bobbob1313 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I want a more equitable distribution of wealth -- you may disagree with that politically, and that's okay with me, it's definitely the dominant paradigm. There is enough wealth concentrated in very few hands (and for what purpose?) to allow people at the bottom get paid well enough to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. American productivity, still strong, has created massive wealth at the top, and it's not trickling down. Morton Freidman, Alan Greenspan and their neocon pals have driven this thing into the ground. Time for an major overhaul. There is wealth in the hands of few because, for reasons you may not like, they have earned it in our society. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I hear that when the Revolution comes, what you have in your record collection will determine if you go against the wall or not.Only in the case of Vampire Weekend. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 There is wealth in the hands of few because, for reasons you may not like, they have earned it in our society.Perhaps she is saying our society is flawed in that regard. It's not an entirely unreasonable proposition. Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Only in the case of Vampire Weekend. Yeah...but you gotta UNDERSTAND and FEEL it. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Perhaps she is saying our society is flawed in that regard. It's not an entirely unreasonable proposition. But what alternative is more reasonable? Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 There is wealth in the hands of few because, for reasons you may not like, they have earned it in our society. Again, the argument is to give everyone the same opportunity. Socio Economic Class. If you graduate from high-school and Daddy (an alum) gives you a fast track to Yale which lands you right in a leather office chair behind a desk w/ a six figure salary..... you have to work. You had to work at school, but no more than anyone else who braved the academic world. Yet you are somehow more entitled to your extreme wealth? I would say you had a different set of cards going into the game. I am an existentialist in every walk of life except in regards to class. This is not choice. People are dealt things and the government can, and should, help to mitigate. Adam Smith was anti-monopolies, that requires regulation. Pure capitalism (much like pure socialism) does not work. Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I wasn't implying that people don't work hard for the money they make. I was merely responding to the quote Obama made to a plumber about spreading the wealth around. On a fundamental level, I don't think that works. I don't think that inspires people to work harder. I don't think that encourages economic growth on a personal level. I don't think that squares with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 equality is impossible without social programs. So it has always seemed to me. Interesting to see we've taken a page from the Scandinavians in terms of how they resolved their own financial crisis. Might be time to look at the excellent social models they provide too. A very high standard of living, shared broadly, better health indicators, universal health and education, transformation of their energy economies, .... sounds damn good to me. High taxes, so what? The country as a whole benefits, and no one seems to be suffering for it. I really think our problems stem from the prevailing psyche -- acquisitiveness, an economy based on of pointless consumption, an unhealthy food system, the grasping for all the oil we can squeeze out instead of seeing it for the deadend it is. There is wealth in the hands of few because, for reasons you may not like, they have earned it in our society. change happens. Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Anyone else feel like these discussions would be more productive if BOTH sides didn't use the party marketing? Whenever someone -- again from either side -- makes nuanced points, the other side throws out simplistic catch-phrases designed to scare the lowest common denominator. I think the level of intelligence on this board should allow us to rise above that. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 viatroy- I completely agree. The bad news is responsibility. When you use big government to foster the growth of your nation it becomes the government, and an informed citizenry's responsibility that it is used wisely. The benefit to this model is in a country with a high standard of living you have people who are very well educated. They can make more informed decisions and there are a higher number of talented and educated people that can server/vote/take up office/debate/canvas etc. Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I wasn't implying that people don't work hard for the money they make. I was merely responding to the quote Obama made to a plumber about spreading the wealth around. On a fundamental level, I don't think that works. I don't think that inspires people to work harder. I don't think that encourages economic growth on a personal level. I don't think that squares with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." See, I have a little problem with the Protestant work ethic. Why is your life better if you work harder? What are you trying to prove? and to whom? I'm happy to work to have just enough, and spend more of my life doing what I enjoy. It's also why I work for nonprofits -- I feel like I'm contributing something worthwhile, something that's not a widget. The older I get, the more of a hippy I become. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Interesting to see we've taken a page from the Scandinavians in terms of how they resolved their own financial crisis. Might be time to look at the excellent social models they provide too. A very high standard of living, shared broadly, better health indicators, universal health and education, transformation of their energy economies, .... sounds damn good to me. High taxes, so what? The country as a whole benefits, and no one seems to be suffering for it. What do you think is a fair tax rate for the highest income bracket? Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Only in the case of Vampire Weekend.Amen my brother. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 But what alternative is more reasonable?One in which kids with hardworking parents don't go to school hungry while a guy who plays a game for a living nets more than $10M a year? What do you think is a fair tax rate for the highest income bracket?Uh oh, Mr. Wilson. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Anyone else feel like these discussions would be more productive if BOTH sides didn't use the party marketing? Whenever someone -- again from either side -- makes nuanced points, the other side throws out simplistic catch-phrases designed to scare the lowest common denominator. I think the level of intelligence on this board should allow us to rise above that.That many of us, Wilco fans, the smartest, most refined people on EARTH, do not rise above that is a good illustration of the effectiveness of these tactics. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 One in which kids with hardworking parents don't go to school hungry while a guy who plays a game for a living nets more than $10M a year? Lame. Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 One in which kids with hardworking parents don't go to school hungry while a guy who plays a game for a living nets more than $10M a year?Well I don't agree with that. If the ball player can get that much, then why shouldn't he/she? I think your issue is more with where our society places it value. But if you make $10M/year, you should feel privileged to do so and realize that YOU can afford to pay more for the infrastructure that is necessary for the society -- the society that allowed you to BECOME rich -- needs. The idea that Shaq -- or anyone that makes a shit ton of money -- si going to stop working because they pay 35% instead of 25% is bullshit. The tax rate does NOT create disincentives in that way. Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 What do you think is a fair tax rate for the highest income bracket? I don't know how I'd set the rate without looking at the demographics. There's a number that keeps floating around ... something like the richest 400 families in America control as much wealth as the lowest 50? (75? 90?) percent. So I am talking about a wealth surtax too. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 How horrible. You mean if I make a billion the government gets a million? That means I can only buy two islands. But I want a golden goose now daddy. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 How much would it cost to wipe out everybody's credit card debt, I wonder? Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I don't know how I'd set the rate without looking at the demographics. There's a number that keeps floating around ... something like the richest 400 families in America control as much wealth as the lowest 50? (75? 90?) percent. So I am talking about a wealth surtax too. Like as in you'd tax the same wealth every year so it eventually whittles down to zero? Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Lame.I agree, it's pretty lame. Especially for the kids. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 How horrible. You mean if I make a billion the government gets a million? That means I can only buy two islands. But I want a golden goose now daddy. I'd take that tax rate! Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 That many of us, Wilco fans, the smartest, most refined people on EARTH, do not rise above that is a good illustration of the effectiveness of these tactics.Hey I'm a marketing guy. I get it, but I still will continue to plead for more mature dialogue. There's too much at stake. "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take that tax rate!No shit. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts