Freeing Up the Rich to Exploit the Poor--What Trump and Brexit are about

[Albion]

The definition of poor versus wealthy is arbitray.

Which gets us back to the question I asked a number of posts ago--and then reiterated in a later one. It's all well and good in the world of political speculation to talk about soaking the rich so that there will be no more impoverished people, but how that is to be done and whether it's possible is never explained. As we saw on this thread. And I know why that is.

It is also meaningless to discuss the number of wealthy persons versus poor persons.

Riiiight. But we're supposed to redistribute the wealth and solve the problem of poverty; we just don't want to deal with how much money, which people are to be involved, or anything else that relates to the real world.

I'd say "got it" here, except that I got it long ago.

 

[Greyy]

That's not a governmental issue. It's a personal or church issue.

Well, you bought into Hobbes.

I wonder how one reconciles the importance of faith in their life, while allowing for the very explotation their faith condemns.

There isn't any "unregulated Capitalism" in our country. That concept exists only in the propaganda of the Far Left.

I did not say there was. There are a lot of people calling for it.

 

[Albion]

Well, you bought into Hobbes.

By saying that Capitalism pre-dates Hobbes, which it clearly does? You can do better than that.

 

[Greyy]

That's interesting to read, considering that every historian knows that the emergence of Capitalism in Western society pre-dates Hobbes and had nothing to do with him.

Capitalism didn't "emerge". What we call capitalism is a product of the industrial revolution with vague and pathetic references to agrian society. I specifically stated the concept of unregulated free market capitalism.

Prior to the industrial revolution, outside of noble landlords that collected goods for doing literally nothing, people earned a living through the work of their hands.

 

[Albion]

Capitalism didn't "emerge".

Uh, yes it did. It was not birthed by some writer, whether Hobbes or anyone else.

What we call capitalism is a product of the industrial revolution

Ooh, no. You're way off target with that one.

 

[Greyy]

Which gets us back to the question I asked a number of posts ago--and then reiterated in a later one. It's all well and good in the world of political speculation to talk about soaking the rich so that there will be no more impoverished people, but how that is to be done and whether it's possible is never explained. As we saw on this thread. And I know why that is.

It's not that philosophically complicated. Society should strive to increase production while also seeking to reduce inequality.

Riiiight. But we're supposed to redistribute the wealth and solve the problem of poverty; we just don't want to deal with how much money, which people are to be involved, or anything else that relates to the real world.

You are right, very basic questions are just so hard, we should just give up. That totally makes it okay. That's a rather sick conservative argument. They want regulation... welll how much? They want more minimum wage? Why not make it 100 an hour?

I am not a chain smoking, overweight, pill poping conservative radio talk show host that influenced the last 30 years of conservative thought through the brilliance that only comes from listening to yourself on the radio. I believe in moderation.

 

[Albion]

It's not that philosophically complicated. Society should strive to increase production while also seeking to reduce inequality.

OK, but that's far from what was written in this thread earlier, and all I did was ask how what was proposed could be accomplished. Of course, there was no answer given to that, yet you'd think that the advocates of such a thing would have thought it through beyond the philosophical, theoretical stage, since they seem to want to actually have legislation passed, new tax codes, etc. -- you know, actual changes in an actual society rather than something nice to talk about.

You are right, very basic questions are just so hard, we should just give up. atThat totally makes it okay. That's a rather sick conservative argument. They want regulation... welll how much? They want more minimum wage? Why not make it 100 an hour?

I am not a chain smoking, overweight, pill poping conservative radio talk show host that influenced the last 30 years of conservative thought through the brilliance that only comes from listening to yourself on the radio. I believe in moderation.

I see that I was wrong to consider this a serious discussion topic.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Since the poor pay no income taxes and actually get money given to them when they file a 1040...and "the rich" pay the great majority of all income taxes, even if they remain wealthy afterwards...

Hmm. I work 55-60 hours a week for $40k a year. I drive a beat up 1989 Bonneville that belongs to a friend and he pays the insurance. I paid $170.00 to the state of Michigan and $755.00 to the US Treasury in addition to the $ 1,230.00 that was withheld for tax year 2016. I guess I am rich.


But in 2012 when I was active duty Military, I had a 2008 Chevy Suburban, a 1998 Oldsmobile 88 and a 1996 four door one ton Chevy Cheyenne long bed diesel pickup, a 5996 sq. ft. house on 12 acres of land and I was bringing home $7,107.00 a month after taxes. To top it off, I got back $3,555.00 from the IRS for tax year 2012 so I guess I was poor.


Oh! To be poor again!

 

[Greyy]

OK, but that's far from what was written in this thread earlier, and all I did was ask how what was proposed could be accomplished.

Because you are using a vague question on a complicated issue to seemingly promote a politcal philosophy that has no justification on its own.

Of course, there was no answer given to that, yet you'd think that the advocates of such a thing would have thought it through beyond the philosophical, theoretical stage, since they seem to want to actually have legislation passed, new tax codes, etc. -- you know, actual changes in an actual society rather than something nice to talk about.

The issue was never about the particulars of what to do, but lack of thought on what ought to be accomplished. The general conservative view is that people are poor because they choose to be poor, and that anyone who is rich has chosen to be rich. In fact, the more we do to help the rich, helps the poor.

I bought into these ideas, until I began working with those that were actually poor. I learned, and saw, that poverty was a culture. I grew up middle class, but spent several years experiencing the culture and society of the wealthy. A few years later, I was invited on professional and personal levels, into a world of those living in the culture of poverty.


People like simplistic economic and social views because it gives good people a chance to ignore the inner guilt they feel in doing little to nothing about society. It's not even that they don't want to do anything, they just don't understand how, or what to do. Christians, and all those of good will who see the poor and the inequalities in society that should not exist as we are all children of God retreat to simplistic ideologies of libertarism, trickle-down economics, and otherwise contempt for the poor because of their compassion for the poor and the sense of helplessness that comes from being able to do nothing.

 

[Albion]

The issue was never about the particulars of what to do, but lack of thought on what ought to be accomplished. The general conservative view is that people are poor because they choose to be poor, and that anyone who is rich has chosen to be rich. In fact, the more we do to help the rich, helps the poor.

That's just propaganda talking. "Conservatives" do not take that view. It's only Liberals who want to picture them that way.

 

[Greyy]

That's just propaganda talking. "Conservatives" do not take that view. It's only Liberals who want to picture them that way.

Thank you for your reassurance.

 

[Fantine]

I'll do the explaining then. There are tens of thousands of poor people for every wealthy person, so the notion that all we need to do is have them meet somewhere in the middle by appropriating the wealth of the wealthy person for the benefit of the poor one, is an illusion.

If all the money owned--not just the annual income--of the rich were distributed to the poor, the rich would be brought down, but the poor would remain poor, albeit with a few additional dollars. And when that was spent, of course there would be no additional monies coming from the formerly wealthy people.

No one wants to appropriate the wealth of the wealthy for the poor...the poor aren't looking for handouts.

They are looking for FAIR wages--over the past 30 years, CEO and executive incomes have increased ten or even hundreds times over--because they aren't paying FAIR wages to their employees.

They are looking to work for companies that don't merge, sell themselves piecemeal, etc. to eek out a few more EPS for stockholders by cheating their employees out of fair incomes, job security, etc.

There are wonderful examples all over Western Europe of companies that value their employees and treat them fairly--resulting in more happiness and less poverty and unemployment.

If we are truly the "greatest" company in the world, we should be "great" enough to have ethical and moral business practices. Sadly, we rank near the bottom of industrialized nations in almost every category--quality of education, infant mortality, healthcare, etc.--and what do we do? We (or at least a substantial MINORITY of voters) elect someone who is pulling our whole country further into the swamp...

 

[Albion]

No one wants to appropriate the wealth of the wealthy for the poor.

I'll take the matter up when I see a serious objection to what I wrote. Socialism has as one of its essentials the redistribution of wealth from those who have it to those whom the state determines need it.

If we are truly the "greatest" company in the world, we should be "great" enough to have ethical and moral business practices.

I can't disagree with that. According to one of the recent rankings that you may have seen, the USA ranks only 17th (or maybe it's worse now) among the nations of the world for freedom. Even Canada ranks higher for economic freedom.

 

[whatbogsends]

It's almost as if some people in these threads don't seem to know why worker protection laws were enacted to begin with...

 

[Albion]

It's almost as if some people in these threads don't seem to know why worker protection laws were enacted to begin with...

Worker protection laws aren't the topic here, nor does such legislation have much, if anything, to do with confiscating the wealth of some people in order to give it to other people.

 

[381465]

Worker protection laws aren't the topic here, nor does such legislation have much, if anything, to do with confiscating the wealth of some people in order to give it to other people.

Redistribution is great, until the rich run out of money and no longer feel like making the effort or taking the risk for wealth just to have it taken away.

 

[whatbogsends]

Worker protection laws aren't the topic here, nor does such legislation have much, if anything, to do with confiscating the wealth of some people in order to give it to other people.

Firstly, the topic of this thread isn't about confiscating the wealth of some people in order to give it to other people, although the practice of capital owners confiscating the wealth (productivity) of their laborers is certainly relevant. The topic of this thread is very much about the impact of regulations on industry and the people within an industry.

Moreover, posters in this thread were making the assertion that without regulations (hint: worker protection laws, are, indeed regulations), companies would then create more good jobs (a demonstrably false assertion based on the history of capitalism).

Worker protection laws are very much part of the topic here. You can try to handwave them away, but your dismissal is utter nonsense.

 

[whatbogsends]

Redistribution is great, until the rich run out of money and no longer feel like making the effort or taking the risk for wealth just to have it taken away.

The business owners confiscating increasingly large amounts of worker productivity is great, until the poor become so poor that they revolt.

 

[381465]

The business owners confiscating increasingly large amounts of worker productivity is great, until the poor become so poor that they revolt.

And then what?
What does the revolt look like?
An end to privately owned enterprises?

I'll check the thread later. Have to go back to work and exploit the masses.

 

[whatbogsends]

And then what?
What does the revolt look like?
An end to privately owned enterprises?

I'll check the thread later. Have to go back to work and exploit the masses.

I'm guessing it would look like the opposite of the rich people not being able to exploit people enough so they pack up their bags and go home, which you seem to think is the outcome of increased taxation of the rich.