There Should Be A Three Million Dollar Cap On The Amount Of Money People Can Have At One Time

[karim]

Ill get to the rest in a minute but first tell me how is redistribution occuring in reverse?

I guess you do need to read Piketty:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is a redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. The Stagnation and decreasing of wagen, the loss of financial security and pension rights, tax cuts for the rich etc are all forms of dispossession and redistribution. Somebody calculated that the amount of bonuses paid out to wallstreet bankers in the wake of the crisis in 2007/08 more or less equaled the amount of money lost in the crisis. So all those people who lost their homes and savings were disposessed. If you look at who lost money during that time it's the lower and middle classes, while the fortunes of the rich actually increased. The money that was lost didn't just disappear, it was redistributed. The reason why this happens is that we are not actually producing enough growth through production to accumulate capital, so it has to be accumulate through other means. And that means is redistribution and dispossession.

In a nutshell:
Accumulation by Dispossession, with David Harvey:

And if you got more time on your hands:
David Harvey : A Brief History of Neoliberalism: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA27CFAD836E1638A

 

[Llcoolbay]

Sooooo what happens if you cant make 3million? Like Majority of the US?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I guess you do need to read Piketty:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is a redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. The Stagnation and decreasing of wagen, the loss of financial security and pension rights, tax cuts for the rich etc are all forms of dispossession and redistribution. Somebody calculated that the amount of bonuses paid out to wallstreet bankers in the wake of the crisis in 2007/08 more or less equaled the amount of money lost in the crisis. So all those people who lost their homes and savings were disposessed. If you look at who lost money during that time it's the lower and middle classes, while the fortunes of the rich actually increased. The money that was lost didn't just disappear, it was redistributed. The reason why this happens is that we are not actually producing enough growth through production to accumulate capital, so it has to be accumulate through other means. And that means is redistribution and dispossession.

In a nutshell:
Accumulation by Dispossession, with David Harvey:

And if you got more time on your hands:
David Harvey : A Brief History of Neoliberalism: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA27CFAD836E1638A

We discussed Piketty a good bit in HL already. And in any case, I have heard every argument for redistribution under the sun. They all come back to the same conclusion- tax the shyt out of the rich and everything else will work out. When in reality, while stuff like asset bloat via the Fed etc is very real and does steal from the poor to give to the rich, there are a lot of inefficiencies in the system that rob the poor/middle class that don't necessarily equate to theft. Rich people are better at managing their money (which admittedly is easier to do when you have more of it), rich people tend to make better life decisions (i.e. holding off to have kids), yadda yadda. Id be more for "redistribution" in the form of free public healthcare, free higher education, free career training, free financial training etc. Guarantee that the money will go to good use to empower and relieve the burdens of the poor and middle class rather than just transfer wealth that will more than likely end up back in the hands of the rich with no benefit to the middle class.

 

[karim]

We discussed Piketty a good bit in HL already. And in any case, I have heard every argument for redistribution under the sun. They all come back to the same conclusion- tax the shyt out of the rich and everything else will work out. When in reality, while stuff like asset bloat via the Fed etc is very real and does steal from the poor to give to the rich, there are a lot of inefficiencies in the system that rob the poor/middle class that don't necessarily equate to theft. Rich people are better at managing their money (which admittedly is easier to do when you have more of it), rich people tend to make better life decisions (i.e. holding off to have kids), yadda yadda. Id be more for "redistribution" in the form of free public healthcare, free higher education, free career training, free financial training etc. Guarantee that the money will go to good use to empower and relieve the burdens of the poor and middle class rather than just transfer wealth that will more than likely end up back in the hands of the rich with no benefit to the middle class.

All the measures you suggested are a form of redistribution. They need to be payed for. How do you pay for it? With taxes. Now the question is who do you tax? If you tax the rich and use the money to pay for free education, free healthcare etc. you are redistributing wealth.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

All the measures you suggested are a form of redistribution. They need to be payed for. How do you pay for it? With taxes. Now the question is who do you tax? If you tax the rich and use the money to pay for free education, free healthcare etc. you are redistributing wealth.

You have a very deterministic way of thinking.

