for it. Just keep protesting no matter what the one percent goons say or do. Our message is vital. Below is my two cents:
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent already own nearly 1/2 of all United States wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
It isn't about hating the rich. The rich are just people.
It's about hating the system. The system that puts half the nation's wealth into the hands of 400 people while millions of luckless people sleep outside.
The rich don't "deserve" a penny more than the poor. And I'm saying this as someone whose income places him squarely in the top 2, if not the top 1%.
I would happily sacrifice most of what I have and earn in order to live in an egalitarian society. We have the chance to build such a society today...let's not lose it.
Couldn't agree more. It's the system that encourages inequality. Nothing personal.
I came here originally to find out whether it's true that the people involved in this are anti-business and anti-success. My impression after participating here every day since October 8 is that yes, a lot of the people involved really are anti-business and anti-success.
I've run across the same sort of question over and over around here. "Why should one person get paid more than another person? All people are equally important! It isn't fair!" That's correct, it isn't. The world isn't fair.
The world isn't fair. But that's not something set in stone. We can make it fair.
No, you can't legislate fairness. The world is fundamentally not a fair place.
???? that makes absolutely no sense.... what was the point of the constitution? We can't make things perfect... never thought we could... but isn't that the point of progress in society? To make things as fair as possible for everyone?
What was the point of the Constitution? Depends on how you look at it.
The whole story of human political progress has been the attempt to make the world as fair as possible. With your attitude, we would still have slavery.
There is still slavery in the world right now. I don't support it, and it's not fair, but it exists. Some people are rich and some people are poor and it wasn't always fair how it happened. But that's just how the world works. The gazelle who stops to object that it's not fair that the lion is chasing him instead of the gazelle next to him -- gets eaten.
agree
My motto is this: " If you made your money without exploiting people, the environment, or other businesses" then i do not have a problem with you. If you exploited one of these 3 to gain your money then it was not fairly gained.
That's right.
Death penalty for CEO's and Board of Directors who commit crimes against Society.
Supreme Court of the USA: Corporations have free speech rights Mitt Romney: Corporations are Human Big Business: Regulations are bad for businesses and the economy.
Humans are subject to the death penalty. Death penalty is not a business regulation. (In fact the Death Penalty is good for business: thousands of dollars are expended to carry it out.)
Conclusion: Death penalty for CEO's and Board of Directors who commit crimes against Society.
The issue is countries rewarding failure. Never works. No one learns.
It's not really about greed, per se, since it is illegal not to make money for your shareholders. It's the poison in the system.
If someone makes an honest million--no skin off my nose, but that person should pay higher taxes, get more regulations and admit that he or she had help along the way, with roads being built for them, fire protection, police.
Agree. Very well said, if by "admit" you mean in the form of tax.
I second that. Some people on here are advocating absurd minimum wages or salary caps. Trust me, they will never get the majority of liberal support for those things. A modest raise to minimum wage, maybe. It wouldn't be my first choice but not unreasonable either. A 2-5% increase in tax for the wealthy, maybe. I'm not even in the top 20% but I'd be willing to give up some of my wealth if it meant others get to keep their bread. But there will never be popular support for wholesale redistribution of wealth, nor for initiatives that seek to punish or limit success.
Intentional wealth distribution won't matter anyway. If you read up on economic patterns - we are repeating the Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression.
The economy is going to collapse, and everyone will have to start over. The wealthy can only stay wealthy if people are able to continue consuming. We can't afford it anymore. The cost of living is too high and the middle class is strapped - most are one medical emergency or one college education away from bankruptcy. We've reached the point of no more return.
The water well is dry.
But we did return from the Great Depression, and we've already been through the first 2 or 3 years of this one. We'll make it through, the issue is how long we have to wait, and also how much do we care about those suffering the worst of it.
We're not through the Great Recession yet. And I have faith in America. We cared and sacrificed before; we will again. We will become the next "Greatest Generation."
Not the way I see it. As long as the wealth is dawn from the masses, there must be some reasonable limit. No excuses. Too much is too much.
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic politicali manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitationi workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent already own nearly 1/2 of all United States wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
I really wish the middle class hadn't been forced to buy houses, cars, computers, cell phones, cable tv, giant flatscreen tvs, home air conditioning, MP3 players, etc.... that is were their equity went.
Oh yes someoen held a gun to your head and forced you to buy these things. No personal responsibility there. I am middle class and I don't even own a television or have cable and my ipod died a year ago. You made choices with your money. Own up to them.
personally, i just paid cash for all of those things so I'm good LOL
There aren't enough upvotes on the internet, but have one.
