Topic: Economics
The rich vs poor fallacy If we all started with the same amount of money and assets, Conservative assumptions about the economy would make sense.by Dale Husband
(liberal)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Conservatives give us the impression that attempts to tax the wealthy at higher rates than the poor are somehow discriminatory, that those who work harder for their wealth should, as a matter of justice, be allowed to keep most of the money they earn, while those who are impoverished are that way because of laziness or ineptitude. No doubt, that is true of some members of both social classes, but hardly all, and that is where the problem lies, the issue of false stereotyping.
Suppose you have a society in which everyone starts out at the exact same level of living standard. Over time, some will naturally do better financially than others because they are able to get a better education and manage their money better than others. So in a society like that, all members should indeed be taxed the same rate.
REAL societies, however, are NEVER like this. Most wealthy people grew up in wealthy families and recieved their money from their parents or other older relatives and thus had access to more opportunities from the very beginning, not because of their abilities but because they were lucky enough to be born in the right families. (Paris Hilton is perhaps the most notorious example.) Meanwhile, those who grew up in poverty, even if they are just as smart, beautiful, and hardworking as the average rich person, tend to remain in poverty because they have less access to the money they would need to invest, to educate themselves, and to afford the latest technologies.
The reason we hear so much about poor people making themselves rich by their own hard work is because such things are extremely unusual and rare and the corporate dominated media tends to focus on the unusual. Why? Because it provides great entertainment value AND it serves the best interests of the upper classes by convincing the members of the lower classes that they too can be rich and powerful, if only they will work harder at it. Meanwhile, those who are rich, and already run the giant corporations that dominate America's economy, make sure they those who are poor and work for them never get enough money to challenge them later. That's why we have such low wages for workers, and they would be even lower if not for minimum wage laws.
It's time to put an end to that centuries old scam and just tax the hell of most rich people and be done with it. NO ONE deserves to be billionaires, period! It is the height of perversity for someone who has millions of dollars, including a mansion, to insist on a "right" to acquire MORE wealth and to not contribute to the upkeep of their governments and to society in general! Even most religions condemn that attitude, so there!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 26 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dale Husband only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dale Husband is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I have several philosophical problems with your writing. First, none of us have a choice in our standings in the natural and social lottery. Some of us are born blind and some of us are born with sight. I don't believe that you or anyone else would advocate the blinding of people to ensure some kind of "equality". It isn't fair to take from Paris Hilton just because she was "lucky" in the natural and social lottery.
Second, if the rich are taxed to a point that their hard work is punshed what motivation do they have to work hard? Could you imagine if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were taxed to a point that it wasn't worth to release their latest software? Why would automakers continue making cars? I think that greed isn't necessarily a bad thing. Think about how our lives are better now than 100 years ago due to people wanting more.
Government regulations have held back people more than big business ever has. How much does it cost to start a business with all the liscensing, safety equipment and training required by the government? By the time someone starts a business they are many thousands in the hole and have to hope for a quick return just to stay afloat.
"NO ONE deserves to be billionaires, period!" What!!! as Barry Sobel said to Whitney Houston "I am scared to see your psychiatry bill!" Bill Gates and all the Micro Soft founders deserve ever copper cent they have. To think other wise is to justify theft.
I grew up dirt poor but my mama still taught me right from wrong and steeling (aka taxation) is wrong I don't care if you are Robin Hood steeling is theft.
The problem with a billionaire is that we can't keep his disproportionate influence out of government. Your arguement sounds more like a reason to get rid of the Fed, mister liberal.
Response to JustPlainJason: Comparing blind vs seeing people to rich vs poor people ignores one critical fact: While no blind or seeing person from birth can be said to have made a choice about his sight or lack therof, ALL ultra wealthy people make a CHOICE to keep their wealth to themselves. Including Paris Hilton! Note that I'm not asking anyone to live dirt poor, just not to be so greedy! If I had a million dollars, I'd be quite happy with it, whether I won it or worked hard for it, AND I'd gladly pay taxes on the money. Basically, I'm not asking others to do what I myself wouldn't be willing to do. Nor am I saying that people shouldn't profit off their inventions. I'm just asking for rational moderation in this matter.