How do you pay for it? There's a lot of ways besides taxes. US govt spends over half a trillion dollars on defense. As a country we spend about $120B on college tuition. We could easily scale back military operations and make college free at no additional cost to any tax payer. We have a lot of means tested welfare programs, but we don't train or employ these people to help them become self-sustenant enough to get OFF those programs. I think we should have more public works programs to 1. fix our crumbling infrastructure and 2. help break the cycles of poverty by making more people employable & equipped with skills relevant to the current job market. Again, taking money we are already spending and using it more effectively. I think Medicare should be expanded to be available to everybody, but people should be able to opt out and get some kind of tax credit (but still have to pay something in one way or another). You are so focused on digging through the next man's pockets you are not even considering what happens with the money after its taken, or what exactly the point of all this is.

 

[karim]

You have a very deterministic way of thinking.

How do you pay for it? There's a lot of ways besides taxes. US govt spends over half a trillion dollars on defense. As a country we spend about $120B on college tuition. We could easily scale back military operations and make college free at no additional cost to any tax payer. We have a lot of means tested welfare programs, but we don't train or employ these people to help them become self-sustenant enough to get OFF those programs. I think we should have more public works programs to 1. fix our crumbling infrastructure and 2. help break the cycles of poverty by making more people employable & equipped with skills relevant to the current job market. Again, taking money we are already spending and using it more effectively. I think Medicare should be expanded to be available to everybody, but people should be able to opt out and get some kind of tax credit (but still have to pay something in one way or another). You are so focused on digging through the next man's pockets you are not even considering what happens with the money after its taken, or what exactly the point of all this is.

The Military is also paid for by taxes. And one thing that is even less likely to happen than higher taxes for the rich to fund education and healthcare is that that money will be taken from the military. All the things you suggested cost money. You can't pay for them without taxes. Who are you going to take them from if you want to lower the burdens of the middle and lower classes?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

The Military is also paid for by taxes. And one thing that is even less likely to happen than higher taxes for the rich to fund education and healthcare is that that money will be taken from the military. All the things you suggested cost money. You can't pay for them without taxes. Who are you going to take them from if you want to lower the burdens of the middle and lower classes?

Again with the determinism. And the tired redistribution logical fallacies. How is curbing military spending any less realistic than huge tax hikes on the rich?

I know that taxes are what fund the govt My point was that we can accomplish a lot without tax hikes. But you have already made up your mind that the only way forward is by tax hikes on the rich.... there are no other "likely" solutions, or other solutions, as like other redistributionists, you don't see helping the poor/middle class as a goal, but as a philosophical and secondary means to an end.

 

[joeychizzle]

That sounds like communism. 'Any more and it goes to the state'

 

[jilla82]

lol @ the fact that people are arguing there should be a cap on how much people should make.

90% of you dont even know how the world/money works...so you shouldnt even have an opinion.
Even funnier is people in the richest country in human history complaining...you think people in the rest of the world feel bad for you?
We have opportunity people would die for...yet yall would rather waste time on dumb shyt.
How about you step you knowledge game up so you can make money.

101 Stuff

 

[karim]

Again with the determinism. And the tired redistribution logical fallacies. How is curbing military spending any less realistic than huge tax hikes on the rich?

I know that taxes are what fund the govt My point was that we can accomplish a lot without tax hikes. But you have already made up your mind that the only way forward is by tax hikes on the rich.... there are no other "likely" solutions, or other solutions, as like other redistributionists, you don't see helping the poor/middle class as a goal, but as a philosophical and secondary means to an end.

Because the US Status as a super Power relies on it's military. Plus, we live in a time of decreasing resources, that means there will increasing competition for the remaining raw materials. It is therefore vital for the US to be able to ensure that it's economy has the cheapest possible Access to these resources. It needs to be able to prevent crisis in those Regions where vital raw materials come from, it needs to be able to coerce other governments into granting access to cheap raw materials and it wants to protect it's status as a Hegemon, that establishes (or dictates, depending on who you ask) the terms of trade. All of these aims relay on hard power. And that is on top of all the other security issues that come with being a superpower. We are currently witnessing an increase in global tension and the possible formation of competing or even hostile economic blocs. In addition, the middle east is going up in flames. This means that there is an increased likelyhood of military conflicts involving the US. So no, I don't think that it is very likely that military spending will be significantly reduced in the foreseeable future.

As far as taxing the rich goes, societies need an equilibrium to function. Right now, there is a growing imbalance. This imbalance consists of the concentration of capital at an ever smaller top. Unless you want to live in a 19 th century class society dominated by an exploitative de facto aristocratic elite, you need to redistribute wealth. The less painful way to do this is taxes, because it means the system is regulating itself. If it can't do this anymore, sooner or later you will see Instability and violence. The have nots will start to demand their share from those who have, the elite will resort to oppression to maintain the status quo, while the oppressed will try to revolutionize the system. Anyways, unless you own a couple of millions, I don't understand what your problem with taxing the rich is, except that you think that its not proper to care about other peoples pockets. That might or might not be true, if it comes to individuals, but if you are a government you better be concerned with it. How else would you be able to maintain a balance in society?

 

[karim]

That sounds like communism. 'Any more and it goes to the state'

Actually, it sounds like keynesian social democracy. In communism, you wouldn't be allowed to own enough capital to make you rich, because the means of production would belong to the state and financial spekulation would be forbidden.

 

[joeychizzle]

Actually, it sounds like keynesian social democracy. In communism, you wouldn't be allowed to own enough capital to make you rich, because the means of production would belong to the state and financial spekulation would be forbidden.

Fair point. But the forced equality thing doesn't really work to be honest. I don't think I've ever seen it implemented successfully. Long as there is demand there will be a dude to supply said demand, reaping profits. You simply can't police EVERY transaction.

 

[GrindtooFilthy]

OP is fukking fruit, do you understand how economics works?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Because the US Status as a super Power relies on it's military. Plus, we live in a time of decreasing resources, that means there will increasing competition for the remaining raw materials. It is therefore vital for the US to be able to ensure that it's economy has the cheapest possible Access to these resources. It needs to be able to prevent crisis in those Regions where vital raw materials come from, it needs to be able to coerce other governments into granting access to cheap raw materials and it wants to protect it's status as a Hegemon, that establishes (or dictates, depending on who you ask) the terms of trade. All of these aims relay on hard power. And that is on top of all the other security issues that come with being a superpower. We are currently witnessing an increase in global tension and the possible formation of competing or even hostile economic blocs. In addition, the middle east is going up in flames. This means that there is an increased likelyhood of military conflicts involving the US. So no, I don't think that it is very likely that military spending will be significantly reduced in the foreseeable future.

The ME is burning largely due to our meddling but Im not going to get into that. Even considering all these things there is room to improve. We are the most heavily invested in maintaining world order but many less committed folks are reaping the benefits. And again there is a lot of excess and waste that does not help us fulfill our military goals.

As far as taxing the rich goes, societies need an equilibrium to function. Right now, there is a growing imbalance. This imbalance consists of the concentration of capital at an ever smaller top. Unless you want to live in a 19 th century class society dominated by an exploitative de facto aristocratic elite, you need to redistribute wealth. The less painful way to do this is taxes, because it means the system is regulating itself. If it can't do this anymore, sooner or later you will see Instability and violence. The have nots will start to demand their share from those who have, the elite will resort to oppression to maintain the status quo, while the oppressed will try to revolutionize the system. Anyways, unless you own a couple of millions, I don't understand what your problem with taxing the rich is, except that you think that its not proper to care about other peoples pockets. That might or might not be true, if it comes to individuals, but if you are a government you better be concerned with it. How else would you be able to maintain a balance in society?

And what do the have nots not have? Would they be any less angry or down and out if the money that came from higher taxes on the rich went to shyt like the military? Why do you continue to ignore issues like the skills gap and the lack of employability?

You are dyed in the wool redistributionist and that's fine. But arbitrary redistribution with no examination of any mechanism driving the income/wealth gap besides "rich people accumulating" is dishonest. We are just going to talk in circles and Ive heard and debunked all your arguments many times before. Good luck waiting for the govt

 

[Kuwka_Atcha_Ratcha]

There is no reason for any person on earth to have more than that. Once you cap, you gave to quit your job. The world would be better place.

dumbest thing ive ever read

some houses alone are way more than 3million,
some cars exceed a million

so unless everything else is gonna get cheaper I don't know why this would even be a good idea .

and why 3 million whats wrong with having more than that, the weird thing is its not uncommon for someone to have that amount