patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,257,514 comments by 15,009 users - 6DOF, DOGEWontAmountToShit, Kepi, Maga_Chaos_Monkey, socal2 online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 19 - 58 of 100 Next » Last » Search these comments
Many of you have participated in this class warfare
Class warfare is terrible, so let's not even bring up this uncomfortable subject? That's the excuse of the oligarchs and their apologists.
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.â€
― Warren Buffett
Quoting Buffet? This guy claims his secretary pays more taxes than him, yet he fails to mention a few things.
1. based on his numbers his secretary makes over 6 figures
2. all his income is based on dividends and capital gains. Yet his argument has been to increase wage taxes and does not really push dividends and capital gains taxes
The "sin" is in letting the trend in this chart be our goal and continuing it to infinity:
There is no sin in making money. There is only sin in certain ways that money is made. Lets make that clear distinction. You and many others on this website villainize the rich because they are rich.
it's fundamentally wrong to let Richie Rich run amok with special status, no constraints, no responsibility, and no consequences for anything they do.
I agree with you. I do not think it is ok to let people do things as you say, however you must be sure to make that clear distinction between those who do and those who dont because by making the generalized comments that you do, you are in essence crucifying all rich people unfairly.Vicente says
Individual rich people may not be conscious of it, but as a class they are working to enrich themselves not just in money but in POWER while all lower classes are frozen in place.
No rich people are conscious. Everyone is conscious of making money. THis is the reason why people study to get an education and why people work as hard as they do. Some are more conscious than others. And yes, with more money, there is more power. There is a natural correlation here. It seems that you fundamentally disagree with the basis our semi-capitalistic society, rather in favor of socialistic ideas.
Meccos says
If people want to devote the majority of their lives to making more and more money, what is it to you?
This is EXACTLY the problem in this country, confusing money for wealth like Meccos does above.
First of all money does equal wealth, although other things can be considered wealth besides money. Secondly, why do you put words into my mouth? where in the quote above did I even imply that? This is one of the problems with you Bill... you put words into peoples mouths.
I simply replied to the previous posters comments as posted below. Vicente says
Richie Rich however lives, breathes, eats, sleeps MONEY. They work 18 hour days thinking about getting MORE MORE MORE and how they can destroy the concept of the estate tax.
But that's not what we're doing now, not how the 5% operate at least.
They don't create wealth, they just MONETIZE their ownership of existing wealth, looking for sectors with high barriers to entry and highly motivated buyers -- these are where the economics rents lie.
Really? So everyone who makes above 160K, which are the 5% which you speak about) they just "monetize their ownership of wealth?"
Bill, you and many of you on this forum have a fundamental problem of generalizing the rich and making them out to be villains. THis is why many of us who oppose your views. Its not that we are not against those people who are crooked and take advantage of others to gain wealth. We are against this philosophy that the rich are bad and they need to be somehow penalized for being rich. Just as you randomly chose the 5% or others who chose the "2%" or "1%", these are arbitrary numbers. Rather than focusing on the rich, perhaps you and the rest should focus on those who have gained their riches or wealth by cheating and taking advantage. I guarantee you that the majority of the 5% or 2% or even 1% have not. Villainzing the rich for the sake of them being rich makes people look simply envious. Villainize people because they are bad, not just because they are rich.
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2012 Dec 23, 9:22am
The fundamental flaw of this system, and all systems like it, is that the orgasmic draw of power does not diminish. It's embedded in the DNA of some human beings...a very strong psychological draw.
The wealth won't be redistributed to the poor. It will be redistributed to a new class of people seeking power...those middle men doing the redistributing.
In laymans terms...meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I wanna piggy back on my own comment.
I think theres a substantial number of Pat.net posters who fancy themselves a part of this new "redistributing" class...and I think they'd enjoy the perks of doing so.
Theres no shortage of hypocrites who would absolutely enjoy being the pigs on the farm.
Bellingham Bill
2012 Dec 23, 2:55pm
I like how you make your own definitions.
