Put Me In Charge

[ReaperCharlie]

The basic problem we have right now is that there aren't nearly enough jobs for people who want to work. 9.8% unemployment means that out of every 10 Americans who want to work, who have worked all their lives, who are trying to find a job, 1 of them can't get one, no matter what they do, generally though no fault of their own. Even in good economic times, unemployment still tends to be at 5% or so.

You are right. And I think you’re statistic is a bit outdated, I think as of today it’s 9.4%, and yes, it is going down (albeit very slowly), but that’s still astonishingly high. Read my response to PranaDevil below for more on that topic.

Nonononono. They are

already

getting paid for and supported by the government, but the government is getting no return from it. This guy is suggesting that they do at least SOME work for the money they get from Uncle Sam, not to mention Joe Taxpayer. And I agree with that.

And pray tell, where are the jobs that you'll have these people do actually come from?

If there's a job that needs doing, PAY people for doing it. Don't get cheap labour doing it. That's where it becomes slave labour instead of "making people earn their benefits".

So you suggest we continue to let people work the system? How are they going to earn the money we give them? Do we make them do ANYTHING to earn the money, or do we just continue to freely give?

This not only creates a system of dependency, but it develops a culture of laziness. Have you ever wondered why racist people make so many jokes about black people being lazy, but say nothing of the kind about Asians or Mexicans? Not all stereotypes are true, but not all of them are false either. They're just exaggerated somewhat, as a caricature stretches the truth into something a little more interesting. Which I might add is also the reason I posted what I did in the OP. Because it's more interesting to dissect when there's a little controversy.

It's what they're actually bringing into the UK soon. If you've been unemployed for a year you will have to work for one month out of every 3. And how are we getting the jobs to give these unemployed people?

Why we're firing people from jobs to open the spaces up.

Yeah, that sounds like a cracking way to fix the unemployment situation... make MORE people unemployed and deliberately lessen the amount of jobs out there by putting them aside for those who are trying to find work to do while they try and find a job you are forcing them to do. Which in turn can lead to someone being forced to return to work in the exact same office, doing the exact same job that they were previously doing, but instead of being paid at least minimum wage for doing the work (which would amount to roughly £210 a week), they would instead be doing it for £64 each week. Sounds like a fair deal to me!

This is actually a very good point, and something the quoted guy in the OP wasn't probably thinking about. Jobs are being shipped overseas at an alarming rate. Why? Because it's cheaper. Which leads me to my next topic:

Beerconomics

i.e. If (say) your 18-year-old daughter asks you for $50 to go shopping with her friends, and you find out later that they all went to the club, got wasted, and then she got pregnant by some random ass dude... what are you gonna say then?

That she's capable of making her own decisions and has to live with the consequences of her actions. What are you gonna say?

I'm gonna not give her any more of my money, that's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna say "If you're gonna make choices like that, then go make your own money to pay for it."

Right, because you come from the "you will do as I say" environment, whereas I come from the "you have the freedom to do as you wish, but you will accept the consequences of your own actions" environment.

I much prefer the latter.

I like how you are telling me what environment

I’m

coming from. Psych.

Keep in mind, she is her own person and she can do whatever she wishes, but she is just asking you to pay her way to do it. And she is not using the money for what she said she’d use it for. Are you saying you would continue to give her money?

Unfortunately the problem is, the government can't just yank funding, because it's bad for politics. Also it'd be wrong to do something that drastic because it'd screw over a ton of honest people. So what's the solution?

It's not that it's bad for politics, it's just that it's the wrong thing to do.

And that it's bad for politics.

If you think politicians do half the stuff they do for any reason other than that they want more money or that they want to stay in the cushy positions they have, then you my friend are fooling yourself.

But I’m glad we agree that it’s the wrong thing to do. So what’s the right thing to do?

There just aren't enough jobs nowadays, and forcing people to do the government's bidding just to survive is far too fascist for my tastes.

