Do rich ppl deserve their money?

[tango]

It never hurts to try!

I think the idea of putting money into the hands of the poor so they can consume more is just what we need right now to get the economy moving again!

[Muddy]

It never hurts to try!

I think the idea of putting money into the hands of the poor so they can consume more is just what we need right now to get the economy moving again!

But the question begs, what will these so called poor consume? When this unearned wealth is depleted is the poor person any better off? Do we once again go back to the wealthy person for more money for that poor person to consume? How long before the rich person is laying off staff to keep the poor person in a life style he has been come accustomed too?

Sharing the wealth by force only creates more poor people. Look at the late Soviet Union and those countries in the old Warsaw pact.

I am not a wealthy man and I never recieved a formal education ,but I studied those I worked for and decided that I wanted to be free of others determining my future. I have done quite well and if I compare to my station I was born into. I am now rich. I am not of course but that would be how my folks would have looked upon me.

[benny]

But the question begs, what will these so called poor consume? When this unearned wealth is depleted is the poor person any better off?

"When natural wealth is depleted" is the turn of phrase that would have been meaningful to say here.

[cybercoma]

Bottom 40% @ [25,000]or [5,000]or [0]or [-5000]

A little from the top does a LOT at the bottom, and the top 10% are just way out there, and getting further ahead all the time!

You're omitting the statistic that the poorest people are getting richer, even though the income gap is growing. I don't necessarily agree, but some would argue that the income gap does not matter, so long as wealth in general keeps growing and the poor continue to make more.

Edited March 26, 2009 by cybercoma

[blueblood]

Because you can take 5 households out of poverty and turn them into consumers.

How about those 5 households can take themselves out of poverty, there is nothing stopping them.

Some of us just have a different way of measuring success - ie, collective success - how well we take care of everyone in our society, especially the vulnerable.

Rather than big-dog-eat-little-dog.

And Canada collectively is one of the richest countries in the world with a very low unemployment rate. Ireland is one of the most right wing countries in the world and prior to the recession had a lower unemployment rate than we had.

Brad Wall is in Ontario looking for people to come and work in Saskatchewan, there's jobs if you want them bad enough.

Look at the data:

43%[/b of those living in poverty in Canada [b]are children under 18 years of age with singlemoms.

So, mommy should have kept her legs closed.

Some people are just not 'money producers' ( some would call them "useless eaters") but the elderly, the young and the disabled still deserve to live in dignity.

Some MEN are so enraged because they think some other MEN are getting a 'free ride' ... that they can't see the truth about who is being hurt by those attitudes:

Largely children, single Moms and Seniors, mentally and physically disabled ... kept well below poverty levels ... ?

Nobody in our country is keeping these people down, they are keeping themselves down. In our country in this day and age, there is no excuse to be dirt poor, none.

For what purpose? ... To PUNISH them for being "useless eaters"?

And punishing me for succeeding is a much better purpose

And by the way ... all the men living in poverty? ... I'm sending them to you for a job. You'll hire them right?

Mentally/physically disabled, addict, or not right?

Piss on that, I don't hire out, I have temporary "contracters" come in whenever. Your skids are too poor and useless to work for me. They can go to SK, where they are still looking for people.

Or they can start their own operations like many other people. Robert Herjavec came to Canada with 20 bucks and is now a multimillionaire. Don't try and justify pirating my profits to watch skids flush that money down a rat hole.

And the right wing fails at humanity.

My one mill of sales goes far more to help humanity, than taking my 200K and giving it to people essentially to burn through. In case you haven't noticed, that "experiment" of yours has a very high fail rate. Rich people will take their ball and go home leaving a country full of poor people without a sugar daddy.

[benny]

You're omitting the statistic that the poorest people are getting richer, even though the income gap is growing. I don't necessarily agree, but some would argue that the income gap does not matter, so long as wealth in general keeps growing and the poor continue to make more.

The statistics show that the poorest people are getting poorer.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/629185b2-3bf1-40...ribution-Canada

Edited March 26, 2009 by benny

[cybercoma]

The statistics show that the poorest people are getting poorer.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/629185b2-3bf1-40...ribution-Canada

That chart shows all income levels rising, except the absolute lowest, which remains the same. I don't see anyone getting poorer in that picture. Not that I necessarily agree with the view that a huge income gap is meaningless. Either way, the poor are not getting poorer and if you take it to the global level, the poor are much less poorer than they were in the past. However, the income gap is increasing. Your opinion depends on your perspective.

[segnosaur]

It never hurts to try!

I think the idea of putting money into the hands of the poor so they can consume more is just what we need right now to get the economy moving again!

A major problem with your 'theory'...

If the money that you put in the hands of the poor originally came from 'wealthy' people, that will result in several undexpected consequences...

- The rich people themselves will have less money to 'consume' with. So, the economy may have more poor people able to buy product X, but will have less rich people buying product Y.

- Even if the rich people weren't going to spend that money, that cash wouldn't be sitting idle. It would likely be invested somewhere. Thus, taxing them more means you have less money available to the banks for lending, less money available to capitalize businesses, etc.