It is very important to understand terms in economics. As Henry George said ca 1870:
"Certain words — such as wealth, capital, rent, and wages — require a much more specific meaning in economic reasoning than they do in everyday speech. Unfortunately, even among economists, there is no agreement on the meaning of these terms. Different writers give different meanings to the same term. Even worse, one author will use the same term in different senses. Nothing shows the importance of precise language like the spectacle of the brightest thinkers basing important conclusions on the same word used in different senses."
and:
"Wealth, then, may be defined as natural products that have been secured, moved, combined, separated, or in other ways modified by human exertion to fit them for the gratification of human desires."
If Henry George is too radical for you, we can turn to Adam Smith, who defined it in passing as:
"the annual produce of the land and labour of the society"
Land and labor do not produce money, printing presses and banks do.
The problem with calling any of these people parasites is the fact that they actually provide a service that other people willingly paying for.
And that's the crux of the problem here, this "willingly" thing. Power comes from controlling scarcity, and there is nothing more scarce than unclaimed land in our economy.
I defy you to find economically useful unclaimed land in your community.
The rent flows from land ownership are maybe a trillion or so.
The rent flows from health care are easily more than that, it's easier to figure out since we can compare our $8500/capita health expense with eg. Canada's $4400, and multiplying the difference by our 300M people.
LIke I said before, the rich are villainized for simply being rich.
Yes, that is the fault of the 99% movement.
But it is very hard to find a member of the 1% who got there by honest work and receives his current income in wealth-accreting activity aka "labor".
This is the point you continue to ignore, preferring to argue about idiotic dividing lines that do not exist in complex economies.
Yes, parasitical wealth is where we find it. And in this economy we find it in way too many places.
FWIW, I think the Eurosocialist economies do use too blunt an instrument to rebalance their economies -- I would like to think that targeting the rent-seeking directly they would not have to have such a high degree of progressive taxation.
I can especially say that France's 75% marginal tax rate is largely counter-productive I would think..
You chose the top 5%... that does not seem to be very selective nor careful at all. And in doing so, you have called many of us who fit into your category of the top 5% as "parasites" as you so called it.
I go into sufficient detail as to how the 5% of this economy are engaged in rent-seeking. Your criticism here is just diversionary noise-making.
Obviously not the entire top 5% of this economy is engaged in rent-seeking. But the higher you go, the greater the degree of the rent-seeking and wealth transfer UP the socio-economic pyramid.
It is these asymmetrical wealth transfers that are killing velocity in our paycheck economy and may yet cause what economy we do have left to throw a rod this decade or next.
But, oddly, you will find very little discussion of this issue in the media. Stiglitz, Krugman, Reich -- that's about it.
Republicans have their "Job Creator" bullshit and they're sticking to it.
Vicente
2012 Dec 23, 3:30pm
Obviously not the entire top 5% of this economy is engaged in rent-seeking. But the higher you go, the greater the degree of the rent-seeking and wealth transfer UP the socio-economic pyramid.
Well spoken.
Technology field use to be considered the frontline proving that individuals with a big idea and hard work could strike it rich. It's now dominated by patent portfolio warfare and legal maneuvering and acquisitions.
Land and labor do not produce money, printing presses and banks do.
You are right about this if you want to get technical. But this is analogous to saying flour and bakers do not produce bread, it is the bread machines, the ovens and bread company that produces it. It is rather pointless and a matter of irrelevant technical distinction for the purposes of the previous conversation.
And that's the crux of the problem here, this "willingly" thing. Power comes from controlling scarcity, and there is nothing more scarce than unclaimed land in our economy.
WHy is this even brought up? way to hijack another thread with your rent seeking and land ownership crap.
But it is very hard to find a member of the 1% who got there by honest work and receives his current income in wealth-accreting activity aka "labor".
First, are we now talking about the top 1% or the top 5%? The way you change from 1 to 5%, it sure does seem this is arbitrary.