I agree in part. Thats where some of their equity went. The rest went to healthcare, energy, and finance. Still, the masses have been blithering idiots. But you also have to blame those who take candy from a baby. I wouldn't do it. It's just not right. The rich do everything in their power to convince as many people as possible to buy boatloads of over-priced crap ranging from digital downloads to CAT scans. There wouldn't be an issue if the wealth flowed up, down, and all around but it doesn't. It has been accumulating at the top for over 30 years. It's gone too far. The paychecks at the high end are too big. Enough is enough. There must be some reasonable limit. No excuses. It's gone too far. Period.
If you limit income, you motivation. If you have a limit on how much money you can make, what is the incentive to do more? There isn't any.
In some respects this is why our social programs are broken. If there is no incentive to get off welfare, food stamps, assisted rent, etc; why would anyone stop taking the hand out? The system is being abused. Before we talk about limiting income / salary caps, we need to stop the BS waste that is going on now. Do I think people deserve help, yes 100%, do they need help forever: NO! I don't think any of the social programs were developed for as a long term solution, they were designed to help people in need during rough times to get back on their feet. If the program was used for what it was intended as opposed to being permanent, maybe there would be enough money for those that actually need help.
I have seen people pre-paying for gas for their Caddy while buying a candy bar, soda, and chips with a food stamp card. If they have the money to buy a Caddy, why do they need help with food? It's about personal responsibility and making good choices. I fail to see how it's my responsibility to pay for food for people who choose a luxury car over necessities.
I heard this in a 7/11 about 5 years ago, "if I have one more kid, I can get my apartment totally paid for. I need to find a baby daddy." This is the attitude that irks me to no end. It's abuse like this that needs to be stopped.
Stop the abuse in the current social programs before talking about taxing more and/or limiting income.
I'd shake your hand if I could. Have an upvote.
Then how do you explain the television, the radio, the automobile, the cell phone, the microwave, the moon landing, ect. All of these breakthroughs were made when the scale of pay was MUCH more down to earth. Tax rates on the rich were at near record highs when we landed on the moon. There goes your argument.
The problem is that greed has become an epidemic worldwide. Now, people care more about riches than they do about society as a whole. We need to bring this culture back down to earth. We need a reasonable scale of opportunity but also reasonable limits on personal income and bottom line wealth. Nothing else will ever work.
No, that doesn't defeat his argument at all...
The people who invented those things became filthy stinking rich. The scale is all relative to things like inflation and cost/standard of living.
Greed didn't become a human problem in the last 40 years. Human being are greedy by nature. It's an evolutionary advantage, thus the ones that were greedy were able to survive and reproduce. Bankers have been greedy since there were banks. So have merchants, manufacturers, etc. Greed by itself didn't create the problem. In a truly free market, greed is leveraged to make a more fair system. That's why supply vs. demand works infallibly when unmeddled with.
The problem is when you disrupt the balance of power between competing companies by having a government that gives sweetheard deals or creates so many regulations that only vastly wealthy corporations can afford to keep track of them. Then you get the mess we have now.
Very well said!
I was already aware of inflation. But the actual range between rich and poor was much, much, MUCH closer decades ago when those breakthroughs were made. Much, much, MUCH more narrow scale of income and wealth. Inflation has nothing to do with it.
I never said that greed was born in the last 40 years. I said that it has become an epidemic worldwide. It grows with every million dollar paycheck, contract, lottery jackpot, ect. I know you won't acknowledge this no matter how many facts are thrown in your face so I'll try an analogy of basic human nature.
Let's say you run a local hardware store. You're the owner and you have 4 employees who work day and evening shift. One day, you tell your 4 employees that you will pay a $50 bonus to employee of the month. He or she who shows up on time, gets right to work, and goes out out of their way to help the customers. That $50 bonus will motivate all 4 employees to improve their work ethics. This is modest capitalism at work. It works very well.
Now, let's say that you raise that bonus to $1,000,000 for employee of the month. Within a matter of hours, you would hear rumors of theft, profanity, sex in the office, drugs, backstabbing, ect. As that big day nears, there would be more lies, name calling, sabotage, fights, and quite possibly, a death.
The point is this: Modest capitalism works. Unbridled, die hard, blood thirsty, winner take all capitalism results in a train wreck of greed, fraud, corruption, and death.
If you won't acknowledge this, you haven't been checking the news for the last 5 years. And you don't have the first clue about human nature.
As the potential rewards grow to obscene levels, greed spreads like wildfire and becomes a worldwide epidemic. It's already destabilized the economy of an entire world. It will eventually cause the fall of modern society.
