Posted on 06/02/2013 6:40:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This kind of stuff does have a low tolerance, because if there isn’t the whole site gets taken over by conspiracy theories and Jew-hate.
More puzzling is the tolerance for supporters of pro-homo pro-abortion Romney, even after he’s proven a failed candidate. Rove’s disciples are allowed free rein to insult and dispirit conservatives in preparation for the next GOPe liberal candidate.
An excellent reason to move from an income based tax to a consumption based tax.
The government is already redistributing the wealth: to the banksters.
Will the rest of us work as serfs in a system that they have iron-fisted control over? <<<<
I seemed to remember one particular bloody period in history when the elite owns pretty much everything and the rest as serfs.
Yeah, I am talking about the French Revolution, that worked out pretty well for the peasants to prosper in equality, no? ////
Other periods in human history also showed similar pattern to equally redistribute ‘wealth’, so why don't we have ‘it’ (anarchy) more often, then?
And most of that top 1% is probably liberals like Gates or a bunch of oil rich muzzies.
The fact that they can't make good decisions shouldn't be my problem.
Sounds like an Obama tax speech.
it's a false dichotomy... it is not a zero sum game, they print more money each and every single day, and it's up to YOU as to how much or how little of it you get and how you spend it the fact that somebody has 1000 times more money than i do has no bearing on how much i make or my life style.
A disparity between the wealthy and the poor has two causes.
One is the “Old Europe disease”, in which the wealthy and powerful go to great lengths to not just enrich themselves, but to keep everyone else poor. Carlos Slim in Mexico, for example, has likely never enriched anyone outside of his family and peers.
Bill Gates, however, not afflicted with this disease, has created several multi-billionaires, a bunch of billionaires, hundreds of multimillionaires, and thousands of millionaires. No skin off his nose.
The other cause of wealth disparity is government.
*Not* because government hasn’t redistributed the wealth of the wealthy, but because government hasn’t used taxation properly, to give a profit motivation for the wealthy to invest in research and development and new businesses; while having punitive taxes on investments that are more like gambling; and both these policies stabilizing the economy so much that the wealthy *want* to invest, rather than hoard.
Government should not care if the wealthy get wealthier, as long as the rest of society increases its wealth at the same time. Since government cannot increase the wealth of society directly, they need to encourage the wealthy to do so.
He's no dummy. He wants more wealth ;-)
The fact that their tax rate is 15% or less and mine is 33% has quite a bit to do with my lifestyle, not to mention the inequity.
Actually, a simple property tax would serve the purpose of running the government. As we continue to improve our productivity we need to seriously consider an EXPORT TAX so the foreigners get to pay our taxes.
And the bottom 50%, surprise, surprise, still don’t spend as much as you do.
There seems to be some dreamy goal of equalizing income as a good thing. I note that skiing on flat ground is not much fun. An economy without rich people goes nowhere.
Even the king was in favor of democratic reforms.
Not everyone agreed!
that is a whole different argument, taxation was never mentioned in the article... only about who owns what, not how much the tax rate is, which should be a flat tax across the board
And the results were horrible: between 1917 and 1989, I wouldn't be surprised that the death toll from labor camps, forced exile, deliberately-induced famine and outright mass executions in the countries you mentioned to get rid of the so-called Bourgeoisie class may approach 200 MILLION.
It has everything to do with it. The ultra elite pay no income tax because they don't have jobs. Rather they pay capital gains which until recently was 15%. I am not arguing in favor or increasing capital gains but rather going to a consumption type tax. A silly flat tax is based upon......income.
Articles like this make it sound like wealth is a finite thing or number, and of course, the super-rich have the lion’s share. The fact is most average people are a lot wealthier than they were 40-50 years ago. I grew up with seven siblings in a lower-middle class family. We would have been considered poor today. Now I have two or three siblings with total wealth over one million. And my wife and I are doing quite well, thank you. However, if the trend towards quasi-commies like Obama continues, total wealth will decline. Socialism will eventually kill all healthy economies.
Oh, Mr. Ford doesn’t mind if you row your little dinghy to your daily job scrubbing and polishing his yacht. Especially if he paid for his yacht by selling dinghies!
The more dinghies he sells - which are made not by him but by your neighbors, who row them every day to work in his dinghy factory - the bigger yacht he can buy for you to scrub and polish.
But as soon as everybody owns a yacht, who’s going to want to scrub and polish Mr. Ford’s? Or work in his dinghy factory?
Mass production is not a bad thing. But Ford, Morgan, et al used it to destroy the independent livelihood and get us all working in the dinghy factories so they could live off our labor - much the same way the banksters got us in debt so they can live off the interest we pay, and thereby give capitalism a bad name.
(Ever notice how “economic health” indicators are things like housing starts, durable goods purchases, etc? - things that consumers pay interest on.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.