Second, what do you define as "labor" and "honest work"? Do farmers create wealth? Do service profession create wealth? teachers, doctors, police, dry cleaners? stock brokers? TV anchors? Bell boys? crossing guards? land owners who rent their property?
This is the point you continue to ignore, preferring to argue about idiotic dividing lines that do not exist in complex economies.
The problem is that you are the one who keeps bringing up the dividing lines. This is EXACTLY my point. You arbitrarily pick out the top 5%, now the top 1% with generalized claims. Your argument is "generally these people do this, rent seeker, blah blah blah."
I go into sufficient detail as to how the 5% of this economy are engaged in rent-seeking.
No you dont. Your whole case is based on this argument, but you barely discuss it.
You can buy bread with money but you can't eat money.
WTF? and?
This thread is about rent seeking.
NO this thread now has become about rent-seeking, which is the case anytime Bill enters the conversation.
NO this thread now has become about rent-seeking, which is the case anytime Bill enters the conversation.
Nope. It is my thread and it has always been about rent seeking.
Thats funny, you never mentioned it.... until after Bill started talking about it. HAHAH
I never denied that some UBER wealthy make money that way. The fact that we have so many lobbies is evidence that this happens. I dont think anyone denies this happens. THe problem I have is that you and others categorize everyone who is "the rich" and generalize all if not most of these "rich" as rent seekers.
Y
2012 Dec 24, 11:58am
"now", Einstein....
I know realize that I have chosen the wrong forum to spew my socialist utopian ideals.
Y
2012 Dec 24, 12:16pm
All the more reason to address this immediately.
For your reputation....
SoftShell says
"now", Einstein....
The Professor says
I know realize that I have chosen the wrong forum to spew my socialist utopian ideals.
How about the day after tomorrow? I have a party to go to.
BTW what is the "UBER" rich? Lets first define that.
People that already make more than they, their children, and grandchildren can ever spend yet still want to make more by exploiting the working class.
If one's goal is to make more and more, is there anything wrong with that? As I mentioned previously, you need to make a distinction of those who want to make more and more and those who exploit. Although they can be one of the same, they are not always as you and a few others seem to suggest. This is your fundamental problem and until you can clearly delineate those who exploit and those who do not, there will always be people who disagree with your views on "the rich". Furthermore, your arguments would be much stronger and in fact I may even agree with you, if your focus was solely on those who exploit, rather than this generalization on "the rich".
They produce nothing but collect rent and profits.
This is also something which you must support. Who decides what is produced is of value or increases wealth? So do only the "UBER rich" not produce anything? Do all UBER rich not produce anything? What do you consider the production of something of value or increased wealth? Does a school teacher produce anything? Does a doctor produce anything? Does a walking guard produce anything? Does a financial planner produce anything? Does security guard produce anything?
If as you say the uber rich does not produce anything, do you say that only because they are uber rich? Would you say the same of the poor who produce nothing? Do you consider the poor who do not work and collect food stamps as one of those who produce nothing? If so they are on your radar as well?
Vicente
2012 Dec 24, 1:36pm
Do you consider the poor who do not work and collect food stamps as one of those who produce nothing? If so they are on your radar as well?
Radar for taxes? You aren't making any sense. Unless of course you are heading off into welfare queen arguments. You are attempting to split hairs, because you can't bring yourself to admit the core thesis is correct. The rent-seeking ultra-rich have perverted the economy for their own ends. It will end when all the real wealth is in their hands. We used to have some mechanisms to ensure permanent dynasties were avoided, but that is being eroded. Whether Shaq collects a few million or not is irrelevant "lost in the noise" bullshit that only an idiot would bother with.
As Chris Rock said: Shaq, he's just rich. The guy who writes his paycheck, he's WEALTHY!
Radar for taxes?
If you cant understand figure of speech, then that is your problem.
The rent-seeking ultra-rich have perverted the economy for their own ends.
