Class warfare

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Well, the economists say all hours are equal, so that is one way.

However, with the Market Value of Labor being so entrenched, causing time measurement to be hard, and the time distortion for ideal economic value transfers to not actually work in the real world the answer is the increase in wealth beyond the cost to produce it is what economists call "rent" (rent is payment beyond the value created) but we all call profit is the aggregate of the value the workers created but were not paid for.

Therefore, all the profits are how the value is measured.

So using an economist's definition, an hour of my worthless ass digging a random hole in the desert has the same value as an hour of President Biden negotiating with Putin to keep the world from entering war. That seems like a pretty dumb definition.

But using your definition of profits = value is something that we could probably work with, but it, too, seems fraught with problems.

If I work 5 years for a startup, and the company eventually fails and earns no profit, do I not deserve to earn a salary? Is my value worthless?

Or what if the startup is wildly successful. A company of 20 people create a brilliant product that results in millions of dollars in profits. How is that value split amongst the workers? The economists would claim all hours are equal. But what if I just sat in my office, researched my fantasy football team, and posted on the Swill? I logged hours, but do I deserve an equal amount of profit?

And let's throw in to question the initial assumption that my startup "earned" people money. Setup a business? Open a store? You’re just exploiting other’s needs or wants. You’re not earning shit. If you mean by patenting a product or invention, that basically means selling your intellectual property. How can you earn money just by charging people who use your idea?

Let's go really left field. Maybe a bank robber earned his riches by planning it carefully and taking penitentiary risks. You’re not gonna touch his money cause he earned it?

No, I'm afraid these definitions you seek are wholly objective and emotional. They are the words tossed around by people who scheme to take wealth from others.

I'm going to stick with what the economists who justify the Free-Market Systems say, which I have already said.

As far as I can tell, no one has been able to create a single theory of economics which works universally.

Thus, as a practical matter, taxes on profits, with higher taxes on higher profits, seems to be a practical system for imperfect understandings.

If your economy "crashes" because rich folks don't invest enough then your economy is already broke. Sure, investment is good. Hell I encourage it. It is good for the economy. But when your economy transforms into it's health nearly 100% dependant on Apple meeting "it's" stock goals, then the system is fucked beyong belief. Those investors and american oligarchs have now have control of the system. They will manipulate everything in their power to meet those goals. And that means less for you be it in wages, benefits, and accessibility. There's a reason the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. And it's not because the rich have decided the should have less.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:I'm relatively sure that our tax system already defines earned vs unearned income. As I recall, it also gives a preferential rate to unearned income, which seems backwards to me, but I could have that wrong.

Unearned income is income not acquired through work. Examples of unearned income, also known as passive income, include interest from savings accounts, bond interest, alimony, and dividends from stocks.

So an individual who takes a risk by investing their post-tax income into stocks or bonds, in your opinion, deserves to be taxed again at a higher rate than the initial income tax?

Congratulations. Your economy just crashed and we're all living in a post-apocalyptic barter system. Your idea is the financial version of dying of dysentery. Please play again.

The economy worked without the affects you are citing just fine from 1942 until 1964. Just saying.

kingstonlake wrote:If your economy "crashes" because rich folks don't invest enough then your economy is already broke. Sure, investment is good. Hell I encourage it. It is good for the economy. But when your economy transforms into it's health nearly 100% dependant on Apple meeting "it's" stock goals, then the system is fucked beyong belief. Those investors and american oligarchs have now have control of the system. They will manipulate everything in their power to meet those goals. And that means less for you be it in wages, benefits, and accessibility. There's a reason the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. And it's not because the rich have decided the should have less.

I will agree with you that technological advancements over the past 25-30 years have created a short term focus on "meeting numbers" that is unhealthy for our economy. I'm not sure how you put that genie back in the bottle, but it is what it is.