You are being intellectually dishonest, or you are naive. People will fight, lie, and steal for $50. It's you who doesn't understand human nature if you can't see that.
Greed isn't an epidemic anymore today than it was in any point in human history. We were never an egalitarian species.
You are mistaken about capitalism, simply put. We have never had a free market since WWII. The top end of the financial sector's pay is outsized only if they aren't assuming a lot of risk. If they are taking on use risks, then the pay is justified, because many would fail and not receive massive bonuses. When you have a government that engages in corporatism and absorbs the risk for them and passed the cost onto the taxpayer, all of those CEOs can take huge risks and get huge pay without actually fearing the risk.
That's the problem.
Lastly, on the points of the scale and gap:
[citation needed]
You're referring to the other side of human nature. Of course, people who are desperate are more likely to cheat, lie, or even kill for $50. It happens in every major city. It's happening more and more often as so many more people become desperate. Another reason why we need behavior and policies to prevent a heavy concentration if wealth.
I was referring the the other side of human nature. Not desperation but greed. Both extremes bring out the worst in people. I've given this deep thought many times. We need a system with a reasonable scale of opportunity for all. We need to address the extremes on both ends and reduce them. Both ends.
You have no right to decide what magic dollar amount is considered greed.
"reasonable limits"
What I consider reasonable is clearly different from you consider reasonable, so who decides what is reasonable?
Do you think corporations would be able to advance technology like the TV, the automobile, the radio, and the moon if they are limited by the amount of money they make by "a reasonable scale of opportunity?"
You are right, greed has become an epidemic. Many of those on social programs have gotten greedy. They would rather stay in the system and have tax payers pay for their food, daycare, housing while they drive around in Caddies and pop out more babies to get more assistance. Bring that culture back down to earth!
Are you really saying the ONLY way to fix the US is to limit wealth and personal income? How would people like Bill Gates be able to fund charities if they are limited to the amount of money they make? Gates donates millions of dollars to help people and advance technology to assist those with illnesses etc.
If you limit income, you limit innovation.
That's why Communism fails. It stagnates.
The Russians beat us into space. Communism beat capitalism. I'm not calling for communism. None of us are. Just thought you should know.
So the space race supersedes the entire socioeconomic climate in the USSR being abysmal? The USSR fell apart. Clearly, Communism didn't win.
And taking all the money and resources and redistributing it based on what you think they deserve based on their contribution to society is the textbook definition of Communism.
I never said "take all the money and resources" or anything like that. I only want policies and behaviour to gradually redistribute a portion of it. Just enough to keep the economy stable and the majority in good shape financially. Thats all. No that's not communism. Communism is a system in which the government and society as a whole owns and controls all business. If there is a private owner, it's not communism.
And you refuse to accept some real truths too. You refuse to accept that people becoming dependent on the welfare state is a product of the government. More government means more welfare state.
Imagine you own a business. Things were going pretty well for a while, but now less people are buying your product, siting their shrinking paychecks. What do you do? If you keep the price where it is, demand will fall off and you will make less money. As a business owner, you don't want that. So, you use your 4 years of advanced financial understanding to come up with the brilliant strategy of lowering your price. Suddenly, more people are able to buy your product. Revenue goes up. You can afford to keep the same staffing levels, avoiding layoffs. The margin at the end might be lower than before, but it's higher than if you ignored the trend and locked your price.
Now, ask yourself why that doesn't happen everywhere? Why do health costs go up when Medicare/Medicaid tries to cut back?
Because those government programs are easily gamed. Medicare pays a percent of the bill, and the rest of the bill is waived. So, the easy thing to do is jack up the bill. Then, a small percent of a huge bill still comes out nicely for the hospital. Of course, now you have this enormous bill that middle class Americans have to deal with. Health insurers know the rub and only pay a fraction of the charged bill too. If you look at your claim statement sometime and wonder why they get a huge discount, this is why. [Citation: mother was an RN who ran an entire department before becoming disabled]
So, take government out of the equation. Now, nobody will pay those exorbitant fees. So, the hospital, being run by savvy business owners, are forced to lower the bill, or go out of business.
Yes, health is a much more inelastic demand than some nonessential goods, but the reason this still works is competition. As long as another hospital will heal you for less, you'll vote with your dollars. Then the other hospital must undercut or loose opportunities. The only effort needed from a federal government is antitrust laws to prevent collusion.
And I have never been a die hard conservative or a filthy rich pig. My house makes between $50,000 and $74,000. Wife and daughter. I voted for Obama, and regret it after his bailouts, atrocious record on civil liberties (assassination of US citizen, illegal detainment of Bradley Manning), and expanded war effort.