In both cases, any overall economic 'benefit' of taxing the rich to help the poor is counteracted, in part or in full, by the negative consequences.

Now, according to Keynesian theory, the government could provide extra income to poor people by borrowing now, and then paying back later when the economy is stronger. That would provide an economic stimulous immediately without the negative consequences of taxing-the-rich; however, it would require the government to be responsible enough to actually pay back the debt in the future.

[cybercoma]

however, it would require the government to be responsible enough to actually pay back the debt in the future.

And that would require people to allow the government to cut services and funding in times of economic stability, which is not likely to happen. People want the government to spend when times are tough, but they're resistant to the cuts when times are good. At the end of the day, the politicians will do whatever gets them the most votes, so it is Canadians that need to show the fiscal responsibility with their political choices. Edited March 26, 2009 by cybercoma

[benny]

That chart shows all income levels rising, except the absolute lowest, which remains the same. I don't see anyone getting poorer in that picture. Not that I necessarily agree with the view that a huge income gap is meaningless. Either way, the poor are not getting poorer and if you take it to the global level, the poor are much less poorer than they were in the past. However, the income gap is increasing. Your opinion depends on your perspective.

Look page 3 (the table).

[cybercoma]

There are no references cited for those sources, and really it doesn't matter. The poor are not getting poorer. I don't think there's a single analyst that suggests that.

[benny]

There are no references cited for those sources, and really it doesn't matter. The poor are not getting poorer. I don't think there's a single analyst that suggests that.

..............Canada Median income

...............All families (2005 $)

.......................1984......1999......2005

Third 10%..........7770.....6820......6000

Second 10%.......780.......120.........10

Bottom 10%.....-2100.....-6570.....-9600

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/11206/4096770-eng.htm

Edited March 26, 2009 by benny

[WIP]

You think in zero-sum terms, and you sadly don't understand life.

Ergo. A zero-sum thinker.

It's not about fairness: It's about incentives.

Well, there have to be rungs on the ladder before you can talk about incentives. Right now the conservative/libertarian ideologues who preach the dogma of rewarding achievement, conveniently ignore the fact that they are trying to destroy all of the rungs on the ladder, from: free education to free health care to minimum wage laws to defunding public transit to affirmative action programs -- everything that could help someone from meager beginnings compete with someone like a George W Bush, born with a silver spoon in his mouth and guaranteed Ivy League admission as a legacy applicant -- gets kicked out by the economic libertarians who claim that any and every social institution is unfair to the people who already have most of the gold.

[benny]

Well, there have to be rungs on the ladder before you can talk about incentives. Right now the conservative/libertarian ideologues who preach the dogma of rewarding achievement, conveniently ignore the fact that they are trying to destroy all of the rungs on the ladder, from: free education to free health care to minimum wage laws to defunding public transit to affirmative action programs -- everything that could help someone from meager beginnings compete with someone like a George W Bush, born with a silver spoon in his mouth and guaranteed Ivy League admission as a legacy applicant -- gets kicked out by the economic libertarians who claim that any and every social institution is unfair to the people who already have most of the gold.

To be fair about libertarians, I think we have to say that they want the society to look like the one that would have existed if minimal government would have always been the only form of government.

[moderateamericain]

Unless your name is Robinson Crusoe, you have no real claim to being a self-made man! If, like Robinson, you are living on a deserted island, and have made your own place to live, procured your own food, and made all of your own tools and everything else you need, you have no real claim that you owe nothing.

Otherwise, you received a basic education from a school that everyone chips in to support, whether they still have children in school, or even whether they have had kids of their own. You drive on roads that are payed for out of the taxes of people who may not own cars to begin with, and if you take public transit, you are using a service that is primarily supported through taxes. Nobody thinks of the little things, but all of these self-made men who owe nothing to others, don't seem to notice their own dependence on services provided for the benefit of everyone.

I pay taxes, in fact im in the highest tax bracket. I don't quite see what your point is here? That I should be thankful that I have the services that I'm already chipping in for? Besides what does this have to do with redistribution of wealth which I'm arguing against. But while we are on it. How do you think creation of roads, and tools, and other things that make our lives better came about? Somebody thought "Hey I could make a pile of money by inventing this." So now you are telling me the product of the minds of others who created something that you could not should be taken from them?

Now, even though there are people who because of mental illness or drug abuse, are not able to pay their way, most of us would rather provide at least for the survival of people on the margins rather than live in Calcutta, and watch people starving to death on the streets! As for the rich -- I'll get into this further at another time, but attention needs to be focused on those who have created a system where those at the top of the pyramid are allowed to leverage other people's money on their own risky real estate investments (Donald Trump for example), and then declare bankruptcy when they've over reached and ran out of cash -- or the Wall Street crew that are finally getting attention for placing over-leveredged bets on stock and commodity markets, and then have their firms go bankrupt or seek government bailout money, all with no loss of their own personal wealth. Do these people deserve their money? ONe thing is for sure, if middle class people keep seeing their wealth decline as they watch the superrich get fatter, some form of action will be taken against them.