Response to censoredagain: First, do you work for Microsoft? Second, taking what does not belong to you is spelled stealing. Steel is a metallic alloy. Third, taxation is not stealing because it is done by due process of law, not criminal activity. If you have a problem with the tax rates, change the law, but don't call something what it isn't.
Response to daddysteve: Sadly, you are correct. Rich people DO have more influence over the government than the poor, which goes along with what I wrote in the original essay above. If by "get rid of the Fed", you mean the Federal Reserve system, some Liberals do favor that, but I'm not an expert on how that agency specifically works, so I can't say what benefits would result from eliminating it. If you meant the Federal government itself, that's as unlikely as it is irrational.
I was saying that it isn't Paris Hilton's fault that she was born into a wealthy family no more than it is a person's fault that they are born with sight. Do you consider someone who chooses to see over not seeing greedy for wanting to keep their sight? Depriving one group to maybe benefit another is unjust.
Paris Hilton's grandfather worked hard for the money that she enjoys now. It was his wish that she has it now. Although some rich people haven't done anything to deserve their inheritance they haven't done anything to deserve it taken away.
I would like you to explain the last bit of your argument. Why doesn't someone deserve to be a billionaire? And in what way do they not contribute? Please be a bit more specific, give some examples...
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-11-12 05:05:51
Dale,
I grew up with a family who earned about $30,000 annually. I paid more than that in Federal Income taxes last year.
I've done it through hard work, taking risks, and exercising my freedom.
So what about people like me? Should I be okay with having money ripped away from me that I could give to my parents because people like you can't stand the thought that it IS possible to become successful despite modest beginnings?
It's easy to believe in the ineptitude of humans. It's everywhere. And as "security" supercedes freedom, you will see more ineptitude, because it will be rewarded by stealing from the able to give to those "less fortunate souls" who "don't deserve to be poor."
I'm half inclined to lead a movement to encourage all of the people like me to stop paying taxes altogether. At least when I'm in prision, I'll be feeding off the taxpayer instead of working half a year for them to feed of me.
No, I wouldn't say it is greedy to want to see if one has been blind, since a sighted person can contribute more to society than a blind one, plus once one's vision is 20/20, it is optimal for humans. There is no need for further improvement.
If you make ten million dollars a year, that enables you to get all the comforts one could reasonably need or want. So what could possibly motivate someone to make one hundred million dollars a year? Pride in having more money and possessions than someone else. There's nothing practical about that.
"Paris Hilton's grandfather worked hard for the money that she enjoys now. It was his wish that she has it now. Although some rich people haven't done anything to deserve their inheritance they haven't done anything to deserve it taken away."
You do not see the contradiction there??? Why shouldn't EVERYBODY work hard for their money, both Paris Hilton's grandfather and her too? Then society would be MORE productive and we wouldn't have a tabloid princess that is a disgrace to her family. The trouble is that once a person becomes ultra wealthy through hard work, the next generation raised with that wealth ends up with an incredible sense of entitlement, even though they didn't do what their fathers or grandfathers did before them. And that leads to a downward spiral later. One may wonder if Paris' children may turn out even worse than her, if she doesn't change her ways.
Fortunately, that may not be an issue. See how Paris' grandfather REALLY feels about her:
((((Paris Hilton’s recent behaviour has sent her billionaire grandfather into fury — so much so that the hotel heiress-cum-jailbird will not see a cent of her $59 million inheritance.
The co-chairman of the famous hotel chain, Conrad ‘Barron’ Hilton, has instead decided to plough his fortune into a charitable foundation in an effort to carry on family tradition.
And the 79-year-old has also cut off his 11 other grandchildren in the name of philanthropy.
"He was, and is, extremely embarrassed by how the Hilton name has been sullied by Paris," says Jerry Oppenheimer, author of House Of Hilton. "He doesn't want to leave unearned wealth to his family."
Hilton senior recently acquired a hefty $2.4 billion after selling off a massive chunk of his hotel chain to private equity firm Blackstone.
Given her grandfathers disapproval, Miss Hilton is now working hard to cash in on her fame while she can.
The Daily Mail reports that Hilton recently made an impromptu performance at a karaoke night in an LA nightclub where she performed her painful rendition of Bette Davis Eyes before launching into her own ‘smash’ Stars Are Blind.
The paper suggested any stars in the crowd would have wished they were deaf instead.
Her close friends report she intends to release a new album soon even though her debut Paris barely made a dint in the charts, with one critic describing her singing as "like (somebody) having an asthma attack".
Hilton has recently begun singing lessons with Madonna’s voice coach Seth Riggs for her newest album which is due out in spring this year.
She is also set to star in a new MTV cartoon and a Bollywood film whose director is said to be keen to cast her in the role of Mother Teresa.
Hilton was recently locked up for 23 days after she was busted driving her Bentley with a disqualified license following a drink driving conviction.
Prior to that, the world played voyeur when her then-boyfriend Rick Salomon leaked a video of the two engaged in a sex romp. The One Night In Paris video is due for re-release in special 'collectable prison packaging'. ))))
I hope that is specific enough for you!
John Armstrong:
"Should I be okay with having money ripped away from me that I could give to my parents because people like you can't stand the thought that it IS possible to become successful despite modest beginnings?"
Strawman. I have no problem with people being successful, whatever their background. But at some point, an ultra wealthy person can become a parasite on society if they don't give something back to that society. And if they don't contribute willingly, should they be allowed to get away with their parasitism? The assumption that there is no difference between being moderately wealthy (which I approve of) and EXTREMELY rich (which I condemn) is a mistake that even the Hilton patriarch now seems to recognize!
Your last paragraph assumes that most of your tax dollars is wasted on welfare projects. Actually, the military also gets a lot of that money, and so do many federal agencies that employ millions of other people and they do many useful functions. They don't feed off you, they work FOR you!
I was only Paris Hilton as an example, you can replace her name with any other heiress and it what I said is still true. There is no contradiction...if you want I can put my argument in a simpler format for you without any annecdotal evidence.
I believe that we are owners of ourselves and the fruits of our labors. It doesn\'t matter if I have one dollar or a billion dollars it is mine to do what I wish with it. If I want I can donate it to charity, sew it up in a matress, leave it to ungrateful children, or even pile it up and set it on fire. My having the billion dollars is doing no one harm. To get that billion dollars I have provided something that people think that they need more than the money they gave me. It is a fair and equitable exchange.
Now what you are advocating is taking away the money I have legitamately earned (or was given through inheritance and by proxy have earned). I understand that you think that society would be "better off" if everyone individually earned their way. You believe in Rawl's Towards a Theory of Justice, which if you have read you know what I am talking about.
Dale Husband's thouhts are typical "liberal" arguements. One of the problems with this arguement is, who decides where the rich poor divides are? Would that be Dale, would that be me? Dale seems to think that maybe having a million $$ is okay, but, probably not 2 million, or certainly not a billion. People will always be looking for greener pastures, and have always been envious of others. This will not change.
The coming storm regarding this wealth sharing arguement is going to be about, "collectivism and individualism".
Individualism, to some, may seem to allow greed or selfishness, which is a "bad thing". But freedom is not to be ignored, as this is certainly a good thing.
Collectivism does not allow freedom, it requires force. Force is oppression, which leads to "bad things".
I agree, I really haven't attacked his argument with full force. First of all I haven't put out the argument that wealthy people actually use less government programs. I could also point out the glairing contradiction in his primary argument. Rich have more access to political clout so they will get the breaks most beneficial to them. This screams for less regulation and not more.
I just find out how funny it is liberals always argue for rights except when it comes to property rights. I doubt that they would disagree that more freedom is better than less freedom. This should not only extend to speech and privacy but also property. It is a glaring problem with the whole ideology.
I just really like to promote thought amongst people. I may never convince anyone, but as long as they think about the reasons for their arguments I am generally happy. Logic and ethics are my two favorite subjects.