So then I assume you disagree with paying taxes, following traffic laws, are too fascist, eh? Of course not. But what does and does not constitute fascism in following the government's bidding? How much is too much? How large is too large when it comes to the federal government?

Not really, considering that leads to the redistribution of wealth to provide for the poor, pay for the education of our students, and allows me use of our government services, I have no problem with paying taxes and following traffic laws. I do have problems with forcing people into slavery of the government in order to not be starving on the streets somewhere.

Waitwaitwaitwait. Please enlighten me:

where

is this whole "redistribution of wealth" thing coming from? It's an

entitlement complex

, that's all it is. And that entire system of thought is fundamentally wrong. Nobody is

entitled

to have anybody else's money or possessions, just because they have more than you. Sorry.

What happened to the days where parents paid for their children's education out of their own pockets? Do you know how much money is tied up in student loans? $850 billion. Yep. Keep in mind:

that exceeds the national credit card debt.

JDodge, I must point you to the link I posted above for PranaDevil. Seriously. Yeah, it's another one of those formulaic forward-this-to-your-friends style things, but imho it gets its point across quite well.

[ReaperCharlie]

The reason the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer is because the rich invest their money, and the poor waste what money has been given them on shit they don't need.

You continue your ignorance. The reason that the rich invest/save their money is because of an economics concept known as Marginal Propensity to Save. That is, how much of income is consumed, or spent, vs. how much is invested, or saved. The reason rich people have a much higher MPS is because they have, you guessed it, much more money, so a much smaller fraction of their income must be used for basic needs like housing, food, transportation, clothing, etc. People who are less well off have to spend a much higher percentage of their money in order to meet their basic needs, and therefore have a much lower MPS. Its not a matter of rich people being thrifty and poor people being irresponsible, its a matter of percentage of income that goes towards necessities.

Are you really trying to claim that somehow people who are well off buy less frivolous things things then poor people? Such a claim is pretty much ridiculous on face. In fact, its pretty clear that by far the majority of new plasma TVs, XBox 360s, and yes, even RIMMZZZZZZZZZ are bought by people of higher socioeconomic status. Why? Because they have what is known as discretionary income.

Coincidentally, this concept is exactly the reason why welfare is the more effective form of economic stimulus. If you give a rich person a tax break, a very large percentage of it will be put in savings accounts, or spent overseas on vacations and the like. If you give welfare checks to poor people, they go out and immediately put pretty much 100% of it right back in the economy in order to do such irresponsible things as eat food and heat their homes.

Feel free to

not

address any of the other points I made.

Yes, the rich people have more money to spend. And they spend an inordinate amount on frivolity as well. And no I am not insinuating that poor people buy a larger percentage of frivolous things than rich people. To insinuate that I'm insinuating that is not only unfair, it's retarded on your part.

And we are not talking about why welfare is an effective form of economic stimulus. Because it's clearly not. What we're talking about is how to fix the problems in the welfare system. Pinpointing them and finding a solution. Or haven't you been following the discussion?

In response to this argument, see the link I directed Yos, Prana, and JDodge too above.

Pro-tip: Throwing around buzzwords like "marginal propensity to save" and "discretionary income" doesn't make you look smarter. It only makes people wonder why you aren't addressing the majority of points presented, and blowing your intellectual load on rhetoric, instead of on facts backed up by sources.


I will have to respond to posts #114+ later on, don't have time atm.

[ReaperCharlie]

Think of all those posts as one. Dam# forum problems.

[shaft.ed]

so RC's still trying to beat up the strawman?

[PranaDevil]

So you suggest we continue to let people work the system? How are they going to earn the money we give them? Do we make them do ANYTHING to earn the money, or do we just continue to freely give?

No, but punishing the many for the sins of the few is utterly stupid.

To even suggest that the majority of people unemployed are in that position voluntarily AND are working the system is laughable.

The majority are out of work and are trying to claw their way back into a position where they can work for a living. Why should we punish those people for the small handful who are able to work the system? The same handful who, if we change the system, will work it to their advantage somehow anyway? The only people who will truly suffer by making things harder for the unemployed are those who play by the rules in the first place. It wont change things for those screwing over the system. If anything it will make more people want to screw the system because the system is screwing them.

