Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore, research reveals

a reply to: AlaskanDad

This is absurd.

For those who, in every thread, keep defending these elitist scum; I personally have decided to stop debating them.

I suggest the rest of you follow my lead, and simply stop debating with the few members who are either clueless as to how the world works, or are purposely arguing for the sake of argument.

You can't educate the wilfully ignorant.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's good to hear you do not label liberals as socialists, glad to hear that you saw that as a problem too!

I do not want go further off topic, though libertarianism interests me.

I think the rich need higher taxes so they can no longer buy my government. Having our politicians bought and owned weakens and endangers our country.

I would love to sit down with you for a couple beers and have a discussion. The internet makes for quick snappy discussions that are seldom as deep as their live counterparts.

a reply to: 321Go

They can move their money back or not. No one can afford their crap anyway.

Because hundreds of millions of people buying things always trumps "job creation."

a reply to: ketsuko

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
I think the rich need higher taxes so they can no longer buy my government. Having our politicians bought and owned weakens and endangers our country.

I would love to sit down with you for a couple beers and have a discussion. The internet makes for quick snappy discussions that are seldom as deep as their live counterparts.

Agree about the beers.

I don't believe this part of the discussion is off topic to the overall issue at hand.

My primary concern is that politicians aren't always bought with money... votes are a currency many of them hold even more dear. The scenario we're approaching as a country, in which the top 40% of earners pay 84% of the taxes collected, is leading us to a majority of Americans having less and less skin in the game, but receiving more and more dowry from the politicians they elect who continue to redistribute more and more of that upper 40%'s wealth.

In a global open market, there's no barrier to the billionaires taking their wealth outside the US and removing virtually all taxes currently collected from them (let alone the preposterously high taxes some politicians and voters believe should be taken from them.) What then? We'll still have a so-called 1%, but the ceiling will shift to the multi millionaires. Eventually they, too, will either leave or run out of wealth to tax... then we have to look at the millionaires. Wash, rinse, repeat until we eventually have a welfare class alone, lacking anyone to actively tax to support everyone else. That's called a serfdom in most books. A serfdom in which the handful of wealthy individuals are represented by the state and everyone else is a lowly peasant dependent on said state for their welfare.

I'm arguing that the negative net income tax payers in America represent a complete conflict of interest in regards to voting for "raise the wealthy taxes" politicians based on a combination of greed and short sightedness.

Cant believe people defend the banks........

THEY crashed the economy and they stole trillions without any risk or negative effect, then expected the public to pick up the tab.......and people are fine with that?


Socilist, libertarian or inbetween you have to see thats messed up? Come on you have see why there is resentment and hatred at the banking groups.


And I think we need to seperate the Rich who have got they money through honnest legal work and the rich who have got there money scewing the system or outright breaking eg the banks.

I have no quarell with the Elon Musks or even Gates.
I would however strip the Rothchilds, Goldansachs and the other banking clans of all there asets to pay the debt and then jail them. I would do the exact same to the Bushes and Cheneys for war profiteering.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

My primary concern is that politicians aren't always bought with money... votes are a currency many of them hold even more dear.

Are referring to rigged voting machines? I must be missing something here, how does one acquire votes other than campaign funds?




While I can understand your concerns, but the rich created our current employment situation, why let them off the hook?
Do you think the lobbyists, ceo's and politicians who passed our trade laws are in the 60% that are not paying taxes due to poverty or are they part of the 40% you feel should be in control???

a reply to: AlaskanDad

No, I'm not talking about rigged voting machines. I'm talking about:
"If elected, I will increase the taxes on billionaires to 80% of their wealth and see to it that those monies are redistributed to American families making less than $50,000 a year."
That's politicians buying votes using money which isn't their to begin with. Mob rule shouldn't be in a position where state sanctioned grift financially benefits them. When we're at that point, we're completely hosed.

I think we need lobbyist reform in America alongside true campaign finance reform. I also feel that Citizen's United should be overturned BUT that overturning MUST include declaration that unions aren't individuals and can't use their money as a form of free speech, either. I also support elimination of the two party system, which is broken. Furthermore, I believe 100% of Americans should have some sort of equal proportional skin in the game. 10% is always 10%. I realize that $100 is consider "a lot of money" to someone who only has $1,000... but $10,000 is a lot of money to someone who only has $100,000, too. The current broken system actually would see the person with $1,000 given $100 via redistribution and the person with $100,000 would actually pay $20,000 to provide for all that redistribution alongside everything else we're supporting in the country.

That's not fair.

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Ironic isn't it.

Especially seeing how so many still trumpet the line "if you are poor it because you are lazy or stupid or made the wrong choices. "

Ain't that the truth. Funny how people with good jobs, home, nice car and $$$ in the bank or in other wealth are so smug. "I really like their line "Made the wrong choices". Stay solid my friend!

Here's where we are at now imho.

I remember when I was young and heard the phrase "Rat race" once I understood what it meant I thought ok i'll get through this someday and be successful.

But now it's a "Rat Race" where they want to get you through it faster and with less treats and more hurdles to keep you downtrodden and unsuccessful while they get rich off your labor and you only make enough to get by, that's modern day slavery folks!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

After the last bank bailout aka welfare for Wall Street bankers got bonuses;
why are you trying to protect them???