I believe that we are owners of ourselves and the fruits of our labors. It doesn't matter if I have one dollar or a billion dollars it is mine to do what I wish with it. If I want I can donate it to charity, sew it up in a matress, leave it to ungrateful children, or even pile it up and set it on fire. My having the billion dollars is doing no one harm.
Why is it that selfishness is condemned in most religions, but openly advocated among many Conservatives and Libertarians?
Again, I call for moderation. Individual rights are precious and should always be defended, but corporations, the tools that most ultra-wealthy people use to enrich themselves, are NOT individuals. They are more like governments which are well known as sources of tyranny. Why it is so hard to think that corporations are also sources of tyranny, as much as governments? We are individuals, but we are also a social species. It is finding a balance between the two that produces both a productive society and a just one.
If you have a town with three or four general stores owned by individuals, and all of them are driven out of business by a Wal-Mart that then proceeds to charge both low prices and pay low wages to its employees, including the former owners of those general stores, what should we call that? If this is done by nations, it is considered aggression, tyranny, conquest and imperialism. Yes, that was considered normal in past centuries, but I think it has become obsolete today, among nations. Perhaps the next step in the evolution of our ethical standards is to stop such things among businesses as well.
One of the problems with this arguement is, who decides where the rich poor divides are? Would that be Dale, would that be me? Dale seems to think that maybe having a million $$ is okay, but, probably not 2 million, or certainly not a billion.
It would be decided by the government. If the government is elected by the people, then it is ultimately the people themselves that decide, not individuals.
We must be careful to avoid thinking in terms of absolutes. I think that lassez-faire capitalism is just as destructive as Communism. The fact that Karl Marx thought otherwise and seriously promoted Communism as an alternative to extreme capitalism only made him idiotic.
The tax system certainly isn't fair, we all know that. Wouldn't it be better to remove all subsidies, most of which enrichen the already rich? this would lower the cost of government and we could either pay off debt or lower taxes, i would prefer paying off debt.
Dale,
You still haven't said why someone having billions cause harm to others. Although on the surface your Wal-Mart argument does have some value, It does little to prove your point. Wal-Mart provides people jobs that do pay pretty good for unskilled labor. These jobs have benefits and opportunities to succeed. Personally, I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I can afford to shop at other stores, but there are many people who shop there because it does have lower prices. My mother has worked for Wal-Mart for 7 years and they have treated her better than any job she has ever had. I certainly wished she would have had the job when I was growing up.
Yes, in the early days of the industrial revolution workers were exploited, wich caused the reaction of Marx and Engles. The world we live in today is much different than then. I worked for one of the largest corporations in the world. That company spent a lot of time and money to research ergonomics to not only save their workers but also save themselves money. Everyday we had to do exercises to help prevent carpal tunnell. None of these were mandated by any government agency.
I understand you argument for moderation, but imagine if some of the billionaires of the past had settled? Henry Ford said, "you know I don't really need to make any more cars." Or Bill Gates had said, "you know I have made enough money from windows, we don't need to research more." Our world would be much different that it is today.
Gene I agree there needs to be no subsidies, and taxes need to be "fair". How about taxes based on usage?
Dale, You still haven't said why someone having billions cause harm to others.
Physical harm it doesn't cause, but what about the economic harm? You have all these poor and middle class people who want to be millionaires, all these millionaires who want to be multi-millionaires, and all these multi-millionaires who want to be BILLIONAIRES. The result? Being a millionaire no longer amounts to much, and the increase in money supply causes inflation. Inflation hurts the poor the worst and for them to survive, the minimum wage must be raised. The raising of the minimum wage reduces companies' profit margins, causing productivity to decline.
I understand you argument for moderation, but imagine if some of the billionaires of the past had settled? Henry Ford said, "you know I don't really need to make any more cars." Or Bill Gates had said, "you know I have made enough money from windows, we don't need to research more." Our world would be much different that it is today.
Well put. BTW, I do a lot of writing that I enjoy even though I haven't been paid a dime for it. You think maybe I should not have bothered?
I currently use Windows XP on my computer. Was there any real need for Microsoft to introduce Window Vista? What was wrong with Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME to make the newer versions necessary so soon? If it ain't broke, why fix it?
As for cars, Ford may have invented and designed the cars, but the workers are the ones who made it possible to mass produce them. Ford could never have done them by himself.
If you cut the excessive pay of the CEOs and other corporate executives, then the company has more money to hire more workers, increasing productivity. More workers, more money to be made from the resulting labor increase. More money to be made, more PROFIT for the company as a whole. Plus putting more people to work and thus allowing them to spend the money they made from their work benefits other companies, and thus the economy as a whole. It's a perfect win-win situation for everyone.
Ultimately, I would hope that most wealthy people would recognize what I just said as the truth and seek the long-term best interests of the economy as a whole, rather than the short-term benefits of themselves only. That would be better than the government taxing them, actually.
What is wrong with everyone having more? I have my own theories about what has caused inflation, but thats another story all together. I've got XP right now myself. I am waiting for the bugs to be worked out of vista before I switch. I chose Henry Ford and Bill Gates not only because they were billionaires, but because they were innovators. Henry Ford believed in paying workers enough to afford the products they were making. Admittedly I am glossing over some of the personal ideals of Henry Ford. Bill Gates has used the money he made to become the largest single philantropist ever. There is a long story about a factory going down a guy shows up and flips a switch and charges them $1,000. Two dollars for flipping a switch and $998 for knowing which switch to flip. Ford and Gates knew what "switch to flip".
The super wealthy don't just sit on their money they spend it, invest it and donate it. Imagine how many people work just to maintain Bill Gate's home? Think about how much the bartenders make from one of Paris Hilton's parties (sorry to bring her up again...she is the best example of rich gone wild)? I understand your basic principle: people shouldn't hoard money.
I would rather not take it from them by force. I would rather live in a world were someone can keep what they earn. Inequality is a part of life, that is why I use the term of "natural and social lotteries", some "win" and some "lose". Democracy without equal protection for all is a disaster for all i.e... Zimbabwe.
Personally, I think that you should keep writing. I think that writing and discussion are a necessity of a free society. If all you hear are people who agree with you then you may forget the reasons you believe what you believe.
If everyone has more, that actually means the value of what everyone has is lessened.
I have explained the problem as best I can. If you, JustPlainJason, have no problem with people being billionaires, so be it. I do, and see anyone who is a billionaire as someone who hasn't done enough to give back to society. Including Bill Gates. Yes, inequality is a part of life, but we can still do what we can to lessen it, even if we can't eliminate it completely. I wouldn't expect that at all.
No problem on the comments. I would be willing to bet we have more in common than you think. I have had very few opportunities to discuss issues of late. Most of the time on the internet they boil down to, 'if you don't agree with me you are an idiot, fascist, racist, etc...' Unfortunately, public discussion is becoming more like the internet. Some groups will not give anyone who tries to debate them a chance to speak. I have my theories as to ways our society could be better. One of these days Ill post an abrieviated version.
Posted By: Filius Publius
Date: 2008-11-17 11:10:48
There is a major flaw with the system of plunder you describe though Dale. It is predicated on the assupmtion that the most successful and wealthiest people are masochists and will continue to stay that way. It also limits people. People that want to be successful but don't want their hard earned assets taken will strive to just under the plunder level.
Which itself has two problems. The first problem is what happens when the assets of the plunder pool run out or the people that belong to the plunder pool stop allowing society to leach off of them (by either stopping to produce or destroying their wealth)? The second problem is that the plunder level is variable - set by "Society". So, those that were ambitious, but not willing to be part of the plunder pool may find that previous efforts of success without being "too succuessful" suddenly find themselves tossed into the plunder pool at the whim of "Socicety". This is a perpetual cycle of wealth destruction
This is the fallacy of the policy you describe. What you advocate doesn't make everyone equally wealthy, or well enough. It eventually makes everyone equally poor. Everyone but those that are able to dictate what the will of "Society" is that is.
It is odd that you state that governments and corporations (which are collections of people) can be corrupt and tyrranical and greedy; yet completely miss the same tendancies for "Society".
Plunder is plunder; whatever justifications behind it and whomever performs it. A government that cannot or does not protect the liberties and property of one segment of its population protects no ones.
Good points. Of course, if wealthy people engage in more philanthopic projects on their own, thus reducing their own wealth to benefit society, then the government doesn't have to do it so much and thus we could have smaller government. Perhaps those who make contributions to charities can write off most of their taxes that way. If the wealthy DON'T do the philanthopy themselves, then the government will have to do it, which requires higher taxes. The former scenario is far better than the latter. My essay above was based on the assumption that most rich people would be too selfish to contribute to the society that made them wealthy in the first place. If we work harder to educate people about what excessive hoarding of wealth does, then excessive taxation of the wealthy, and big government, need not be issues and the economic and social problems will solve themselves. Let it be so.
A major problem with your argument is that wealthy people do contribute to society through philantrophy. I would argue to a larger percentage than less weathy people. They don't name wings of a hospitals and universities aftet rich people for nothing.
Posted By: Filius Publius
Date: 2008-11-20 19:12:44
Dale
Yet again, you are back to force ... *sigh*.
thus reducing their own wealth to benefit society ... If the wealthy DON'T do the philanthopy themselves, then the government will have to do it ...
Let me make this clear. A person's property (wealth or lack of) is their own to dispose of how they see fit. They can use it for themselves, pass it to heirs (which then can dispose of it according to their own whims), destroy it, be generous and philanthropic, or stuff it in their ears. "Society" should have no expectation of being enriched off of it however.
By advocating compelled philanthropy, you are advocating theft. Only, you aren't holding a gun and doing the theft yourself. You are asking a collective and nebulous "They" or "Society" to do it. It is a deluded rightiousness. It is still force. It is still wrong.
You mentioned religion in your article. Well the 10 Commandments place heavy emphasis against coveting. There are two commandments against coveting. Just as an individual should not covet another's property or relationships, neither should a collective "Society".
Now, we can discuss all we want about the self interest of generosity and philanthropy. But you cannot compel someone to be generous and claim any sort of moral high ground.
No matter how much we like the story, Robin Hood was a thief.
Be wary of a government that can give you everything you want (esp when it is at the expense of another); it can take everything you have.
JustPlainJason: I was already aware of that. But there are still billionaires in the world and still starving people too. The divisions between poor nations and rich nations are obscene and can only get worse if efforts are not done to create a level playing field for all nations to succeed economically, instead of the rich nations having all the advantages and thus continuing to manipulate the markets for their benefit. And the same is true of individuals.
Filius Publius:
If you take that assumption to extremes, then we would also have to live in anarchy, with no taxation and indeed NO government at all. And in anarchy, human rights, including the right to property, become meaningless. You MUST have a government to enforce human rights. You MUST have taxation to maintain that government. And it is property, income, and sales that the taxation comes from. Is THAT stealing? Not in a legal sense at all! The Founding Fathers condemned "taxation without representation" not taxation itself, so as long as you have representatives in Congress or in your state and local governments to represent you and make your concerns know to them, where is the theft? YOU define taxation as theft. The law does NOT, and indeed cannot, for that would be cutting off the branch the law itself sits on. Now if the overwhelming majority of the people were billionaires and the high taxation of them reduced their wealth to the point of starvation, you'd have a valid point, but in fact they are a tiny (but powerful) minority and the taxation would only remove their excess fat, so you don't.
The wealth and property you mention came FROM society or from nature. How can you then claim that society has no right to take some of the wealth and property back to prevent itself from being harmed by excessive hoarding and misuse of that wealth and property?
As the saying from one of the Star Trek movies goes, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
Posted By: Filus Publius
Date: 2008-11-21 23:11:39
Huh? Talk about a non sequitor and straw man.
