Income Inequality.

[sayak83]

there are a lot of changes in the way the police does their jobs, they got a lot of police departments temporarily defunded, resulting in increased crime, and violence unchallenged.

Defunding public services is easy. Less taxes for the wealthy who do not need the police anyways. So...the only thing that happened is something that reduces spending for the rich and hurts the poor.....ok.

 

[Heyo]

Defunding public services is easy. Less taxes for the wealthy who do not need the police anyways.

The rich are who the police was invented for. They are the ones who have to fear that their wealth is taken away. The poor have nothing to lose.

 

[Kfox]

They at least don't gain additional (unfair) advantages. Also, even if you paid for your kids tuition, other kids could probably also afford a better education as they didn't have to pay taxes during their lifetime. I don't get why this doesn't convince people of the idea.

The idea that you don't have to pay taxes during your lifetime is not a very good incentive IMO because the amount of taxes you pay during a lifetime will be nowhere near the amount you have accumulated when you get old; so this will only incentives everybody to spend their money foolishly now and refrain from investing which is bad for the economy

They already do it. Transfer of big sums of money or notable wealth is already taxed.

Yeah; you'll probably get a bunch of old guys selling their possessions to their children for pennies on the dollar and getting taxed for that rather than lose everything upon death.

How do you know?
Assuming you just spend all your money and wealth on a good life, that would enormously help the economy. What you consume is profit for others. Hording money doesn't help the economy, spending it does.

It would be foolish for a rich person to hoard money allowing it to get eaten up by inflation, rich people invest their money in assets allowing it to grow. Investing in assets is far better for the economy than spending a bunch of money on a good life.

Off course not. The government will just take the money you got for your business. Saves them the hassle of selling it themselves.

Yeah; I think such an idea would discourage people from investing in the economy which will hurt the economy

 

[Kfox]

Defunding public services is easy. Less taxes for the wealthy who do not need the police anyways. So...the only thing that happened is something that reduces spending for the rich and hurts the poor.....ok.

Luv em or hate em; you gotta admit, what they did indicates a lot of power.

 

[Kfox]

The rich are who the police was invented for. They are the ones who have to fear that their wealth is taken away. The poor have nothing to lose.

Perhaps their lives? Far more poor people call the police for help than rich people.

 

[PureX]

First thing you'd need to do is toss out the window everything Marx said about capitalism. A subject he really didn't have a clue about.
Otherwise there is going to be a gap between your thinking and reality.

I discuss Marx about as often as I discuss Frued (never), and for the same reasons.

Capitalism is actually very simple and easy to understand. By definition, it is a system of commerce that gives control of commercial enterprise to whomever invests the capital to create and operate the enterprise. And it therefor denies control to those who are being most effected by that commercial enterprise: labor, consumer, and community. Which then forces those entities to try and force their needs, in turn, onto the capital investors by whatever means they have available. Creating constant antagonism between the greed motive of the capital investors, and the well-being motive of everyone else involved in commercial enterprise.

The people naturally turn to their government to force their needs and desires onto the capital investors, while the capital investors use their profits to try and stop the government from doing so. And so the antagonism then spreads to government as it has to choose between it's wealthy (selves and donors) and the well-being of the people it's supposed to represent. And all this constant antagonism tears the nation that engages in this economic system, apart.

But the solution is also simple and easy to understand. That is to share control of commercial enterprise among all those that are being affected by it: the investor, labor, consumer, and community. The only real question, then, is how to implement that shared control. And there are a number of methods that have already been tried, that we can learn from and improve upon. But that won't happen as long as capitalism keeps us all locked in a perpetual economic war with each other, with commercial enterprise, and with our own government.

 

[Kfox]

Right, these sorts of things are usually fall into a Pareto distribution, the fact that most investors aren't rich is irrelevant.

Well the point that was originally being defended was the idea that every time we get a raise, we take from the rich. That is what I was disagreeing with.

Agree completely, which is why I said, all other things being equal.

True IF all things were equal. I just don’t think all things are equal

Right, and that's a excellent example, and one that I concede is probably true (this is why I asked you to explain rather than dismissing this point). Take a company like Costco that is, at least anywhere I've ever live, is known to pay workers well above the average for a given job. There are certainly benefits and lower turnover is one of them. Employees tend to be more loyal and I suspect they feel valued more than other people in similar positions and you might be right, this might help offset higher wages.