[Zachrulez]

The basic problem we have right now is that there aren't nearly enough jobs for people who want to work. 9.8% unemployment means that out of every 10 Americans who want to work, who have worked all their lives, who are trying to find a job, 1 of them can't get one, no matter what they do, generally though no fault of their own. Even in good economic times, unemployment still tends to be at 5% or so.

You are right. And I think you’re statistic is a bit outdated, I think as of today it’s 9.4%, and yes, it is going down (albeit very slowly), but that’s still astonishingly high. Read my response to PranaDevil below for more on that topic.

Try somewhere around 22%

Of course if those numbers were actually used, people might realize that we're actually flirting with great depression numbers.

[Nightson]

In our country, a study done in 2010 showed that 15% of all families in the country suffers from hunger. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02930.htmlThat's 17 million households. "Food stamps are too generous" is really not in the list of problems our country has right now.

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity/

If some A are B, and some A are C, all B are C.

[Zachrulez]

This not only creates a system of dependency, but it develops a culture of laziness. Have you ever wondered why racist people make so many jokes about black people being lazy, but say nothing of the kind about Asians or Mexicans? Not all stereotypes are true, but not all of them are false either. They're just exaggerated somewhat, as a caricature stretches the truth into something a little more interesting. Which I might add is also the reason I posted what I did in the OP. Because it's more interesting to dissect when there's a little controversy.

Let me stop you right there. America is actually one of the most productive societies in the world. Just look at the profits and how they've risen year after year despite the fact that the typical work person has gotten less and less purchasing power without any real increase in the quality of their own lives. (In fact, gradually losing benefits.)

For this productivity, workers are rewarded with low wages, and even with outsourcing due to their wages being deemed too much of an expense for the company they work under. (Despite record profits on a regular basis.)

And you're going to say that welfare develops a culture of laziness? Really?

BTW. We actually have a culture of productivity. Not to be confused with a culture of hard workers, of a culture of laziness.

[popsofctown]

I'd rather use roadside cleaning to punish prisoners for being criminals AND being taxpayer dependents than punish welfare recipients for being taxpayer dependent.

[PranaDevil]

I'd rather pay someone a decent wage to do it. But that could be me just thinking that if a job needs doing, then someone should be getting paid a wage for doing it. Especially when people want to work.

[Yosarian2]

In our country, a study done in 2010 showed that 15% of all families in the country suffers from hunger. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02930.htmlThat's 17 million households. "Food stamps are too generous" is really not in the list of problems our country has right now.

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity/

For one thing, people who are struggling just to get the 2000 or so calories that you need a day to live aren't going to be able to eat healthy food. A frozen pizza is about 1 dollar. It's not healthy, but if you're trying to put some kind of food on your table, that's not really your priority.

A lot of the poor kids in the school district I work in live in the motels. A lot of working poor people do; for one thing, if you don't have the down payment for an apartment, a motel might be your only option; for another, people with kids want to live in a middle class school district, because school districts in poor areas are terrible (partly because of the incredibly stupid way we fund schools in this country.) But if you're living in a motel for 6 months or 9 months, you don't have a kitchen at all. Every hot meal you make has to come out of the microwave. So, yeah, if you're in that situation, you're probably buying a lot of frozen pizza.

In general, when poor people with very limited budget are trying to get enough food to survive and not feel painfully hungry, they're going to eat things that are cheap and high in calories and fat. And, of course, convenience is also a factor; a working single parent just doesn't have enough time in the day to spend a few hours cooking dinner every night. Something always has to give in tough situations like that, and I hate it when people act like it's a moral failing that someone in that situation just can't do everything.

Let me point you again to that article I posted above.