The topic at hand was your assertion that it is perfectly fine for "Society" to confiscate the property of individuals when said individuals attain wealth beyond what "Society" deems appropriate. That standard also just happens to be fluid and subject to the caprisious whims of "Society".
I counter that that policy is destructive. That the only conclusion of your deluded policy is the recursive destruction of wealth until everyone in "Society" is equally poor with no one left to consume. It is a worse form of greed than that displayed by the few successful and wealthy people because it hides behind the delusion of altruism. It is just a societal manifestation of jelousy and greed.
A society can not claim to be moral and just when it advocates predation on a small segment because "Society" claims that such predation is for the betterment of "all".
At no time did I discus states of government or taxation in general. I did not state that taxation was theft. I stated that excessive taxation of a few simply because they happen to have more than the rest is theft and is wrong.
Now, to clear a few misconceptions. Anarchy is not at face value good or bad. It is simply a state without goverment. It is posible for such a society to be moral and just. In fact the ultimate Utopian society would be benevolent anarchy, since government would have no need to exist. Likewise, democracy is not inherantly good. The ugly dark side of democracy is what is falsely attributed to anarchy and more commonly known as mob rule. Hence the phrase tyranny of the masses, and why Benjamin Franklin described democracy as two wolves and a lamb discussing what to eat.
It is this exact inability of democracy to protect the liberties and property of those in minority positions that democray was rejected in favor of a republic. The Colonials were not against "taxation without represtation". They were against tyranny. It simply manifested as taxation without representation when the Colonials attempted many times to petition the King for redress of wrongs as they were treated unfairly as group different from other Crown subjects. They revolted when it was apparent that their petitions were futile.
Just remember, when the income tax was first passed. It was only levied against the most "obscenely" wealthy in a perentage that would barley even be noticed. It was promised that the tax would never affect normal citizens. Now, only the most impoverished are untouched by the income tax.
The postion you advocate is not a rant against billionares. It is ultimately a rant against your own prosperity.
It is odd that you misuse a quote from Spock. He declared that in an act of honorable self sacrifice. Had the crew of the Enterprise elected to toss Spock into the reactor to save the rest of them, "Society" would have been better off with the ship going down with all hands.
Filus Publius: How can you accuse ME of making a non sequintur and a straw man when you have clearly done the same???
The topic at hand was your assertion that it is perfectly fine for "Society" to confiscate the property of individuals when said individuals attain wealth beyond what "Society" deems appropriate. That standard also just happens to be fluid and subject to the caprisious whims of "Society".
What?! My original essay above said NOTHING about government taking personal property, only taxing wealthy people by a higher rate than those who are not wealthy, to LIMIT their ability to accumulate excessive wealth and property at the cost of the rest of society. Sheesh!
That the only conclusion of your deluded policy is the recursive destruction of wealth until everyone in "Society" is equally poor with no one left to consume. It is a worse form of greed than that displayed by the few successful and wealthy people because it hides behind the delusion of altruism. It is just a societal manifestation of jelousy and greed.
That would only be true if attempts were made to destroy all wealth. That is not practical. Did you not see my calls for moderation above? I even suggested that wealthy people who do philanthopy on their own can claim a tax write off and thus the government would be no threat to the wealth they choose to keep. The more philanthopy the rich do, the less for the government to do.
Anarchy is not at face value good or bad. It is simply a state without goverment. It is posible for such a society to be moral and just. In fact the ultimate Utopian society would be benevolent anarchy, since government would have no need to exist. Likewise, democracy is not inherantly good. The ugly dark side of democracy is what is falsely attributed to anarchy and more commonly known as mob rule. Hence the phrase tyranny of the masses, and why Benjamin Franklin described democracy as two wolves and a lamb discussing what to eat.
Have you looked at Somalia lately? It's had anarchy since the early 1990s. It is also a chaotic place where tyrants, including Muslim extremists, are attempting to impose their will in some places. I contend that human nature will never allow for "benevolent anarchy". Also, a republic can be either democratic, like the United States, or dictatorial, like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Absolute democracy is indeed dangerous. I would never claim otherwise. You argue against something I didn't say.