Sounds like you're on to something!
That said, It's hard to know if these tangible and intangible benefits really do offset the higher wages people are paid, but I think when added to their increased purchasing power, in an economy that has room for more spending (and more jobs), the overall effect is definity positive.

Years ago I worked at McDonalds, I found out there is a tax employers have to pay when they have a high turnover rate of employment. If you have a certain percentage of your employees quit over a given time, you have to pay that tax. That along with the expense of having to train a new person to do a job, IMO it can become rather costly to be a starter job that people just work for a short time and move on. But does the money saved on low wages make up for the expense of constant training and turn over taxes? I have no idea

 

[PureX]

But according to what you said before, they, being operators of a small business, should have behaved in a very different way because they were forced to "know" their customers more intimately. But they didn't. My feeling, and that's all it is, is that a small business doesn't have enough "slack" in its income and customer base to be able to afford the more altruistic approach that a larger business has. That's not to say that there are not counter examples of both of course. Or maybe I have missed something in your argument?

Or, had they been a bit more mindful of their customer's needs and desires, they would have gained more of them, and thereby had more "slack" in their cash flow. Interestingly, there is currently a large corporations that is doing this (still very rare) and it's been working out well for them: Costco as an example. I don't have one of their stores near me, but if I did, I would make a point of shopping there, just as I make a point of NOT shopping at any Walmart stores.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Perhaps their lives? Far more poor people call the police for help than rich people.

Because there are more of them?

 

[PureX]

So you're not advocating for revolution?

I am advocating for a sea change in the way we view and engage in commerce. How that happens is not in my control. But it doesn't have to require a bloody revolution. And those rarely result in a positive outcome, anyway. What it requires is a change in the way we think. For example:

Let's say I am a used car dealer. I look to buy used cars that are still viable, cheap, so I can fix them up, clean them up, and sell them to people for a profit. Currently, I would pay as little as I possibly could pay for the car, invest as little as I can get away with, in it, and sell it for as much as I can possibly get for it. Because I have no intention of leaving any value for anyone else in any of these transactions. And if this results in someone else ending up paying too much for a crappy car, then too bad for them, and good for me.

This is the poison of greed that gets promoted and rewarded under a capitalist economic system. And we have all become so infected by it and used to it that it doesn't even occur to us that this is not a good way for humans to engage in commerce, or to live together in a successful human community.

But it doesn't have to be this way. We could have bought that used car for a little bit more, and invested a little bit more in it to make sure it's in good running condition, and then sold it for a little bit less than top dollar, leaving everyone else involved in the enterprise a little better off for having engaged in it. We still would make a profit, but we would also leave a little bit of value in the deal for the other people to profit from it, as well. And all we have to do to achieve this is to let go of the idea of gaining maximum profit on every act of commerce that we engage in ... i.e., let go of the capitalist ideal. And instead, seek the goal of improving the well-being of everyone involved in the exchange. And if humans can't or won't do this sort of thing voluntarily, because they are too afraid of everyone else taking advantage of them, then we could implement exchange mechanisms that help ensure more equitable and beneficial exchanges for all involved. But it all begins with the way we think about commerce and what it's for. What it's goals are. And that's what we need to change. Right now, commerce is all about individual selfishness, and about gaining maximum profit from a minimum expense. That's the capitalist ideal, and that is systematized greed. And that's what we need to let go of. To be replaced by the more socialist ideal of everyone involved in the exchange benefiting from the exchange.

 

[Audie]

The rich are who the police was invented for. They are the ones who have to fear that their wealth is taken away. The poor have nothing to lose.

All of society loses in chaos

 

[Koldo]

Perhaps their lives? Far more poor people call the police for help than rich people.

The police is fairly ineffective when it comes down to preventing homicides. If knowing that killing someone can get you killed in return (by a family member of that person, for example) is not sufficient to prevent an homicide, the police definitely won't be either.

The police is far more effective at dealing with property crimes. And since the rich have far more property than the poor...

 

[Audie]

I am advocating for a sea change in the way we view and engage in commerce. How that happens is not in my control. But it doesn't have to require a bloody revolution. And those rarely result in a positive outcome, anyway. What it requires is a change in the way we think. For example:

Let's say I am a used car dealer. I look to buy used cars that are still viable, cheap, so I can fix them up, clean them up, and sell them to people for a profit. Currently, I would pay as little as I possibly could pay for the car, invest as little as I can get away with, in it, and sell it for as much as I can possibly get for it. Because I have no intention of leaving any value for anyone else in any of these transactions. And if this results in someone else ending up paying too much for a crappy car, then too bad for them, and good for me.