I've said several times on talk radio that welfare makes some people less productive and more dependent. It also tends to become generational. I have no problem admitting this. Didn't you read the last paragraph of my last post (below). But as a civil society we absolutely must have a safety net for those in need. We absolutely must. I'm all for welfare reform. But that wouldn't solve the problem.
There must be some cultural behavior and/or government policy to gradually reverse the obscene concentration of wealth.
But there will be none. It's only going to get worse.
(reply chain is too deep, replying above)
There's no such thing as "moderate capitalism". You are talking like wealth is inherently immoral. What if that wealth was earned fairly in a free market, un-manipulated by government-backed sweetheart deals to corporations? Who are you to say that person doesn't deserve to buy a fucking yacht if he wants to? Who are you to say a million dollar paycheck is not allowed? If they earned it fair and square, stay the fuck away from their earnings.
What actually needs addressed is the system that allows corporatism to take hold instead of a fair free market. There's no reason for you to steal income from the rich and give it away if we had a real capitalist society. Unfortunately, we haven't had that since at least the WWII era, perhaps farther back.
[There were obviously lots of very bad things w/r/t monopolies and labor conditions back in the day, so don't start on that. Those were horrible and were fixed in order to provide for a more competitive market without slave-like conditions.]
Your idea of "moderate capitalism" is a step toward socialism. It's not full blown state ownership, but it's a baby step. It just comes off as "I don't make that much, so nobody should make more than $X so I can feel less ashamed of my income." People need to stop worrying so much about how much others make, and worry about how they made it. If they earned it fairly, they deserve a atta'boy. If they cheated, sharpen your pitchforks. But don't try to assume all large incomes are evil. CEOs of completely legit companies deserve large salaries because they take a huge risk in starting a business and building it. CEOs of shady Wall Street cartels deserve to absorb the risks when they fail, instead of passing the bill to the government and down to the taxpayer.
God damn it. You absolutely refuse to understand the following: First, that record high charges in health care, energy, and finance means record high profits and record high dividends. 1/2 of which are paid to the richest one percent. This causes more hardship and more concentration of wealth. At the same time, more financial aid in the form of welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid becomes necessary. Especially with those record high charges and profits. As even more wealth is concentrated, the lower majority lose their relative buying power. This results in less demand. Layoffs result. This results in even more legitimate need for financial aid, a slower economy, less revenue, and higher national debt. It's a downward cycle tied directly to the relentless concentration of wealth.
I'm not making excuses for those who sit on the couch, make no attempt to find work, and sponge off the government. But God damn it. You die hard conservatives and filthy rich pigs need to stop being such cowards, open your god damn eyes, and finally admit that there is a downside as more and more wealth becomes concentrated.
THERE IS A DOWNSIDE AS YOU GET RICHER AND RICHER!
"gradually redistribute a portion of it"
That is socialism, by the book. The government doesn't necessarily own the means of operation in your dream, but they get to use their guns to steal the revenue of the private owners. Who are you to say what portion of the money I worked for and earned should be taken away and given to someone else? That's government sanctioned theft. No innovator in their right mind would stay in the US if that happened. You would initiate the most crippling brain-drain a nation has experienced since Jews and other minorities fled Nazi Germany.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, as the original author put it).
None of those things imply a guarantee. You are free to take risks, but you have to be responsible for yourself should your fail. I'm not interested in propping up everyone who decides they can blow all their money on bullshit then feed off of the social safety net because they are broke now.
I do want to help those who legitimately have need, but they shouldn't become a part of a perpetual welfare state. They should be helped onto their feet, and allowed to get going under their own power again. And I think that's what people want, anyway. A good honest day's work for an honest day's pay. You don't need to steal from the rich to do that, but you do need to force the banksters to actually be affected by the risk they take on, instead of distributing that loss to society at large.
No that's not socialism either. Socialism is a system in which society as a whole, not individials, own all property. If there is the name of an individual on the deed, it's not socialism.
If you think my ideas would Initiate a brain drain, then you must not be aware of what's happening on TV and syndicated radio every day. That's a brain drain. And all of it makes the media personalities richer and richer and richer.
There is no reason for you people to exaggerate our views over and over and over and over. I don't want a welfare state either. I don't want socialism, communism, or Marxism. I want modest capitalism. A relatively free market and a reasonable scale of income opportunity for all. But no god damn million dollar paychecks and no privately owned yachts made of carbon fiber with mini submarines and helicopter ports.
At least not as long as so many working or willing to work people struggle. It's not right.