Actually, those problems are related. There's a direct connection in our country between poverty and obesity, because it's a lot cheaper to get enough food through very unhealthy foods then through healthy foods. In fact, the first time I read about how so many people on food stamps basically eat almost nothing for the last week of every month was in an article about obesity and the poor. As far as a healthy weight goes, one of the WORST things you can do is starve for a week and then gorge yourself on unhealthy foods, you tend to gain a lot of weight that way, but that's exactally what happens with food stamps. And in general, if you don't know where your next meal is coming from, but you've got a lot of food available in front of you right now, you're much more likely to overeat; it's a natural instinct.

Which is cheaper; getting 2000 calories a day of McDonalds, or getting 2000 calories a day of healthy fruits and vegetables? McDonalds is actually cheaper, which is a big cause of the problem.


One of the solutions to this problem is that, if we're going to keep giving farm subsidies, we should give farm subsidies to people who grow fruit and vegetables as well, not just people who grow corn and grain. Overly cheap corn is one reason that beef is so cheap (beef is mostly corn fed), and the reason that, for the first time in history, beef is actually cheaper then fruits and vegetables, on a per-calorie basis. Right now, people who grow fruits aren't given any farm subsidies at all. Also, the "food desert" problem i was talking about before means that in poor areas, there might not be any fresh fruits or vegetables to be had.

What we’re not fine with is those who stay on the system as long as possible because they’re too lazy to work, those who

make

that choice to

not

get a job so they can stay on unemployment, or like Fate said earlier, those who work the system, basically getting free money from the fed because they don’t use it all and use the extra $200 they’re not spending on food to barter and create a whole new economy based around government-provided resources. And that is something the government cannot control.

All the evidence I've seen, all the studies I've seen, is that the majority of people on welfare would rather be working and making a decent living if they felt they had the option.

One could effectively argue that it’s the exact same thing. Which makes the whole argument moot unless we can agree about whether or not

working for what you get

is a good incentive to do something like that. Also, it maintains a good work ethic in somebody who has been without another job for a while. I’m not sure how many of you have been affected by the economy as much as I have, but I was unemployed for a number of months. After a while, even

without

getting any unemployment benefits from the government, I was feelin’ pretty good about not having to go back to work and working every day. The attitude of laziness becomes ever more pervasive, and some people can just

turn off

their conscience and ignore the voice in their mind telling them that it’s wrong to be lazy and take other people’s money to pay for laziness. Which is why I don’t do unemployment, because I don’t feel alright with doing it. Also, because it lessens my resolve to find a new job

right away

, which is another problem entirely. Malingering in unemployment is a huge drain on everyone else, yes?

Well, I think we're getting to the core of the matter here. If you're giving advice to one person who's poor on how to pull himself out of poverty, then yes, work ethic, savings, careful use of resources, ect, is all good advice. But when you're dealing with millions of people in long-term poverty, then I don't think you can just say that the root of the problem is that they're all lazy. Do you think that more Americans are lazy then Europeons? We have a lot more people trapped in long-term poverty in America then is true in Europe, or Japan, or actually in most countries that have similar levels of wealth that the United States does. I don't think that's because Americans are lazy, and I don't think that's because there's a govenrment safety net in the United States (since Europe and Japan also have welfare and a safety net, and it's actually a much stronger one.)

Whenever you deal with millions of people, yes, you're going to have some that are smart, some that are dumb, some that are lazy, some that are hard workers, ect. But I don't think long term poverty in this country is

primarily

caused by personality traits, I think it's caused by systematic problems, and I think if we fix some of the systematic problems in our country the long-term poverty rate will go way down.

Let me put it another way. There are school systems in this country that are just horrible; high dropout rates, and even people who graduate from those schools very often don't have the basic skills a person needs to survive, let alone go to collage. You might say that a really smart, hard-working, lucky person can go to one of those schools, manage to get a decent education anyway, and point to a few that managed to graduate from the school and go to college, and say that the rest of the kids in that school should do the same. One one level, you're right. But on another, more important level, there's no reason that those schools shouldn't have a much higher success rate then they do; it's quite possible to create an environment where a much higher percentage of them would succeed. And I think that's a metaphor for poverty in our country in general; yes, some people can start in poverty and pull themselves up by hard work and good luck and intelligence, and they should be commended for that. But with the system set up as it is now, a very high percentage of people do and will stay trapped in poverty and will not manage improve their lives, and I think we can make changes so more people succeed.