Why is it that you and the few others on this thread cant seem to wrap your head around the idea of differentiating those who seek to exploit others for gain and those who do not. Again for the millionth time, you and professor have the fundamental problem of being unable or unwilling to differentiate those "rent seekers" with the rest of the "wealthy". Not everyone who is rich is a rent seeker. Envy is an ugly thing.
The fed is creating money out of thin air stealing the labor of the masses.
I didnt see this comment until now. I 100% agree with this and I will be the first person to tell you that what the fed is doing is BS. Like I said, I also have issues with those who steal wealth from others, but it is a far stretch to portray all of the rich with what the fed does. In fact I would argue that the fed creating money out of thin air steals from the majority of those who you consider to be "rich" as well.
Y
2012 Dec 24, 11:44pm
The Professor, in essence, is saying once you reach XXX dollars, it turns from "making more" to "exploitation".
Only the Diaper Doper Babies get to set that threshold....
The Professor says
Meccos says
BTW what is the "UBER" rich? Lets first define that.
People that already make more than they, their children, and grandchildren can ever spend yet still want to make more by exploiting the working class.
If one's goal is to make more and more, is there anything wrong with that? As I mentioned previously, you need to make a distinction of those who want to make more and more and those who exploit
Y
2012 Dec 25, 12:04am
Why do you not consider 'providing rental space' a service?
Is it not better than living under a bridge??
The Professor, in essence, is saying once you reach XXX dollars, it turns from "making more" to "exploitation".
Nope. Not what I said or meant.
If you can make a product or provide a service that is useful to humankind you deserve to be handsomely rewarded.
Vicente
2012 Dec 25, 1:54am
Again for the millionth time, you and professor have the fundamental problem of being unable or unwilling to differentiate those "rent seekers" with the rest of the "wealthy".
If you have great wealth, you are probably a rent-seeker. Look at the Forbes richest list, it's full of 'em.
In any case I have no "envy", I merely demand sensible tax policies regarding them. Thanks for caring!
I suppose if you are going to paint me as a relentless "rich hater" then you are a relentless unpaid "class warrior" who thinks everyone else is a taker, moocher, welfare queen, or a socialist. Large majority of Americans believe the wealth gap needs fixing, so you'd better get used to being in the minority.
FortWayne
2012 Dec 25, 2:06am
What is with the new generation and such a lean toward the failure of socialism.
Y
2012 Dec 25, 3:09am
So it would seem you are for landlords/investors that purchase homes outright, then rent them out at the going rate for the location....
No use of bank money needed....
Why do you not consider 'providing rental space' a service?
I do.
I have mixed feelings on landlords. Some are good; they provide a service by maintaining property and letting it out to people who for one reason or another do not want to "own".
And then there are the investors. They use other peoples money and prevent young familys from buying a home. They then turn around and rent the home to the priced out young family for more rent than they would have paid in mortgage.
The Professor, in essence, is saying once you reach XXX dollars, it turns from "making more" to "exploitation".
Nope. Not what I said or meant.
If you can make a product or provide a service that is useful to humankind you deserve to be handsomely rewarded.
If so then you need to make this distinction rather than just generalizing the rich which is what happens on this form alll the time. The problem is that you and others are not very clear on this distinction and generalize all the rich as rent seekers.
Define specifically who these rent seeking exploiters are, rather than generalizing them as the rich and I guarantee you that you will have less people oppose your views
Define specifically who these rent seeking exploiters are
You want names?
No but if you are making accusations about a group of people then I would think you can be more specific than blaming "the rich". After all "the rich" is a very ambiguous term and quite arbitrary as we have all seen on th is forum.
taxee
2012 Dec 25, 11:55am
I suspect the truth of the matter is that most rent seeking was/is being done now in the name of retired working people unbeknownst to and uncontrolled by them, through pension funds and annuities via MBS that were created by crooks to exploit both home buyers and pensioners. Now the poor fed has to buy all those homes with their keyboard to save the old folks. You couldn't make this stuff up.