If the wealthy don't invest in enough in your economy, you don't have an economy. Period. Full stop. And while your post focused on the wealthy investing, we should also be encouraging the non-wealthy to invest, so as to better their socioeconomic standing, and provide a base for a healthy retirement. Too many lower and middle class people struggle to invest now. Increasing the capital gains tax to be even higher than the income tax will decimate those people and condemn them to a life of poverty and an inability to "move up" the social ladder.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Unearned income is income not acquired through work. Examples of unearned income, also known as passive income, include interest from savings accounts, bond interest, alimony, and dividends from stocks.

So an individual who takes a risk by investing their post-tax income into stocks or bonds, in your opinion, deserves to be taxed again at a higher rate than the initial income tax?

Congratulations. Your economy just crashed and we're all living in a post-apocalyptic barter system. Your idea is the financial version of dying of dysentery. Please play again.

The economy worked without the affects you are citing just fine from 1942 until 1964. Just saying.

So all we need is a catastrophic world war, an authoritarian leader, and an unprecedented ability to be an industrial super power in a country untouched by the ravages of said war, and your example will work great.

Cool idea, man.

btw - you are attempting to measure value person by person in your word salad of hypotheticals.

This is the result of the use of the paradigms of a Free Market System of labor ...

This theory is in opposition to the American creed that "all men are created equal" and has significant political effects.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:  

The economy worked without the affects you are citing just fine from 1942 until 1964.  Just saying.

So all we need is a catastrophic world war, an authoritarian leader, and an unprecedented ability to be an industrial super power in a country untouched by the ravages of said war, and your example will work great.

Cool idea, man.

I disagree. history, at least the 50,000-foot level, is not economics.  We have a very recent history of the effects of returning the value to those who created it, the economic and income growth rates of 2021.

Trapper Gus wrote:btw - you are attempting to measure value person by person in your word salad of hypotheticals.

This is the result of the use of the paradigms of a Free Market System of labor ...

This theory is in opposition to the American creed that "all men are created equal" and has significant political effects.

So does implementing a wealth tax, or taking away someone's right to defend their home. We deal with "significant political effects" every day.

And again, you're veering into the absurd if the basis of your claim is that "all men are created equal." You and I both know that is not the case. A case can be made that the law should treat them that way, but reality is far different.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

So all we need is a catastrophic world war, an authoritarian leader, and an unprecedented ability to be an industrial super power in a country untouched by the ravages of said war, and your example will work great.

Cool idea, man.

I disagree. history, at least the 50,000-foot level, is not economics.  We have a very recent history of the effects of returning the value to those who created it, the economic and income growth rates of 2021.

So.... massive inflation?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:btw - you are attempting to measure value person by person in your word salad of hypotheticals.  

This is the result of the use of the paradigms of a Free Market System of labor ...

This theory is in opposition to the American creed that "all men are created equal" and has significant political effects.

So does implementing a wealth tax, or taking away someone's right to defend their home.  We deal with "significant political effects" every day.

And again, you're veering into the absurd if the basis of your claim is that "all men are created equal."  You and I both know that is not the case.  A case can be made that the law should treat them that way, but reality is far different.

I find your constant jumping from one argument to another argument confusing, since some of your arguments seeming contradict other of your arguments, however I will try to keep answering as best as I can.

As I see it, you are now arguing that we should have the rule of the country turned over to those we somehow determine are better than the rest, as you are disavowing the "all men are created equal" creed.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I disagree. history, at least the 50,000-foot level, is not economics.  We have a very recent history of the effects of returning the value to those who created it, the economic and income growth rates of 2021.

So.... massive inflation?

Economists say it is temporary, so there is that. Also, to put some context on it, we had deflation the year before, basically we are seeing prices jump around due to the economic shocks caused by covid. However, we are also seeing that the economy has been demand constrained due to "rent" taking by the rich, and once that was adjusted by payments to the 99% the economic growth was significant.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

So does implementing a wealth tax, or taking away someone's right to defend their home.  We deal with "significant political effects" every day.

And again, you're veering into the absurd if the basis of your claim is that "all men are created equal."  You and I both know that is not the case.  A case can be made that the law should treat them that way, but reality is far different.

I find your constant jumping from one argument to another argument confusing, since some of your arguments seeming contradict other of your arguments, however I will try to keep answering as best as I can.

As I see it, you are now arguing that we should have the rule of the country turned over to those we somehow determine are better than the rest, as you are disavowing the "all men are created equal" creed.

Right back at ya, Mr. Philosophy.

I'm making no such argument. I would like to stick to the discussion of class warfare and wealth taxation/confiscation. I took exception to your claim that the wealthy did not earn their rewards. You provided some definitions. I've noted a few inconsistencies in your assertions.

I think perhaps you were correct when you implied that there are no perfect definitions and the "science" of economics is mostly bullshit.

When we discuss taxation with emotion, we lose sight of what's important: funding the government while causing the least amount of harm to the economy.

I don't care if it passes someone's idea of fairness, or if it upholds someone's idea of American values, or if everyone gets what they deserve.  And I don't fall for hysterical warnings that people will stop investing or working because of a tax hike.  

Take the word "punitive", an emotional word often used in tax discussions.  Certain pundits and politicians often say that it's punitive to tax higher-income people at a higher rate.  But I never hear them bring up the fact that work is taxed at higher rates than investment and inheritance.  Wouldn't that also be punitive?

So instead of using emotional appeals, we should be asking how to fund the government in a way that works best for the economy.  I favor a strongly graduated income tax that treats investment and inheritance income the same as earned income.  I'm not opposed to a wealth tax, but I haven't looked into it.  I am opposed to the national sales tax ideas I've heard, as it would require many adjustments to keep that tax from being regressive.

I also think we should eliminate the 2017 corporate tax cut, as it sells our incredible consumer market at a very cheap price.  This is a country where every corporation wants to do business; we don't need to compete with tiny nations for the lowest corporate tax rate.  It weakens our consumer market to push more of the tax burden onto the consumers, so it's a bad move in the long term.  

This is a general view, based not on a desire to punish or harm anyone, but only to adequately fund the government without weakening the demand that makes us the most powerful economy on the planet.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:If your economy "crashes" because rich folks don't invest enough then your economy is already broke. Sure, investment is good. Hell I encourage it. It is good for the economy. But when your economy transforms into it's health nearly 100% dependant on Apple meeting "it's" stock goals, then the system is fucked beyong belief. Those investors and american oligarchs have now have control of the system. They will manipulate everything in their power to meet those goals. And that means less for you be it in wages, benefits, and accessibility. There's a reason the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. And it's not because the rich have decided the should have less.

I will agree with you that technological advancements over the past 25-30 years have created a short term focus on "meeting numbers" that is unhealthy for our economy. I'm not sure how you put that genie back in the bottle, but it is what it is.

If the wealthy don't invest in enough in your economy, you don't have an economy. Period. Full stop. And while your post focused on the wealthy investing, we should also be encouraging the non-wealthy to invest, so as to better their socioeconomic standing, and provide a base for a healthy retirement. Too many lower and middle class people struggle to invest now. Increasing the capital gains tax to be even higher than the income tax will decimate those people and condemn them to a life of poverty and an inability to "move up" the social ladder.

Who represents the low to middle income people in the lobbyist field? I think we both know the finacial markets, oil, energy, and large corporations are well represented. The larger the income and investing gap the quicker that pot boils or blows. And you ain't putting the genie back in the bottle. Enough is enough.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:When we discuss taxation with emotion, we lose sight of what's important: funding the government while causing the least amount of harm to the economy.

I don't care if it passes someone's idea of fairness, or if it upholds someone's idea of American values, or if everyone gets what they deserve.  And I don't fall for hysterical warnings that people will stop investing or working because of a tax hike.  

Take the word "punitive", an emotional word often used in tax discussions.  Certain pundits and politicians often say that it's punitive to tax higher-income people at a higher rate.  But I never hear them bring up the fact that work is taxed at higher rates than investment and inheritance.  Wouldn't that also be punitive?

So instead of using emotional appeals, we should be asking how to fund the government in a way that works best for the economy.  I favor a strongly graduated income tax that treats investment and inheritance income the same as earned income.  I'm not opposed to a wealth tax, but I haven't looked into it.  I am opposed to the national sales tax ideas I've heard, as it would require many adjustments to keep that tax from being regressive.