And we are not talking about why welfare is an effective form of economic stimulus. Because it's clearly not.

Actually, without a doubt, the most efficient and effective way to stimulate the economy is to give money to poor people.

Why? Because if you give a billionaire a million dollar tax cut, it's going to have very little impact on his spending; he might spend a little bit of it, but he'll probably just save 95% of it; it's just not going to change his spending habits, since he can already pretty much buy whatever he wants whenever he wants to.

On the other extreme, if you take the same million dollars and give 10,000 poor people 100 dollars each, it will all get spent very quickly, mostly on basic necessities like food, clothing, rent, electricity, ect. Someone near or below the poverty line tends to spend basically everything they get as soon as they get it, just in order to get by; because of that, the money will all go right back into the economy pretty much right away, and will end up creating a lot more wealth and stimulating the economy a lot more and a lot faster.

[Yosarian2]

What happened to the days where parents paid for their children's education out of their own pockets? Do you know how much money is tied up in student loans? $850 billion. Yep. Keep in mind:

that exceeds the national credit card debt.

I'll tell you what happened. The price of college went up, waayy up, and the amount of grants and scholarships available went down. The govenrment started giving out a lot less scholarships, and giving a lot more college loans instead.

Parents aren't putting less money in to college education then they used to be. Just the opposite. On the other hand, the government is putting less money into college education then it used to, while taxing the rich a lot less then it used to. That's really the biggest difference.

[JDodge]

i.e. If (say) your 18-year-old daughter asks you for $50 to go shopping with her friends, and you find out later that they all went to the club, got wasted, and then she got pregnant by some random ass dude... what are you gonna say then?

That she's capable of making her own decisions and has to live with the consequences of her actions. What are you gonna say?

I'm gonna not give her any more of my money, that's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna say "If you're gonna make choices like that, then go make your own money to pay for it."

Right, because you come from the "you will do as I say" environment, whereas I come from the "you have the freedom to do as you wish, but you will accept the consequences of your own actions" environment.

I much prefer the latter.

I like how you are telling me what environment

I’m

coming from. Psych.

Keep in mind, she is her own person and she can do whatever she wishes, but she is just asking you to pay her way to do it. And she is not using the money for what she said she’d use it for. Are you saying you would continue to give her money?

Yep. She's my daughter. What am I supposed to say? I'd also support her getting an abortion if she so chooses, or having the child should she so choose, and doing what she will with that. I'm not going to tell her what to do, she's 18 and thus an adult.

Unfortunately the problem is, the government can't just yank funding, because it's bad for politics. Also it'd be wrong to do something that drastic because it'd screw over a ton of honest people. So what's the solution?

It's not that it's bad for politics, it's just that it's the wrong thing to do.

And that it's bad for politics.

If you think politicians do half the stuff they do for any reason other than that they want more money or that they want to stay in the cushy positions they have, then you my friend are fooling yourself.

But I’m glad we agree that it’s the wrong thing to do. So what’s the right thing to do?

Tax the shit out of the rich. Move to a system wherein we make sure that all people have what they need, and a system wherein we make sure that all are entitled to a certain amount of spending money each month as well. Tax the shit out of the rich. Give them a little extra, let them save it up and put it towards rimzzz or plasma tvs or what have you. Tax the shit out of the rich.

There just aren't enough jobs nowadays, and forcing people to do the government's bidding just to survive is far too fascist for my tastes.

So then I assume you disagree with paying taxes, following traffic laws, are too fascist, eh? Of course not. But what does and does not constitute fascism in following the government's bidding? How much is too much? How large is too large when it comes to the federal government?