The Gates foundation is primarily an investment firm. It capitalizes Fortune 500 companies with the bulk of it's assets and spends 1 or 2 percent annually on those with legitimate need. Also, when you concentrate too much wealth, you CAUSE poverty and hardship.
I won't comment on the innovation any further for now. I see another user already did so. Did you even read what he/she had to say?
that is such bullshit.
innovation does not come from the dollar sign carrot dangling in front of us. It comes from the human brain, and human curiosity.
Look up "The science of motivation" by Dan Pink on tedx.com for an introductory video.
The people that invented the telephone and television didn't even become rich. They had their inventions stolen and patented by greedy thieves who became rich off of them.
The patent is one of the most horrific inventions of the last 200 years, limiting creativity to the owner instead of community, and incentivising people to get rich from their inventions instead of invent for the pure fun of it.
Who are you to tell me how much money I am allowed to have? That's an insane example of government stomping all over the liberty of its people.
Here's the thing: we haven't had a free market in this country since WWII. We don't have capitalism in the USA, we have corporatism. If we break the bond between business and state, and get back to a more pure form of capitalism, then the free market would actually assign the appropriate value to goods and services. Demand would be addressed by companies creating supply to capture the opportunity to sell their goods. Demand for jobs would increase, so rather than paying more per worker, more workers would be hired, reducing or eliminating unemployment.
Then, if a CEO or entertainer or whatever was actually worth billions of dollars, it would be earned. If not, then the company would have no way to sustainably pay him/her that salary and bonus. Once you break off the corporate welfare (aka bailouts) then those outsized salaries will either be payed because they are earned through risk, or disappear when that bank fails, and that CEO lands in the unemployment pool, competing for a job on the free market.
Your ideas would help but not enough. Wealth would still concentrate at the top. Just not as fast.
I'm the majority. That's who. A growing number of us agree on this. Too much Is too much. Period.
You don't think you speak for the majority when you say we should steal 100% of someone's income above $X. That's government-sanctioned theft.
What if that cap was set at $20,000? Then the government gets to claw back the rest to do whatever it wants. Is that fair? Sure, the unemployeed and minimum wage earners wouldn't care because they make less than that anyway, but is that really fair to someone who would make $60k in a professional career they went to 4+ years of college for?
If it's immoral at that level, it's immoral at any level.
But hey, as long as it's more than you make, right? Then it's ok to steal it at gunpoint so it can be spent on things you want...
That's not liberty. That's not what our founding fathers fought and died for. That's treasonous.
If you really believe all of that die hard right wing BS, then you will agree that we shouldn't give handouts to those who are willing and able to find work and cover their own expenses right? Even if this effects the concentration of wealth, they should still pay their own way if possible?
Can we agree on that much?
I feel like it's a loaded question, waiting to spring some sort of trap because of differing definitions on "able to find work and cover their own expenses".
If they are able but unwilling to work, they don't deserve handouts. If someone has enough income to survive and get healthcare, they don't need more handouts. I'm not interested in giving handouts to let people buy non-essentials like ipods, laptops, video games, etc. If you want something beyond the essentials, you should work for it and earn it.
You're damn right it's a loaded question. Still, you walked right into it. Guess who got billions in government handouts? Three of the most profitable industries in the world. That's who. The banks were bailed out with nearly a trillion in handouts. Meanwhile they paid out multi-million dollar bonuses. The energy industry has received billions in government handouts so they wouldn't have to dip into their record high multi-billion dollar profits on infrastructure. Meanwhile, they pay record high dividends (1/2 of which are paid to the richest one percent). The health care industry has received billions in government handouts for research and development so they wouldn't have to dip into their precious record high multi-billion dollar profits. On top of that they have the nerve to seek more funds from the masses in the name of 'charity'. There you go. Multi-billion dollar handouts to 3 of the most profitable industries in the world. All of which have more than enough income to cover their own expenses. Now, we both know that you are about to stick that big fat hypocritical foot in your mouth. You are going to try to justify all those multi-billion dollar government handouts. I already know what you are going to say. Do it now and I will gladly respond.
Good lord.... pay attention:
I don't want any corporation to receive a red cent of bailout money. Those banks and automobile companies should have failed and went bankrupt.
That's not too hard to understand, is it?
What about the energy and health care industries? Should they pay for their own research and development as long as they have the profits to do so?
Why shouldn't they? If they have the money to do so, they should do so. I'm not against using some tax revenue to promote scientific research, however I also think the private sector should play a part in investing in innovation too. I think we could mince words all day over what that split should be, but at the end of the day, the USA is broke. We need to address that and get back to the fundamentals of sound fiscal policy. Once we get our production up and our debts to a manageable level, we can really push a LOT more money into places where it makes sense. Production and innovation made the USA great. Many of those breakthroughs came from free market entrepreneurs and innovators, but many also came from government agencies, like DARPA and NASA.