We have a thing called laws, If you do not like are laws, run for government office, get elected, and propose legislation to have them changed. Basically your saying is we should hold rich people to a different standard then we do the poor. Why? If a poor person is bad with money we coddle them and provide services to subsidize there living, But if a Rich person is bad with money we demand there heads. Seems like a double standard to me. Just because Donald trumps COMPANY lost money, does not mean its 100 percent because of him. There is a whole list of Directors and Management teams who are feeding him the information

Many third world nations that have this huge gap between rich and poor either go through revolutions, or the few at the top have to use the army on their own people to maintain order and keep themselves safe.......so much for democracy! Is that the direction greedy conservatives and libertarians want to go? Because, aside from all of the carping about income redistribution, part of the benefit is a peace dividend. If we end up turning into Mexico, it is not the super rich who will suffer. They are protected in their gated compounds with private armies. The less wealthy Latin Americans actually have to send their children to private schools in the U.S. and Canada, primarily because of the threat posed by gangs who kidnap their children and hold them for ransom. Sometimes greed and selfishness comes at a high personal cost.

Once again, it will not happen here because of laws, such as laws against Monopolies, or anti-trust laws.

[moderateamericain]

yes (no sacrifice, no merit).

So in order to earn my money its your contention I should lose something in return? How is that even logical? Who decides what I lose? What is the proportion to gain and loss? And more importantly, what are you going to do when I refuse to give something up?

[moderateamericain]

QUOTE (moderateamericain @ Mar 24 2009, 09:09 AM) *

I can sum up this whole OP. "We need people to help us justify taking something that does not belong to us." Any time things go bad and people get desperate they will look for any excuse to rationalize taking something that has never belonged to them.

A (western) moralist speaks. Theft is wrong!

IMV, fairness or (western) morality does not help much in understanding taxation.

August, Two points of contention with what your saying, I was not arguing against taxation, I'm arguing against wholesale redistribution of wealth, which is what the original topic was about. The only way to take money from people besides trade or taxes is by force. If your going to tell me. Rich people should give X amount of dollars to alleviate poverty and were going to make (Force) them to do it, then I will call anyone who proposes that a thief. If I work 40 hours a week, Earn 2000 dollars, pay 500 in taxes (for argument sake), then I have Earned 1500 dollars. No man should be able to then turn around and take that from me. That is the reward for my work or the creations of my mind.

Edited March 26, 2009 by moderateamericain

[benny]

So in order to earn my money its your contention I should lose something in return? How is that even logical? Who decides what I lose? What is the proportion to gain and loss? And more importantly, what are you going to do when I refuse to give something up?

Why are market mechanisms driving down all production factors prices? Because no one really believes that those participating in the economy are making much of a sacrifice.

[tango]

You're omitting the statistic that the poorest people are getting richer, even though the income gap is growing. I don't necessarily agree, but some would argue that the income gap does not matter, so long as wealth in general keeps growing and the poor continue to make more.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/629185b2-3bf1-40...ribution-Canada

Doesn't look like they are going up much if at all, except at the top, of course.

[tango]

So in order to earn my money its your contention I should lose something in return? How is that even logical? Who decides what I lose? What is the proportion to gain and loss? And more importantly, what are you going to do when I refuse to give something up?

You're only on my list if you're over 1m.

No seriously ... I think taxing ultra big consumption is the way to go.

[cybercoma]

Oh, I see what we're doing. The economy is globally integrated, but you want to look at national statistics. I got it.

Yeah, the poor are getting poorer here. Does it matter?

World statistics show that the truly poor around the globe are actually getting richer. Sure, the rich are getting much more richer, but the poor are getting richer too. Does it matter if the gap grows?

[tango]

So in order to earn my money its your contention I should lose something in return? How is that even logical? Who decides what I lose? What is the proportion to gain and loss? And more importantly, what are you going to do when I refuse to give something up?

give ya a wedgie!

and it depends on how much you consume.

[tango]

(Muddy @ Mar 26 2009, 05:28 AM) *

But the question begs, what will these so called poor consume? When this unearned wealth is depleted is the poor person any better off?

"When natural wealth is depleted" is the turn of phrase that would have been meaningful to say here.

hahaha ...

not so funny ... where does the 'growth imperative' end?

not till we let the corporations poison us all ... oh wait ... !

[tango]

Oh, I see what we're doing. The economy is globally integrated, but you want to look at national statistics. I got it.

Yeah, the poor are getting poorer here. Does it matter?

World statistics show that the truly poor around the globe are actually getting richer. Sure, the rich are getting much more richer, but the poor are getting richer too. Does it matter if the gap grows?

I don't have exactly comparable data, but the picture looks pretty much the same to me.

It's the extreme high end that is really out of whack.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/d7644f2a-0d98-44...ution_World_xlc

[jbg]

One thing, as John Kenneth Galbraith observed, wealthy people find ample reasons why they're uniquely qualified to be wealthy.