It is odd that you misuse a quote from Spock. He declared that in an act of honorable self sacrifice. Had the crew of the Enterprise elected to toss Spock into the reactor to save the rest of them, "Society" would have been better off with the ship going down with all hands.
There is a massive difference between killing off wealthy people and merely taxing them highly. Note that I didn't suggest that any of them commit suicide either.
Life is all really just a numbers game. From the beginning of one's conception until the day one dies, numbers and chance do have something to do with it. Yes, there are things that we can do over all to better ourselves and increase our chances for making things better and in many cases they work and in other cases they don't. However, the key is to always keep trying, working, doing and making ourselves busy, better and available out there. Taking risks can also certainly help or hinder, but the true odds of really making it big when compared to the total number of all those who are trying to do it in so many different ways comes to be so very small despite the media hype of making it look so easy and common. When 500 of the richest people in the world have the equivalent of what 3 billion of the poorest have, then there's is something very wrong in the way things are. If any other system had failed so many for the benefit of so few, then it would have been scrapped long ago as useless. The only reason why it exists is because it gives leverage to a few over many for the benefit of a few at the expense of many. Many good things in life are made at someone's or something's expense everyday. The meat I eat is at the expense of an animal's life, the land that I live on is at the expense of natives that used to live here, the extra million dollars that I have means 1000 people not having $1000 each that they could badly use, etc. Thus, I try not to take things that I appreciate for granted since maintaining my life can cost others in different ways.
An amazing fact: 80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires; they have made their money on their own, in their lifetime, which makes your entire article void. I wish I still had my Macroeconomics book which said the same thing but this is from a study by some phD guy here:
Very funny, Eric. The article you linked to doesn't invalidate mine at all and it is incredibly arrogant of you to say that. While it may indeed be possible for many millionaires to have come from poorer backgrounds (and still live like they're poor) , that may not be true of most billionaires, which make up the truly ultra rich. Thanks to inflation and economic downturns like the one we are in now, being a millionaire no longer amounts to that much. Therefore, that article of yours is misleading! It actually supports two commonly held assumptions about the rich: That they tend to live like misers and are more obsessed with making more money than the average person. I find that sickening.
And that article of yours insults my intelligence with this claim:
"The wealthy run highly efficient operations both in business and at home. Most live in average neighborhoods, and drive average cars. They’re not interested in keeping up with the Jones’ – because the Jones’ aren’t financially free. It takes lots of energy to consume big mortgages, change homes every few years, buy the most recent model cars, and wear the latest fashions. The wealthy drive typically American made cars! Japanese cars come in 2nd place; half of these are Toyota Camrys. Yes, significant value per dollar is the key here. The Millionaire’s Motto: You aren’t what you drive. The status cars – Lexus, BMW’s, Mercedes? At 6.4% or less per each brand."
Are you really that ignorant as to assume that's true? I don't. If you are a millionaire yourself, and live like that, let me know.
Well put. BTW, I do a lot of writing that I enjoy even though I haven't been paid a dime for it. You think maybe I should not have bothered?
What you choose to do with your time is not abother of mine at all. It is that you choose to take from others time. You misunderstand the arguement.
I currently use Windows XP on my computer. Was there any real need for Microsoft to introduce Window Vista? What was wrong with Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME to make the newer versions necessary so soon? If it ain't broke, why fix it?
I contend that you are in fact correct here, but if others felt a need for it and wanted to buy it should there not be a market for it...Should someone not have the choice to place these things there for the great democracy that can vote his money away to also send it back to him by their choice.
As for cars, Ford may have invented and designed the cars, but the workers are the ones who made it possible to mass produce them. Ford could never have done them by himself.
ANd the workers could never have done it without Ford. Your a fool if you think otherwise. They live..die and continue by his thought. Without him Someone else would be rich you may contend. Well then the workers would work for him. Without pay why work...without work why think? Without anyone to have great ideas man would fail. This may seem to return you to your idea of your righting. But you only right by the will of whoever feeds you by whatever pay you get. Where did that computer come from.