How much wealth and power does an individual need?
That's a dumb question. Have you ever heard of a term "Hoarding?"
When FEDs implemented QE, we should have increased the tax. When you make that much US$, we should have known that most of it will just go to the top 1%. And top1% will use that money to extract more money from the rest.
I am surprised to realize that not many people know the phrase "Mo money gets Mo money."
Have you ever heard of a term "Hoarding?"
I do it myself. I call it investing for retirement, but not by exploiting my fellow!
So. What is it that you do differently from the top 5% that you criticize? Please tell me specifics and also evidence to back this up. And I don't want to hear about the billionaires since they are not the 5% nor even the 1%...but rather the .01%.
Y
2012 Dec 28, 12:02am
There's not a single form of investment that, when broken down into individual components, cannot be traced back to some kind of human exploitation...
Maybe what you really mean is the 'degree' of human exploitation..
Have you ever heard of a term "Hoarding?"
I do it myself. I call it investing for retirement, but not by exploiting my fellow!
Y
2012 Dec 28, 1:42am
How can you achieve this without someone being exploited?
Maybe what you really mean is the 'degree' of human exploitation..
Nope. From the slave labor in China to the renter in America ALL exploitation should be stopped.
Humankind should be able to get together and solve the worlds problems.
Call me naive, ignorant, or stupid, I prefer "Idealist".
Peter P
2012 Dec 30, 3:16am
Yep. This is why I support having a wealth tax instead of an income tax. The most practical form of wealth tax is the Land Value Tax because you cannot hide real properties.
If government is the protector of wealth, tax can be seen as a form of insurance premium.
Peter P
2012 Dec 30, 3:19am
All morality arguments of taxation are based on the false assumption that equality is a virtue. This could be an artifact of democracy. In the end, we will get mediocrity.
No. We are NOT equal. Even if we are all equal, some will always be more equal.
It is either men exploiting men, or the other way around.
Patrick
2012 Dec 30, 9:22am
Yep. This is why I support having a wealth tax instead of an income tax. The most practical form of wealth tax is the Land Value Tax because you cannot hide real properties.
If government is the protector of wealth, tax can be seen as a form of insurance premium.
I agree!
A 2% annual tax on wealth alone could replace all income tax, all sales tax, and all other taxes.
2% is not too much to ask in return for hiring armed peasants (police, judicial system, national guard) willing to shoot at unarmed peasants to protect 98% of your wealth.
Especially if your investment income exceeds 2%.
Since in the past generation the US has slowed in R&D and manufacturing, the effects of the contributors kicking up to the rim of Champagne glass are the root cause of the malaise, not the wealthy.....
Dan8267
2012 Dec 30, 11:10am
How about we take 10% a year of everything over $10,000,000 in accrued wealth from the upper class? When their wealth fell below ten million they would still have enough to live fairly comfortably.
The problem isn't that some people have vast amounts of wealth. The problem is how those people got those vast amounts of wealth. The richest in our society become that rich by stealing wealth from the rest of us. The theft is legal, because the wealthy make the laws, but it's theft nonetheless. The problem is that their parasitic activities impoverish the rest of us.
For the few wealthy that made their money by inventing something or entertaining, those rich do not impoverish us and so there is no reason to begrudge them their riches. Those few wealthy actually increase our wealth as well.
But for the vast majority of the ultra-wealthy, their wealth comes from zero-sum games that cost the rest of us. The answer isn't to tax them. Under your proposal, those people would simply wastefully spend all money they acquire over the ten million on absurd luxuries. No, the answer isn't to tax them. The answer is to prevent those parasites from siphoning off our wealth in the first place. Those parasitic wealthy should not even exist in the first place.
If one's goal is to make more and more, is there anything wrong with that?
Is snorting more and more coke a good idea? Could there be an addiction here?
« First « Previous Comments 19 - 58 of 100 Next » Last » Search these comments
Of all the hookers in tahoe?