As for politician buying votes through welfare being a reason to either stop welfare or take away the poor persons right to vote, those do not sound like true libertarian values.

Guaranteeing a minimum income to the poor is better than our current system of welfare, Zwolinski argues. And it can be justified by libertarian principles.

One of libertarianism’s most distinctive commitments is its belief in the near-inviolability of private property rights. But it does not follow from this commitment that the existing distribution of property rights ought to be regarded as inviolable, because the existing distribution is in many ways the product of past acts of uncompensated theft and violence.

source

Interesting!

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Ironic isn't it.

Especially seeing how so many still trumpet the line "if you are poor it because you are lazy or stupid or made the wrong choices. "

Poor people don't have as many choices to make as those better off than them. That doesn't make them lazy - most of them work harder than the rich by far. I used to be from a well-off family, but since graduating college have had to take on some jobs that require real work. I don't make much money and it is a stressful environment for me.

And I'm still better off than loads of people. I have heard of people who work multiple jobs and have kids. That's a lot of work.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think we need lobbyist reform in America alongside true campaign finance reform. I also feel that Citizen's United should be overturned BUT that overturning MUST include declaration that unions aren't individuals and can't use their money as a form of free speech, either. I also support elimination of the two party system, which is broken.

I would point out on these items we agree!

a reply to: AlaskanDad

You're being absolutist. We're discussing private income taxation here, not corporate taxes, bank bailouts, or corporate welfare. I'm 100% opposed to corporate welfare and TARP sickened me.

As far as welfare goes, specifically is it or isn't it a libertarian ideal... let's go straight to the source.
www.lp.org...

None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

Zwolinski reflects the standard, American-specific pitfall that has infested politics in this nation: everything has to be either leftist or fascist, even Libertarianism. I'm arguing for actual libertarian ideals... not the garbage the left leaners are trying to dump with this ridiculous "bleeding heart libertarian" business and not the horsecrap the neocon libertarians are trying to pass with their asinine "corporate welfare state represents libertarian values" spiel. I'd like to see the Libertarian movement not become marginalized and liberalized as happened to the GOP when the "kinder, gentler conservative" nonsense shifted the bulk of the party fiscally leftward and mentally backward. At it's core, libertarianism in 2015 matches up quite well with Barry Goldwater's vision of conservativism.

Although it was long ago and a different world, this nation was founded as a reaction to the danger inherent in corporate greed, and the influence it exerted over government policy. The British parliament had become heavily influenced by corporate entities, often resulting in legislation to protect their interests at the expense of the general populace.

The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and dominated much of the trade between Britain and the Colonies. In order to profit the East India Company, Britain levied a duty on the tea provided to the colonies. Having no say-so in the matter, this angered the colonists so much it led to the Boston Tea Party. The British parliament was obviously placing corporate interests ahead of the interests of the people.

Therefore, the founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and influence in government. And so, in their wisdom they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution. After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by state as they are today. Unlike today, however,

corporations could only exist for 20-30 years and could only deal in one commodity. Their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals.

As a matter of fact, most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense.

Big banks were also looked upon as corporations, and here’s what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

OK, so much for the history lesson. I’ve heard countless arguments about the logic of “trickle down”. Be that as it may, I’ve yet to see it work. All you need to do is look at the income disparity stats over the past 30 years. The middle class has flatlined, while the rich have soared to unprecedented heights. It’s obscene. And it’s unsustainable.

Will we ever learn?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Like I said earlier there are many types of libertarianism, but then that is a problem with labels.

Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

When those don't work, this would leave only one avenue to the poor...

...Crime!!!

Nice!

a reply to: netbound

Thomas Jefferson was worth an estimate $212 MILLION in today's money at the time of his death.
www.usatoday.com...

Furthermore, there's this...
eyler.freeservers.com...

"What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

Hmm, sounds like an advocacy for free market combined with a thumbs down for income tax.

"[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:] 'A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

AH! A consumption tax. Now there's an idea I sure as hell would embrace over an income tax. Go ahead federal government, leave me with my earnings and levy taxes on what I spend. Now watch just how frugal I can be.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad


When those don't work, this would leave only one avenue to the poor...

...Crime!!!

Nice!

...can't that be said about pretty much everything in life, though? How far down the rabbit hole do we chase this? At what point does:
Take a Second Job!!!
Live More Frugally!!!
Learn a Trade!!!
or
Look Elsewhere for Work!!!
enter the picture? Personal responsibility, my friend, personal responsibility. I realize modern America has made this a forbidden concept, because it is the anathema of the welfare state and of political control over a kept class of voters, but if we'd have lacked it at the founding of this country, Europeans never would have made it past the first winter at Plymouth Rock.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

It is alarming to me that this has happened. I have watched it take place in those last 30 years. I see a crumbling infrastructure all around and people working harder and longer hours for less and less. Is there any hope to reverse this?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Europeans never would have made it past the first winter at Plymouth Rock.

They stole food from local natives and we celebrate that as Thanksgiving.

Your version of libertarianism sounds like ultra conservative fantasy land.

This planet belongs to all human beings, not a few that have tittle. Its resources should not be plundered by a few to bring them great wealth. Rather the great cornucopia that is earth should supply the needs of all.