Not really, considering that leads to the redistribution of wealth to provide for the poor, pay for the education of our students, and allows me use of our government services, I have no problem with paying taxes and following traffic laws. I do have problems with forcing people into slavery of the government in order to not be starving on the streets somewhere.

Waitwaitwaitwait. Please enlighten me:

where

is this whole "redistribution of wealth" thing coming from? It's an

entitlement complex

, that's all it is. And that entire system of thought is fundamentally wrong. Nobody is

entitled

to have anybody else's money or possessions, just because they have more than you. Sorry.

Yes, I do have an entitlement complex. I feel that people are

entitled

to nutritious food, I feel people are

entitled

to a satisfactory shelter, I feel people are

entitled

to do what they wish with their bodies, and I feel people are

entitled

to a certain standard of life. I don't feel that the trust fund kiddies are

entitled

to their millions just because "it's theirs".

What happened to the days where parents paid for their children's education out of their own pockets? Do you know how much money is tied up in student loans? $850 billion. Yep. Keep in mind:

that exceeds the national credit card debt.

http://satyagraha.wordpress.com/2009/07 ... inflation/

College tuition rates have inflated by over 3x general inflation over the past 30 or so years.

http://www.finaid.org/educators/pellgrant.phtml

Governmental grants, not so much.

[PranaDevil]

I don't think "tax the shit out of the rich" is the answer either.

For one, if they've earned their money by putting in the effort, then fair play, they're then entitled to do whatever they want with it. If they wish to give it to their children so the kids don't ever have to work... well fair enough, they're entitled to do so. Of course they should also understand that the kids are likely to grow up to feel like they're entitled to have everything given to them. Which is why they should be made to earn the money. But not a reason to tax them more.

But what should happen is that all classes are taxed the same percentage. Millionaires shouldn't get additional tax breaks. That's basically saying that anyone earning above X amount is better than anyone earning under that amount. Which is not true.

Of course the flaw is that if you actually expect the big companies and millionaires to pay the same percentage of tax as the rest of the country they'll balk at it and fuck off elsewhere.

[Battousai]

Pro-tip: Throwing around buzzwords like "marginal propensity to save" and "discretionary income" doesn't make you look smarter. It only makes people wonder why you aren't addressing the majority of points presented, and blowing your intellectual load on rhetoric, instead of on facts backed up by sources.

Pro-tip: Calling something a buzzword to discredit the merit behind it, makes your stance looks weak.

[Cyberbob]

But what should happen is that all classes are taxed the same percentage.

XFD this guy

hooooooo boy this sure is a bad opinion

[PranaDevil]

Yeah, how dare I say everyone should be treated equally!

[Yosarian2]

I don't think "tax the shit out of the rich" is the answer either.

For one, if they've earned their money by putting in the effort, then fair play, they're then entitled to do whatever they want with it. If they wish to give it to their children so the kids don't ever have to work... well fair enough, they're entitled to do so. Of course they should also understand that the kids are likely to grow up to feel like they're entitled to have everything given to them. Which is why they should be made to earn the money. But not a reason to tax them more.

But what should happen is that all classes are taxed the same percentage.

Well, there's a fundamental problem with this. It's called exponential growth.

Money that you invest, or that you earn interest on, grows at an exponential rate. That's one of the basic rules of capitalism. The more you start with, the faster it grows. So what that means is that if you have two people, and person A starts with a little bit more capital then person B, then over time, person A's wealth will grow faster then person B's. Not because person A is working harder, or is smarter, or is a better person; that's just how capitalism works. The person with more capital to invest gets more money, faster, and thus ends up with even more capital to invest.

So over time, if you let everyone keep their money, or tax everyone at the same rate, and let wealth accumulate in rich families for generation after generation, the gap between the rich and the poor just keeps getting bigger. Eventually, you end up with a small super-powerful oligarchy that owns basically everything, and everyone else is, relitive to them, poor. That's just a function of how the numbers work.

