Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
KSweeley

Civil Rights Commission Will Launch Two-Year Probe of Trump Administration

60 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, hst2 said:

If citizen B controls a monopoly, or a virtual monopoly, avenues to wealth are cut off to citizen A.

I have described various ways that Citizen B exploits Citizen A and keeps him in his position.

Beyond that, large amounts of wealth concentrated in fewer hands is not good for individuals or society. As I pointed out earlier,  it threatens democracy, and it certainly threatens capitalism. There is simply no good reason for it.

Therefore, it is just and wise to impose a progressive income tax, to share the burden that inherently falls on the losers in the capitalist system.

I've never advocated for wealth concentrated in few hands but we differ on how to solve that.  You want to redistribute, as if wealth is finite and some people are hogging up too much while I recognize that new wealth can always be created and that we should help Citizen A make more of it, whether that is helping him start a business, get better trained or some other thing..  

BTW, there is no motive for Citizen B to keep Citizen A in his position because Citizen A is little threat to him or his ability to make money.  In fact, if everyone were wealthy we'd all be better off, would we not? The question is how to move in that direction.

Edited by veritas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

53 minutes ago, veritas said:

I've never advocated for wealth concentrated in few hands but we differ on how to solve that.  You want to redistribute, as if wealth is finite and some people are hogging up too much while I recognize that new wealth can always be created and that we should help Citizen A make more of it, whether that is helping him start a business, get better trained or some other thing..  

BTW, there is no motive for Citizen B to keep Citizen A in his position because Citizen A is little threat to him or his ability to make money.  In fact, if everyone were wealthy we'd all be better off, would we not? The question is how to move in that direction.

Could you give me an example of where this has been done successfully?

I noticed that the opportunity to create new wealth occurred the other day when the Tribune Media giant came up for sale, but the Smith Family, the filthy rich owners of Sinclair Broadcasting, just beat me to it. 

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Could you give me an example of where this has been done successfully?

Nowhere but that doesn't mean that we haven't devised the system which gives the greatest opportunity to the greatest number. Perfection is an impossibility but we do the best we can within the constraints of human foibles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, veritas said:

Nowhere but that doesn't mean that we haven't devised the system which gives the greatest opportunity to the greatest number. Perfection is an impossibility but we do the best we can within the constraints of human foibles.  

Other countries do much better. And we did better through the liberal, New Deal era that reached its zenith at the end of WWII. Taxes on the wealthy were quite a bit higher, the government protected union organizing, which produced higher wages for workers, and it regulated businesses to prevent monopolies.

Nowadays:

"A great, short book by Richard V. Reeves of the Brookings Institution helps to flesh out why these stories provoke such rage. In Dream Hoarders, released this week, Reeves agrees that the 20 percent are not the one percent: The higher you go up the income or wealth distribution, the bigger the gains made in the past three or four decades. Still, the top quintile of earners—those making more than roughly $112,000 a year—have been big beneficiaries of the country’s growth. To make matters worse, this group of Americans engages in a variety of practices that don’t just help their families, but harm the other 80 percent of Americans.

...The book traces the way that the upper-middle class has pulled away from the middle class and the poor on five dimensions: income and wealth, educational attainment, family structure, geography, and health and longevity. The top 20 percent of earners might not have seen the kinds of income gains made by the top one percent and America’s billionaires. Still, their wage and investment increases have proven sizable. They dominate the country’s top colleges, sequester themselves in wealthy neighborhoods with excellent public schools and public services, and enjoy healthy bodies and long lives. “It would be an exaggeration to say that the upper-middle class is full of gluten-avoiding, normal-BMI joggers who are only marginally more likely to smoke a cigarette than to hit their children,” Reeves writes. “But it would be just that—an exaggeration, not a fiction.”

They then pass those advantages onto their children, with parents placing a “glass floor” under their kids. They ensure they grow up in nice zip codes, provide social connections that make a difference when entering the labor force, help with internships, aid with tuition and home-buying, and schmooze with college admissions officers. All the while, they support policies and practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals."

Link

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, hst2 said:

His noise is an indication of a much deeper problem. Silencing him wouldn't really cut the madness, the insecurity, the vindictiveness that is Trump

It would be a good place to start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, hst2 said:

Other countries do much better. And we did better through the liberal, New Deal era that reached its zenith at the end of WWII. Taxes on the wealthy were quite a bit higher, the government protected union organizing, which produced higher wages for workers, and it regulated businesses to prevent monopolies.

Nowadays:

"A great, short book by Richard V. Reeves of the Brookings Institution helps to flesh out why these stories provoke such rage. In Dream Hoarders, released this week, Reeves agrees that the 20 percent are not the one percent: The higher you go up the income or wealth distribution, the bigger the gains made in the past three or four decades. Still, the top quintile of earners—those making more than roughly $112,000 a year—have been big beneficiaries of the country’s growth. To make matters worse, this group of Americans engages in a variety of practices that don’t just help their families, but harm the other 80 percent of Americans.

...The book traces the way that the upper-middle class has pulled away from the middle class and the poor on five dimensions: income and wealth, educational attainment, family structure, geography, and health and longevity. The top 20 percent of earners might not have seen the kinds of income gains made by the top one percent and America’s billionaires. Still, their wage and investment increases have proven sizable. They dominate the country’s top colleges, sequester themselves in wealthy neighborhoods with excellent public schools and public services, and enjoy healthy bodies and long lives. “It would be an exaggeration to say that the upper-middle class is full of gluten-avoiding, normal-BMI joggers who are only marginally more likely to smoke a cigarette than to hit their children,” Reeves writes. “But it would be just that—an exaggeration, not a fiction.”

They then pass those advantages onto their children, with parents placing a “glass floor” under their kids. They ensure they grow up in nice zip codes, provide social connections that make a difference when entering the labor force, help with internships, aid with tuition and home-buying, and schmooze with college admissions officers. All the while, they support policies and practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals."

Link

 

All Reeves is doing here is extolling the benefits of financial success, better neighborhoods, better educations, better health, better starts for the next generation.  We already know all that.  Why else would people seek wealth other than to make things better for themselves and their families?  That is sort of the point of the exercise, is it not?  The other point is that, in having millions of individuals pursuing their goals and creating wealth, we lift up the whole.  Now, of course, not all have risen on equal terms but that does not invalidate the demonstrated success of capitalism.  One can also oppose monopolies and want protections for workers while simultaneously realizing that capitalism is the best economic system ever devised by man or ever will be devised. 

His claims that the successful have a vested interest in holding back the less successful are also specious.  Having more people be better educated, wealthier and more able to care for themselves helps everyone.  It means a bigger tax base, less crime, less dependence and more mobility, all good things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, veritas said:

All Reeves is doing here is extolling the benefits of financial success, better neighborhoods, better educations, better health, better starts for the next generation.  We already know all that.  Why else would people seek wealth other than to make things better for themselves and their families?  That is sort of the point of the exercise, is it not?  The other point is that, in having millions of individuals pursuing their goals and creating wealth, we lift up the whole.  Now, of course, not all have risen on equal terms but that does not invalidate the demonstrated success of capitalism.  One can also oppose monopolies and want protections for workers while simultaneously realizing that capitalism is the best economic system ever devised by man or ever will be devised. 

His claims that the successful have a vested interest in holding back the less successful are also specious.  Having more people be better educated, wealthier and more able to care for themselves helps everyone.  It means a bigger tax base, less crime, less dependence and more mobility, all good things.

If you ever support any policies that help leads to greater wealth for greater numbers of people, be sure to let me know. I'd like to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hst2 said:

If you ever support any policies that help leads to greater wealth for greater numbers of people, be sure to let me know. I'd like to see it.

I do.  It's called capitalism and free markets.  What you mean is if I support policies of aggressive wealth redistribution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, veritas said:

I do.  It's called capitalism and free markets.  What you mean is if I support policies of aggressive wealth redistribution. 

I said policies, not platitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hst2 said:

I said policies, not platitudes.

OK.  How about policies that encourage business instead of strangling it?  More business equals more jobs which equals more wealth which equals more tax revenue.  And no, I'm not talking about the few fat cats at the public trough.  I mean medium and small business especially.  This goes for state as well as Federal policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0