Of note: I'd prefer if states voted on their own reserach funding, or could opt out of the costs (and benefits) if done nationally, but in the case of, say, NASA, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to using federal funds. I'm not really sure exactly where I stand on it, because, on the other hand, it's still taking your money and putting it toward something you may not care about.
The government funded Research and Development should not benefit private industry unless the private industry is willing to pay for any breakthroughs made. So if the Feds invest $100,000,000 and discover a way to turn cat piss into fuel, then the energy industry should fork over at least $100,000,000 for the rights to put that discovery on the free market.
That's not what has been happening. In fact, that has never happened once that I'm aware of. Instead, the Feds give billions in handouts and tax breaks to Fortune 500 companies like Exxon so they won't have to dip into their precious multi-billion dollar profits and pay for their own god damn R&D or infrastructure. As a direct result, those Fortune 500 companies pay their executives millions and record high dividends to shareholders. 1/2 of which are paid to the richest one percent. Another 35 percent to the next four percentiles. Another 11 or 12 percent to foreign investors. The lower 95 percent share the measly scraps leftover. It's nothing but a god damn smoke and mirrors trick. A giant favor to the rich. You would think with all that money in handouts, they would at least grease the pipe before they fuck us with it at the gas pump but they won't.
if the founding fathers died while fighting, they wouldn't have founded anything. eyeroll.
Hooray for pedantics and wordplay! That has always solved lots of problems! Grats!
Wow, if that's the best thing you have to respond, you clearly are out of ideas.
More plagerism?
What do you mean? Somebody said this before?
He's been copy pasting other peoples information
I agree, Mcc.
I think that's where tax comes in to play.
First, our current tax brackets are too friendly to the top tier earners. The effective tax rate curve goes flat pretty much after 500K. Even worse is, people at this income level or higher get most of their income from investment returns, which are only taxed at 15%. The middle class or upper middle class ended up being the most heavily taxed.
Then, we have to recognize the difference between a regular income and compensations proportionate to earnings of other people's investment, in a fashion of dividends, while not having any risk of loss, such as the bank CEOs and fund managers' bonuses. These compensations "risk-free dividends" have to be taxed more than regular income. A lot more, in my opinion.
Why should people be punished for working their way to the top by having to pay a higher percentage of taxes?
Because you wouldn't have worked your way to the top in the first place if it were a country of every man for himself. You took advantage of it, now you help maintain it.
In a flat tax system the wealthier are still going to pay more than the people to make less. They just aren't being punished for making more.
the mathematics of why taxation should be higher for the rich is taught at around age 8.
It's quite simple: It costs a certain amount of money to maintain a certain standard of living. Once you earn over a certain amount, the amount of tax you pay really doesn't matter, because you are still going to have the highest standard of living society has to offer, whether you pay 15%, 30% or 50% of your income in tax.
Game-set-match....
I love the phrase "punished for working their way to the top"... wouldn't that mean the individual punished would be able to (make more money/have a higher standard of living) if they are in a lower bracket? Who in their right mind would say "Well I WANTED to be a billionaire.... but since I'll be taxed at 50% instead of 35%... why even bother?"
Great Post!
Thanks. Then let's start the discussion, and spread the word!
The scorn of OWS should be focused on those banks and financial institutions and corporations who have committed fraud, theft.
OWS should also keep their focus on politicians who voted for the Bailouts. Small companies cant compete in an environment where losers are picked to win. Who can compete with that if your just a 99%er getting started?
Indiscriminately targeting honest producers just because they have made money honestly is not healthy for employment. Government already punished honest businesses by rewarding the Fraudster Too Big Too Fail Banks, and the rest of the loser bailout recipients. OWS should salute and acknowledge an honest business who makes it on their own merit in a world so ripe with corrupt business practices.
selling albums, lol
Punish thievery not honest success -- I don't believe in taking anyone private stuff -- higher taxes on the rich are fair and tax income not what you already got - but push come to shove I'd support a wealth Tax to pay Social Security back the trillions stolen form it for the general budget before I'd support unneeded cuts to Social Security Benefits !!!
success is a relative term.
Is humanity successful? Until we can feed, clothe and house everybody, then we're failing as a species. Personal success is irrelevant as long as we can't maintain a basic standard of living for every person on the planet.
As a species, we are the most successful on the planet. We own the planet. We are the top of the food chain. You think other animals don't starve or die of illness while others do nothing to help?
As a species, we clearly are highly successful, and our success is more complete with every passing day.
Your definition of personal success if your own. You are free to agree or disagree with the idea that being successful in your career is success you care about, but it's not your place to tell someone else they are not successful because they didn't hit some metrics you imposed on them.
I didn't impose any metrics on anyone. People are living in a dream world if they think having a large salary and a job title is a "success" while they walk past someone every day that has to rake through bins to find food and beg for change.
It's not about it being "my place" or "your place." It's about being a family, and a family that lets members die instead of helping them is not a good family at all.
Of course that's a horrible family. But we aren't all one family. We are all human, and deserving of respect, but we aren't a family. Would you let your kids go hungry tonight because someone on the other side of the world is hungry? No? Me neither. Because I care more about my daughter's health than I care about yours. That doesn't mean I want your kids to get sick and die so I can steal your resources, it just means my daughter gets preferential treatment from me over yours (and yours should receive the same benefit from you).
Now, if I have, say, 50 billion dollars in the bank, I'm an asshole if I don't try to do some charitable work for the greater good, or try to create a new business to innovate and create jobs and new goods. However!, being an asshole is not against the law. And that's one of the things that made America a great country. I am free to say and do whatever the fuck I want if it doesn't impede someone else's freedom.
And, yes, you imposed metrics implicitly by saying success requires philanthropy.
being free to say and do whatever the fuck you want is a very dangerous thing if you are, for example, a religious fundamentalist.
I didn't say success requires philanthropy. I said that personal success is irrelevant if we can't even succeed as a species. (Not implicitly requiring philanthropy to be achieved.)
And in response to your loaded question - I would rather be part of a society where nobody is starving anywhere in the world than have to place my own kids before anyone else. That doesn't mean I love my kids any less, it just means that everybody loves everybody.
(LOL @ america being a great country. I wouldn't move there if I was paid to. And I've had offfers.)
You are dead wrong. Freedom of expression is the most sacred right a man has. I am an atheist, but I would NEVER tell a Christian s/he is not allowed to speak his or her mind. The limit is set at the point where it infringes on my right of expression. Attempting to silence a fundie, no matter how silly or stupid or hateful, is to be the worst kind of totalitarian.
And you avoided the entire point of my question. Of course we all want a dreamland where nobody gets sick or hungry, but resources today are finite. There's one meal and two people. You can only give it to one. Do you give it to your hungry child, or mine? If you don't give it to your own, you are intellectually dishonest and I am no longer interested in wasting my time.
Oh and I laughed out loud at this: "...the most sacred right a man has. I am an atheist...."
Ironic much?
You are also the type of atheist I dislike being associated with. You assume anything that has a connotation semi-associated with something vaguely religious deserves your angst. What about faith-based charities that feed and cloth the homeless? I'd prefer there were more secular versions, but the faith-based ones do good work, despite their motivation.
And no, it's only ironic if you think the religious own the word "sacred". It can simply be defined as "regarded with reverence". I'm done with your insipid wordplay. None of these pedantic gotchas have any meaning.
the word sacred is inherently religious. Talking about sacred rights for men is a religious thing to do, an atheist would say that people just are.
I don't have any angst for religions. I merely think they are indoctrinated and misguided. Good people can do good things without religion.
Obviously they can. You can't deny sometimes people do good things via their church, too. That's why I don't hold anybody's beliefs against them, as long as they aren't trying to force it on me.
Your word-choice nitpickery is an obnoxious distraction from the simple point that you want to take away people's freedom of speech if you disagree with what they have to say. That's the most heinous sin you can commit against your fellow human.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I just word-bait you with the word "sin" and it's religious connotation? Try doing a find-replace on it with any synonym you prefer, because that's the only thing you have managed to do this entire thread.
can't reply any further in, so in reply to your last comment (regarding opinion and speech.)
absolutely agree.
The problem is, people these days think they can just barge in and spout opinions about anything without doing any research whatsoever into the issue. It's very much a "shout loudest wins" culture.
But in reality, a person shouldn't be voicing an opinion on, say, the sustainability of multiple wars without first looking up the figures to back it up.
This is the problem that comes with freedom of speech. What are the solutions? Education and debate? Acceptance of mistakes and errors? Is that how you make progress? I don't claim to have all the answers.
But many people think that they are entitled to their opinion NO MATTER WHAT, which is what I think is the problem.
A rational person should change his or her mind when hearing evidence that contradicts their stance, but look at the mentality of many posters in here. Internet debates often end with both parties refusing to listen to each other and neither gaining anything, and it all comes from opinonated stubbornness.