This is the poison of greed that gets promoted and rewarded under a capitalist economic system. And we have all become so infected by it and used to it that it doesn't even occur to us that this is not a good way for humans to engage in commerce, or to live together in a successful human community.

But it doesn't have to be this way. We could have bought that used car for a little bit more, and invested a little bit more in it to make sure it's in good running condition, and then sold it for a little bit less than top dollar, leaving everyone else involved in the enterprise a little better off for having engaged in it. We still would make a profit, but we would also leave a little bit of value in the deal for the other people to profit from it, as well. And all we have to do to achieve this is to let go of the idea of gaining maximum profit on every act of commerce that we engage in ... i.e., let go of the capitalist ideal. And instead, seek the goal of improving the well-being of everyone involved in the exchange. And if humans can't or won't do this sort of thing voluntarily, because they are too afraid of everyone else taking advantage of them, then we could implement exchange mechanisms that help ensure more equitable and beneficial exchanges for all involved. But it all begins with the way we think about commerce and what it's for. What it's goals are. And that's what we need to change. Right now, commerce is all about individual selfishness, and about gaining maximum profit from a minimum expense. That's the capitalist ideal, and that is systematized greed. And that's what we need to let go of. To be replaced by the more socialist ideal of everyone involved in the exchange benefiting from the exchange.

You want everyone to change how they
think.
Try a day of thinking that "greed" is not
actually the key to everything,

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am advocating for a sea change in the way we view and engage in commerce. How that happens is not in my control. But it doesn't have to require a bloody revolution. And those rarely result in a positive outcome, anyway. What it requires is a change in the way we think. For example:

Let's say I am a used car dealer. I look to buy used cars that are still viable, cheap, so I can fix them up, clean them up, and sell them to people for a profit. Currently, I would pay as little as I possibly could pay for the car, invest as little as I can get away with, in it, and sell it for as much as I can possibly get for it. Because I have no intention of leaving any value for anyone else in any of these transactions. And if this results in someone else ending up paying too much for a crappy car, then too bad for them, and good for me.

This is the poison of greed that gets promoted and rewarded under a capitalist economic system. And we have all become so infected by it and used to it that it doesn't even occur to us that this is not a good way for humans to engage in commerce, or to live together in a successful human community.

But it doesn't have to be this way. We could have bought that used car for a little bit more, and invested a little bit more in it to make sure it's in good running condition, and then sold it for a little bit less than top dollar, leaving everyone else involved in the enterprise a little better off for having engaged in it. We still would make a profit, but we would also leave a little bit of value in the deal for the other people to profit from it, as well. And all we have to do to achieve this is to let go of the idea of gaining maximum profit on every act of commerce that we engage in ... i.e., let go of the capitalist ideal. And instead, seek the goal of improving the well-being of everyone involved in the exchange. And if humans can't or won't do this sort of thing voluntarily, because they are too afraid of everyone else taking advantage of them, then we could implement exchange mechanisms that help ensure more equitable and beneficial exchanges for all involved. But it all begins with the way we think about commerce and what it's for. What it's goals are. And that's what we need to change. Right now, commerce is all about individual selfishness, and about gaining maximum profit from a minimum expense. That's the capitalist ideal, and that is systematized greed. And that's what we need to let go of. To be replaced by the more socialist ideal of everyone involved in the exchange benefiting from the exchange.

I'm not sure you'd believe that, but I regularly do that as part of my working life...even as a corporate drone.

 

[Audie]

I'm not sure you'd believe that, but I regularly do that as part of my working life...even as a corporate drone.

People in commerce have a
FAR deeper and more nuanced
understanding of what is going on
than any angry ideolog shaking his
fist a day shouting slogans from the
sidewalk.

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure you'd believe that, but I regularly do that as part of my working life...even as a corporate drone.

I have known folks who do business like that. Which is why I know it can be done. But they are not the norm. And doing so is not the message being taught to people in business school. Or in politics. Or even to children in church. Because it's antithetical to the capitalist's creed. Which is that greed and selfishness make the world go round, and if you want to live in it, you'd better learn to be greedy and selfish, too.

 

[metis]

My problem with your links is it assumes if the rich didn't have so much money, the poor would have more; which isn't true. The reality is, if the rich had less money, the poor would not have more, they would likely have even less.

The "problem" is not mine-- it's yours, as you're choosing to accept only that which you want to accept. I posted several links to help explain & justify my point, whereas you provided not one link from any source on economics to establish yours.

BTW, maybe check out the Nordic Model: Nordic model - Wikipedia

 

[Nakosis]

I discuss Marx about as often as I discuss Frued (never), and for the same reasons.

Capitalism is actually very simple and easy to understand. By definition, it is a system of commerce that gives control of commercial enterprise to whomever invests the capital to create and operate the enterprise. And it therefor denies control to those who are being most effected by that commercial enterprise: labor, consumer, and community. Which then forces those entities to try and force their needs, in turn, onto the capital investors by whatever means they have available. Creating constant antagonism between the greed motive of the capital investors, and the well-being motive of everyone else involved in commercial enterprise.

The people naturally turn to their government to force their needs and desires onto the capital investors, while the capital investors use their profits to try and stop the government from doing so. And so the antagonism then spreads to government as it has to choose between it's wealthy (selves and donors) and the well-being of the people it's supposed to represent. And all this constant antagonism tears the nation that engages in this economic system, apart.

But the solution is also simple and easy to understand. That is to share control of commercial enterprise among all those that are being affected by it: the investor, labor, consumer, and community. The only real question, then, is how to implement that shared control. And there are a number of methods that have already been tried, that we can learn from and improve upon. But that won't happen as long as capitalism keeps us all locked in a perpetual economic war with each other, with commercial enterprise, and with our own government.

That's not capitalism. That is more a Marxian view of capitalism but ok, let assume you are not aware of the connection.
Capitalism is the concept of private instead of state ownership of businesses and the idea that the market, which means the consumer sets the price of the product produced. So you the consumer are not locked into anything. You are free to demand a lower cost for what you buy or seek a lower cost or DIY. You are free to start a service or provide a product yourself. Where you are not free is when these products or services are under government control where the government mandates what services or products you have to accept and how much you have to pay.

 

[metis]

That is more a Marxian view of capitalism but ok, let assume you are not aware of the connection.
Capitalism is the concept of private instead of state ownership of businesses and the idea that the market, which means the consumer sets the price of the product produced.

But there are no examples of pure capitalism or pure Marxism. On top of that, there's interplay between government and business as one feeds the other.

 

[Heyo]

The idea that you don't have to pay taxes during your lifetime is not a very good incentive IMO because the amount of taxes you pay during a lifetime will be nowhere near the amount you have accumulated when you get old; so this will only incentives everybody to spend their money foolishly now and refrain from investing which is bad for the economy

I wasn't sure but now I know. I have stopped to try and educate @Revoltingest and @Audie. I know they will never understand because they have a monetary incentive not to. Answering them is answering the audience, not them personally. You are in the same situation, obviously. What is your annual tax rate? In the US it may be as low as about 10%. 10% of all you earn every year through your working life. Could be a nice sum to retire from. Does that mean you can keep the 90% and transform it into wealth? Of course not, you have to live from that. Only a small fraction is going to form wealth. Well, depending on your income it could be a bigger fraction. And it must be a big fraction in your case to be more than your tax rate. Without exact numbers I can only say that you are not poor, probably not even middle class, and probably born into wealth. Am I right?

Yeah; you'll probably get a bunch of old guys selling their possessions to their children for pennies on the dollar and getting taxed for that rather than lose everything upon death.

They'd at least try. As I said the idea of equality seems offending to those who are privileged. Everybody thinks they are special and so are their children. The question "Do you mean equality of outcome or equality of opportunity" is almost always a red herring as for the questioner it doesn't make a difference, they hate them both equally.

It would be foolish for a rich person to hoard money allowing it to get eaten up by inflation, rich people invest their money in assets allowing it to grow. Investing in assets is far better for the economy than spending a bunch of money on a good life.

The capitalist mantra: wealth must be accumulated.

Yeah; I think such an idea would discourage people from investing in the economy which will hurt the economy

And the capitalist god: The Economy.

People and well being mean nothing to you. Right?