I also think we should eliminate the 2017 corporate tax cut, as it sells our incredible consumer market at a very cheap price.  This is a country where every corporation wants to do business; we don't need to compete with tiny nations for the lowest corporate tax rate.  It weakens our consumer market to push more of the tax burden onto the consumers, so it's a bad move in the long term.  

This is a general view, based not on a desire to punish or harm anyone, but only to adequately fund the government without weakening the demand that makes us the most powerful economy on the planet.

If you don't care about what's fair, and just want to fund the government and economy, then you would probably be OK with bringing back slavery?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:When we discuss taxation with emotion, we lose sight of what's important: funding the government while causing the least amount of harm to the economy.

I don't care if it passes someone's idea of fairness, or if it upholds someone's idea of American values, or if everyone gets what they deserve.  And I don't fall for hysterical warnings that people will stop investing or working because of a tax hike.  

Take the word "punitive", an emotional word often used in tax discussions.  Certain pundits and politicians often say that it's punitive to tax higher-income people at a higher rate.  But I never hear them bring up the fact that work is taxed at higher rates than investment and inheritance.  Wouldn't that also be punitive?

So instead of using emotional appeals, we should be asking how to fund the government in a way that works best for the economy.  I favor a strongly graduated income tax that treats investment and inheritance income the same as earned income.  I'm not opposed to a wealth tax, but I haven't looked into it.  I am opposed to the national sales tax ideas I've heard, as it would require many adjustments to keep that tax from being regressive.

I also think we should eliminate the 2017 corporate tax cut, as it sells our incredible consumer market at a very cheap price.  This is a country where every corporation wants to do business; we don't need to compete with tiny nations for the lowest corporate tax rate.  It weakens our consumer market to push more of the tax burden onto the consumers, so it's a bad move in the long term.  

This is a general view, based not on a desire to punish or harm anyone, but only to adequately fund the government without weakening the demand that makes us the most powerful economy on the planet.

If you don't care about what's fair, and just want to fund the government and economy, then you would probably be OK with bringing back slavery?

No. Next question!

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

If you don't care about what's fair, and just want to fund the government and economy, then you would probably be OK with bringing back slavery?

No. Next question!

It's OK. It doesn't just have to be black people. We can enslave others, too.

I mean - it meets your definition perfectly. It's not fair, but it sure would zoom up the economy.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I find your constant jumping from one argument to another argument confusing, since some of your arguments seeming contradict other of your arguments, however I will try to keep answering as best as I can.

As I see it, you are now arguing that we should have the rule of the country turned over to those we somehow determine are better than the rest, as you are disavowing the "all men are created equal" creed.

Right back at ya, Mr. Philosophy.  

I'm making no such argument.  I would like to stick to the discussion of class warfare and wealth taxation/confiscation.  I took exception to your claim that the wealthy did not earn their rewards.  You provided some definitions.  I've noted a few inconsistencies in your assertions.

I think perhaps you were correct when you implied that there are no perfect definitions and the "science" of economics is mostly bullshit.

It is always important to understand the total results of a position.

The tenor of your positions thus far is that "might makes right", which is a position which has been argued from centuries.

My argument is opposed to that.

edit - to call any field of study a name means you have lost an argument.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:When we discuss taxation with emotion, we lose sight of what's important: funding the government while causing the least amount of harm to the economy.

I don't care if it passes someone's idea of fairness, or if it upholds someone's idea of American values, or if everyone gets what they deserve.  And I don't fall for hysterical warnings that people will stop investing or working because of a tax hike.  

Take the word "punitive", an emotional word often used in tax discussions.  Certain pundits and politicians often say that it's punitive to tax higher-income people at a higher rate.  But I never hear them bring up the fact that work is taxed at higher rates than investment and inheritance.  Wouldn't that also be punitive?

So instead of using emotional appeals, we should be asking how to fund the government in a way that works best for the economy.  I favor a strongly graduated income tax that treats investment and inheritance income the same as earned income.  I'm not opposed to a wealth tax, but I haven't looked into it.  I am opposed to the national sales tax ideas I've heard, as it would require many adjustments to keep that tax from being regressive.