I suppose it boils down to: freedom of speech is fine, as long as we're willing to accept we may be wrong.
What do you think?
We are in complete agreement, I think. You can't legislate non-douchery, unfortunately. ;-)
The overly-simplified response is that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. It's when people claim to "know for a fact" that they are right that you have a problem. It's become a real problem in our culture. We place so much more importance on "being right" than learning.
I wish people could divorce their opinions from their self worth. Strong beliefs held loosely, I say.
I'm sorry if that's all you feel I've been able to do.
I don't want to take away peoples freedom of speech. I didn't say that. I said that freedom of OPIINION is not a right, and people should not have a right to an opinion without being fully informed on it.
You wouldn't ask a builder to remove your tooth, and you wouldn't ask a dentist to build you a wall, right? So why would you take dental advice from a builder, or building advice from a dentist?
That's all I'm trying to say.
Opinion and speech are inseparable, that's the problem. How do you squash someone's opinion without impeding their free speech?
Hell, I'm glad I was allowed to voice an incorrect opinion. A good friend who disagreed took the time to educate me. That's why I am not a liberal anymore, but a libertarian. I never even realized how much I actually agreed with Ron Paul until I got flamed for an ignorant statement on Youtube. Voicing your opinions and being open minded are the most important steps to lifelong learning.
Yes, resources are finite, but there's still enough for everybody. The developed world throws out billions of tons of waste food every year, enough food to feed everyone on the planet, so don't tell me there's not enough to go around. Pharmaceutical companies stockpile hundreds of thousands of vaccines while tens of thousands of children die just because of where they happen to be born, the governments can't afford to buy the vaccine.
If a person is talking absolute shit, they should be silenced. The only thing people should have an opinion about is what they know about. It's this silly idea that everybody can have an opinion about anything, regardless of whether or not they actually know anything about it that is a dangerous idea, not the other way around. It's that kind of logic that allows Muslim radicals to train children as suicide bombers. (After all, they're only excersising their freedom of expression, it's not their fault if the kids ACTUALLY blow themselves up.)
I refused to answer your question because as I pointed out already, it's a loaded question. Meal sizes are not a fixed property. I'd give half the food to both the kids and sacrifice myself. Would you let my child starve and feed yourself?
On your last question: no, of course not, unless it's my life or theirs. My daughter needs me to provide for her, so I choose life over your child's. If it's hunger that's merely uncomfortable, I'd absolutely skip a meal to save a life.
Now, you are dodging the simple thought experiment because you are being dishonest and don't want to admit it. If it came down to a single mouthful of food, you will save your child instead of mine every single time. And you should.
Freedom of speech is far too important of a right for you to try to dictate to someone else what is appropriate for them to say. That's some 1984 bullshit, but I guess it's only bad if you agree with what's allowed and disagree with those being censored, huh?
I'm really glad you don't live in America, because I don't want someone who thinks like that here. Good day.
don't get me wrong. I'm all for freedom of speech. But speech that is incorrect should be corrected. This is not a political issue, but a scientific one. If someone came down my street shouting about how the earth was flat, I'd stop them and point out it wasn't. If someone came down my street shouting about how Jesus was coming to save us, I'd stop them and point out it wasn't.
So, let me be clear. I wouldn't want to dictate to anybody what is appropriate to say. Science dictates truth, not people or policy. So I'm not an advocate of censorship. I'm an advocate of truth.
Just to clear that up.
And I'll admit that if it came down to a single mouthful of food I would save my child every time. But it's never going to come to that. And it should never have to.
Thank you for admitting the honest truth. That's the only point I was trying to make.
I'm still only speculating. The real truth is I don't actually have kids, so I'm not even sure if that's the truth or not. How can I know beforehand?
And then you have to ask - if the love between parents and children is so sacred, why does anyone give up their child for adoption?
I don't think things are as black and white as you paint them to be.
Adoption is a hard choice for those that make it. Normally, in my limited experience, it happens because they are simply unfit to be a parent or can't afford the child, but don't want to abort the fetus either.
republicans vote yes on jobs bill
why again are you protesting on Wall Street? As I remember it - the government forced several banks to 'borrow' money and orchestrate the merging and buyouts that followed. I also remember seeing that most of the has been repaid. I wasn't for bailing out anyone or any corporation - if you borrowed more then you could afford to pay back - why should I have to pay for your folly when I lived within my means. I would support some of the ideas if the movement cut all ties with unions and other groups. The message is what people perceive it to be - clean up your movement, clean up your ranks, and clean up your language - just my opinion.
Because they get away with everything.