patrick.net

Peter P says

debyne says

Fine, so tax the super rich at a higher tax rate. The only people I know of that "got lucky" are famous or in the news or mostly anecdotes from people on this board.

Who is to decide what is rich or super rich? To foster an entrepreneurial society, not even the sky should be the limit. Extreme success is the best incentive for innovation and risk-taking.

We must not put an actual or even philosophical cap to potential payouts.

Believe me, I'd assume no income tax at all and just make everything consumption-tax-based. But to live in a world of reality where gov't is way too big and we have to pay our ridiculous bills somehow, I'd be ok with taxing people more that earn over $5M per year or something.

debyne says

Believe me, I'd assume no income tax at all and just make everything consumption-tax-based. But to live in a world of reality where gov't is way too big and we have to pay our ridiculous bills somehow, I'd be ok with taxing people more that earn over $5M per year or something.

And believe me, once that $5M arbitrary level is there, it will be lowered until it seems "fair" to the *average* person.

I am more open to consumption-based taxation and even taxation through inflation. I do not have much sympathy towards savers anyway. They should be out there trading/investing/consuming.

It seems all the growing countries (USA, China, etc) have a long and fat tail on the right side of the income distribution curve. Countries with less skew/kurtosis are not faring that well (Japan, Euro Zone, etc).

debyne says

Dan8267 says

I think we've all thoroughly debunked the thesis of the original post.

"I know people who inherited sizeable sums of money and never had to work a day in their life. Therefore, let's assume all people with money didn't have to work harder than the next guy, so let's rob from the rich and give to the poor."

You haven't debunked anything...all you put up are straw man arguments.

None of my arguments even mention inheritance. It is you who is putting up straw man arguments.

debyne says

You haven't debunked anything

Tell that to Edgar Codd.

Peter P says

Economics ought to be morally neutral, but that is another story.

Morality isn't about religion. Morality is a system of rules and guidelines that enable cooperation. Without cooperation, there can be no economy. So, yes, morality is an important aspect of economics.

The world is better off when everyone isn't trying to fuck over everyone else. More cooperation means more wealth for everyone. Zero sum games destroy cooperation, productivity, and therefore destroy wealth.

Dan8267 says

debyne says

You haven't debunked anything

Tell that to Edgar Codd.

Inventors are not nearly as important as the salesmen. Ideas are a dime a dozen but getting them accepted by the public is the key.

Genghis Khan probably did not invent paper money but he circulated it widely.

Nicholas Tesla is the biggest loser of all.

Peter P says

Ideas are a dime a dozen but getting them accepted by the public is the key.

No, implementing them is the real value. Here's an example. I have an idea: let's cure cancer. Yeah, the public is all for it. I've done my part, now why don't you go and implement that idea already you lazy ass employee.

Peter P says

Nicholas Tesla is the biggest loser of all.

And that comment is why the opinions of people like you on any subject matter is worthless.

Dan8267 says

The world is better off when everyone isn't trying to fuck over everyone else. More cooperation means more wealth for everyone. Zero sum games destroy cooperation, productivity, and therefore destroy wealth.

There needs to be integrity. Fraud must not be permitted. However, competition is the driver of progress. Cooperation will still occur as a form of temporary alliance.

A game may be zero-sum, but playing it can bring real value. Otherwise, why play chess?

Peter P says

A game may be zero-sum, but playing it can bring real value.

By definition of zero-sum, no. And we're talking economics, not leisure.

Dan8267 says

No, implementing them is the real value. Here's an example. I have an idea: let's cure cancer. Yeah, the public is all for it. I've done my part, now why don't you go and implement that idea already you lazy ass employee.

Curing cancer will always be a passion for some, and progress will be made. However, this is meaningful only at the individual level. Individuals and companies are more than capable of delivering innovations.

Dan8267 says

By definition of zero-sum, no. And we're talking economics, not leisure.

It is the same thing. Life is a game. It would be sad if we do not have fun.

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

Nicholas Tesla is the biggest loser of all.

And that comment is why the opinions of people like you on any subject matter is worthless.

Everybody wants to be in the shoes of Thomas Edison instead.

dodgerfanjohn says

Not saying those people don't exist...most certainly the do us has Paris Hilton

Even Paris Hilton is mostly self made, Reality was saying a while back that she would not have a fraction of what she has now if only from inheritance.

"But the question of what counts as “self-made” is now in the political spotlight after President Barack Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comments and attacks on Mitt Romney’s family privilege.

United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member. (Read more: Millionaire Parents Say Kids Are Not Fit to Inherit)

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.

How do you define “self-made” wealth? Can you inherit your dad’s company and still be self-made?"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533

Peter P says

It seems all the growing countries (USA, China, etc) have a long and fat tail

But they are coincident with QE, there is no magic

When I think of wealthy people, I think of real estate and health care.

These are wealth extraction sectors here, compared to other countries with lower costs and thus lower economic rents being hoovered up by a relative few. Lots of rent-seeking, precious little capitalism going on now. And these sectors amount to over HALF our wages!

No problem here. Move along.

The true cause of poverty is that people aren't equal, amplified by the fact that people aren't equally connected. Poverty won't be eliminated by policy; it will be eliminated by human evolution. Wait times may be lengthy. Sigh.

The reality is that if someone wants to improve themselves they have to find out what is wanted and produce it. Entrepreneurs are exceptional at this.

Anything to the contrary is just a bunch of propaganda people adopt to use as an excuse not to try.

indigenous says

The reality is that if someone wants to improve themselves they have to find out what is wanted and produce it.

Someone with no resources (including credit rating) can't produce anything. They probably can't even determine what is wanted. Wish it wasn't so, but we're talking an insurmountable challenge nine-point-nine times out of ten.

Howdy There says

Someone with no resources (including credit rating) can't produce anything. They probably can't even determine what is wanted.

I don't agree, in fact that is the propaganda that the left wants you to believe.

In any case anyone anywhere can DO something to improve their situation, and that is a fact.

Dan8267 says

It is you who is putting up straw man arguments.

Such as?

jazz music says

You focused on it, you arrogant prick.

No I didn't...I just mentioned it. You're the one who keeps focusing on it.

Howdy There says

indigenous says

The reality is that if someone wants to improve themselves they have to find out what is wanted and produce it.

Someone with no resources (including credit rating) can't produce anything. They probably can't even determine what is wanted. Wish it wasn't so, but we're talking an insurmountable challenge nine-point-nine times out of ten.

It does not take much to publish a book nowadays. Determining what is wanted is a matter of curiosity and the want to improve oneself. There is also a need to seek mentors, not "friends" who will say whatever you want to hear. 99% of the challenges can be overcome from within.

Howdy There says

The true cause of poverty is that people aren't equal, amplified by the fact that people aren't equally connected.

Also, poverty exists because people are labelled as such. This encourages the development and persistence of bad values.

"Once you label me you negate me."
-- Søren Kierkegaard

Peter P says

99% of the challenges can be overcome from within.

Sactly

Peter P says

Howdy There says

indigenous says

The reality is that if someone wants to improve themselves they have to find out what is wanted and produce it.

Someone with no resources (including credit rating) can't produce anything. They probably can't even determine what is wanted. Wish it wasn't so, but we're talking an insurmountable challenge nine-point-nine times out of ten.

It does not take much to publish a book nowadays. Determining what is wanted is a matter of curiosity and the want to improve oneself. There is also a need to seek mentors, not "friends" who will say whatever you want to hear. 99% of the challenges can be overcome from within.

Well if that's the case it should be no problem at all for you to overcome your relative poverty and join the 0.001%

Just grab your bootstraps and get to work and you'll be surroundimg yourself with montreal hookers aboard one of your many yachts

New Renter says

Well if that's the case it should be no problem at all for you to overcome your relative poverty and join the 0.001%

Just grab your bootstraps and get to work...

It should be everyone's goal to keep moving up. The most dangerous thing in life is aiming too low. Fail fast and fail up.

Then again, not everyone can reach his goal, and that is fine. The world will benefit from us trying.

Peter P says

The world will benefit from us trying.

Ah yes, Kim Jong Il's personal mantra.

New Renter says

Peter P says

The world will benefit from us trying.

Ah yes, Kim Jong Il's personal mantra.

That guy's comedic talent is unmatched.

When is The Interview coming out? Can't wait to see it.

Peter P says

The solution to the poverty problem is to emphasize the piety of wealth.

If people want to live better, they must have the right belief systems.

I'll ask the logic question again. Is it theoretically possible that if everyone had the necessary beliefs that there would be close to zero poverty ? Or even far less poverty?

marcus says

Peter P says

The solution to the poverty problem is to emphasize the piety of wealth.

If people want to live better, they must have the right belief systems.

I'll ask the logic question again. Is it theoretically possible that if everyone had the necessary beliefs that there would be close to zero poverty ? Or even far less poverty?

Why does that matter?

Peter P says

Why does that matter?

LEt me get this straight. You talk about the cause of poverty, and the solution to poverty, and then you ask, why does it matter if you're full of shit and don't even believe the nonsense you're spouting ?

I guess you have a point. But unlike you, I wasn't trolling. I thought maybe you really believed your nonsense.

marcus says

LEt me get this straight. YOu talk about the cause of poverty, and the solution to poverty, and then you ask, does it matter if you're full of shit and don't even believe the nonsense you're spouting ?

Everyone has his own reality, influenced by his values and belief system. That is all that matters. Whether there is zero poverty, or 3.14% poverty, or any percentage is an arbitrary concept in the mind of otherwise unemployable social "scientists."

Ah, I see you're above seriously answering the question. Funny that such a psuedo intellect who spews nonsensical meaningless generalizations about peoples realities would also talk about social scientists being unemployable.

Let me guess. You're a fan of "the secret." "Think and grow rich," perhaps ?

"The Secret" is no secret. Even if you disagree on the operating principles of the universe, you must agree that positive thinking brings positive result.

Of course attitude and beliefs are hugely important to the individual.

But they have nothing to do with the general cause of poverty in society.

There's a reason you people are having neural spats of meaningless angerism...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/OvEKT8X3Bko

marcus says

Of course attitude and beliefs are hugely important to the individual.

But they have nothing to do with the general cause of poverty in society.

The general cause is just a matter of collective beliefs.

prodigy says

There's a reason you people are having neural spats of meaningless angerism...

Astrologically, we are living in interesting times.

Peter P says

The general cause is just a matter of collective beliefs.

SO was it the collective beliefs of slaves in the US that ended slavery ?