I also think we should eliminate the 2017 corporate tax cut, as it sells our incredible consumer market at a very cheap price.  This is a country where every corporation wants to do business; we don't need to compete with tiny nations for the lowest corporate tax rate.  It weakens our consumer market to push more of the tax burden onto the consumers, so it's a bad move in the long term.  

This is a general view, based not on a desire to punish or harm anyone, but only to adequately fund the government without weakening the demand that makes us the most powerful economy on the planet.

The last year has shown that the economy grows faster if labor gets a larger slice of the pie. Admittedly, with years of repression due to low wages, labor threw a buying party, which is partly the cause of inflation.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:When we discuss taxation with emotion, we lose sight of what's important: funding the government while causing the least amount of harm to the economy.

I don't care if it passes someone's idea of fairness, or if it upholds someone's idea of American values, or if everyone gets what they deserve.  And I don't fall for hysterical warnings that people will stop investing or working because of a tax hike.  

Take the word "punitive", an emotional word often used in tax discussions.  Certain pundits and politicians often say that it's punitive to tax higher-income people at a higher rate.  But I never hear them bring up the fact that work is taxed at higher rates than investment and inheritance.  Wouldn't that also be punitive?

So instead of using emotional appeals, we should be asking how to fund the government in a way that works best for the economy.  I favor a strongly graduated income tax that treats investment and inheritance income the same as earned income.  I'm not opposed to a wealth tax, but I haven't looked into it.  I am opposed to the national sales tax ideas I've heard, as it would require many adjustments to keep that tax from being regressive.

I also think we should eliminate the 2017 corporate tax cut, as it sells our incredible consumer market at a very cheap price.  This is a country where every corporation wants to do business; we don't need to compete with tiny nations for the lowest corporate tax rate.  It weakens our consumer market to push more of the tax burden onto the consumers, so it's a bad move in the long term.  

This is a general view, based not on a desire to punish or harm anyone, but only to adequately fund the government without weakening the demand that makes us the most powerful economy on the planet.

The last year has shown that the economy grows faster if labor gets a larger slice of the pie.

I've always found it interesting that when our elected officials need an economic stimulus, even Republicans go for demand-centered policies. It sort of undermines their supply-side rhetoric, but they never get questioned about it.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

No. Next question!

It's OK. It doesn't just have to be black people. We can enslave others, too.

I mean - it meets your definition perfectly. It's not fair, but it sure would zoom up the economy.

That's not a tax policy. Also, not paying workers isn't beneficial to our consumer market.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Right back at ya, Mr. Philosophy.

I'm making no such argument. I would like to stick to the discussion of class warfare and wealth taxation/confiscation. I took exception to your claim that the wealthy did not earn their rewards. You provided some definitions. I've noted a few inconsistencies in your assertions.

I think perhaps you were correct when you implied that there are no perfect definitions and the "science" of economics is mostly bullshit.

It is always important to understand the total results of a position.

The tenor of your positions thus far is that "might makes right", which is a position which has been argued for centuries.

My argument is opposed to that.

Oh, see NOW you're on to something. You used the word "might" which implies power. Yes, the wealthy have an extreme amount of power compared to the average citizen. That's a problem that absolutely should be looked at. But I don't believe the solution is to just take away all of the wealthy's money.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

It is always important to understand the total results of a position.

The tenor of your positions thus far is that "might makes right", which is a position which has been argued for centuries.

My argument is opposed to that.

Oh, see NOW you're on to something.  You used the word "might" which implies power.  Yes, the wealthy have an extreme amount of power compared to the average citizen.  That's a problem that absolutely should be looked at.  But I don't believe the solution is to just take away all of the wealthy's money.

Few serious people are suggesting that all of their money be taken from the wealthy.

My argument, thus far, has been to use the value which was created by those who work for these wealthy and return it to those who truly earned it via government programs, such as MediCare For All.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:When we discuss taxation with emotion, we lose sight of what's important: funding the government while causing the least amount of harm to the economy.