In order to prevent that, in order to keep some kind of fair and democratic society, instead of a permanent caste system, you need some kind of mechanism to redistribute wealth. This isn't to punish anyone, or anything like that. If person A wants to work harder then person B in order to spend more money, that's fine, that's a matter of personal choice. But huge accumulations of wealth, billions of dollars in the hands of private individuals that just keep growing and growing at ever faster rates, are bad in the long run, unless a significant part of the profits are pulled off by the government and used for the common good, to help everyone in the country.

[Thestatusquo]

So I demonstrate why wellfare is the most effective form of economic stimulus, and in a post QUOTING that explanation you claim that it just simply isn't without any warrant whatsoever? Then you post a thread called "beer economics" which displays such a fundamental misunderstanding of the theories of progressive taxation that there really isn't any way to make a coherant response to it. There's just too much completely wrong?

Yeah, now I am really done with you, your ignorance, and your threads outlining the same. Take your ill thought political view points back to fox news, or wherever the hell it is they originated. It's plainly obvious that entering into dialogue with you is absolutely worthless.

[PranaDevil]

I don't think "tax the shit out of the rich" is the answer either.

For one, if they've earned their money by putting in the effort, then fair play, they're then entitled to do whatever they want with it. If they wish to give it to their children so the kids don't ever have to work... well fair enough, they're entitled to do so. Of course they should also understand that the kids are likely to grow up to feel like they're entitled to have everything given to them. Which is why they should be made to earn the money. But not a reason to tax them more.

But what should happen is that all classes are taxed the same percentage.

Well, there's a fundamental problem with this. It's called exponential growth.

Money that you invest, or that you earn interest on, grows at an exponential rate. That's one of the basic rules of capitalism. The more you start with, the faster it grows. So what that means is that if you have two people, and person A starts with a little bit more capital then person B, then over time, person A's wealth will grow faster then person B's. Not because person A is working harder, or is smarter, or is a better person; that's just how capitalism works. The person with more capital to invest gets more money, faster, and thus ends up with even more capital to invest.

So over time, if you let everyone keep their money, or tax everyone at the same rate, and let wealth accumulate in rich families for generation after generation, the gap between the rich and the poor just keeps getting bigger. Eventually, you end up with a small super-powerful oligarchy that owns basically everything, and everyone else is, relitive to them, poor. That's just a function of how the numbers work.

In order to prevent that, in order to keep some kind of fair and democratic society, instead of a permanent caste system, you need some kind of mechanism to redistribute wealth. This isn't to punish anyone, or anything like that. If person A wants to work harder then person B in order to spend more money, that's fine, that's a matter of personal choice. But huge accumulations of wealth, billions of dollars in the hands of private individuals that just keep growing and growing at ever faster rates, are bad in the long run, unless a significant part of the profits are pulled off by the government and used for the common good, to help everyone in the country.

You appear to be of the assumption I'm saying that the rich should pay less tax. I'm saying that the percentage of their earnings that they pay in tax is less than the middle class and working class, and it should be changed so that all three classes pay the same percentage in tax.

For example, if the working class and middle class pay 15% tax (as an example), why should the rich say... pay only 12%? It should be a flat percentage clean across the board, no favouritism shown to one class or another.

[Cyberbob]

Yeah, how dare I say everyone should be treated equally!

except in real terms it's not actually equal: rich people have a whole shitload more discretionary income than poor people, an ~~~equal treatment~~~ is a far heavier load on poor people than rich people

you're dumb + shouldn't post

[Cyberbob]

rich people should be paying a much higher percentage than the middle class (which doesn't actually exist anymore fyi) and the lower class

[PranaDevil]

rich people should be paying a much higher percentage than the middle class (which doesn't actually exist anymore fyi) and the lower class

Yet in reality the opposite is true.

Yet you seem to be arguing that it shouldn't be.

you're dumb + shouldn't post.

[Cyberbob]

Yet in reality the opposite is true.

yep

Yet you seem to be arguing that it shouldn't be.

wat

[Cyberbob]

"rich people should be paying more" = "rich people shouldn't be paying more"

--a very dumb fuck