I don't care if it passes someone's idea of fairness, or if it upholds someone's idea of American values, or if everyone gets what they deserve.  And I don't fall for hysterical warnings that people will stop investing or working because of a tax hike.  

Take the word "punitive", an emotional word often used in tax discussions.  Certain pundits and politicians often say that it's punitive to tax higher-income people at a higher rate.  But I never hear them bring up the fact that work is taxed at higher rates than investment and inheritance.  Wouldn't that also be punitive?

So instead of using emotional appeals, we should be asking how to fund the government in a way that works best for the economy.  I favor a strongly graduated income tax that treats investment and inheritance income the same as earned income.  I'm not opposed to a wealth tax, but I haven't looked into it.  I am opposed to the national sales tax ideas I've heard, as it would require many adjustments to keep that tax from being regressive.

I also think we should eliminate the 2017 corporate tax cut, as it sells our incredible consumer market at a very cheap price.  This is a country where every corporation wants to do business; we don't need to compete with tiny nations for the lowest corporate tax rate.  It weakens our consumer market to push more of the tax burden onto the consumers, so it's a bad move in the long term.  

This is a general view, based not on a desire to punish or harm anyone, but only to adequately fund the government without weakening the demand that makes us the most powerful economy on the planet.

I am more idealistic than you, in that I argue that we should have economic policies which maximize the economy, and that this requires more of the "pie" to go to labor. That is not to discount those investments in capital which are needed also.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Oh, see NOW you're on to something.  You used the word "might" which implies power.  Yes, the wealthy have an extreme amount of power compared to the average citizen.  That's a problem that absolutely should be looked at.  But I don't believe the solution is to just take away all of the wealthy's money.

Few serious people are suggesting that all of their money be taken from the wealthy.

My argument, thus far, has been to use the value which was created by those who work for these wealthy and return it to those who truly earned it via government programs, such as MediCare For All.

I don't agree with any form of wealth tax whatsoever. Any amount greater than zero is unacceptable.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Few serious people are suggesting that all of their money be taken from the wealthy.

My argument, thus far, has been to use the value which was created by those who work for these wealthy and return it to those who truly earned it via government programs, such as MediCare For All.

I don't agree with any form of wealth tax whatsoever. Any amount greater than zero is unacceptable.

Okay, a clear position.

Might makes Right and to hell with society as a whole.

Not one I would choose but you be you.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I don't agree with any form of wealth tax whatsoever. Any amount greater than zero is unacceptable.

Okay, a clear position.

Might makes Right and to hell with society as a whole.

Not one I would choose but you be you.

You are confusing wealth with power. While often related, they are distinct, separate things that should be addressed as such. There are ways to restrict power without reducing wealth. I am open to those ideas, as, I agree with you, it would better society as a whole.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Okay, a clear position.

Might makes Right and to hell with society as a whole.

Not one I would choose but you be you.

You are confusing wealth with power. While often related, they are distinct, separate things that should be addressed as such. There are ways to restrict power without reducing wealth. I am open to those ideas, as, I agree with you, it would better society as a whole.

Wealth, at least significant wealth, is power.

Furthermore, the Free-Market Labor system rewards power, not value.

Therefore, most of the existing wealth was created using power, and thus its legitimacy has to be questioned.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

You are confusing wealth with power. While often related, they are distinct, separate things that should be addressed as such. There are ways to restrict power without reducing wealth. I am open to those ideas, as, I agree with you, it would better society as a whole.

Wealth, at least significant wealth, is power.

Furthermore, the Free-Market Labor system rewards power, not value.

Therefore, most of the existing wealth was created using power, and thus its legitimacy has to be questioned.

That's categorically false and complete nonsense.

Wealth is the state of being rich; material prosperity. The fact that wealth can buy political power in this country is a problem. But wealth, in and of itself, does not provide or equate to power.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Wealth, at least significant wealth, is power.

Furthermore, the Free-Market Labor system rewards power, not value.

Therefore, most of the existing wealth was created using power, and thus its legitimacy has to be questioned.

That's categorically false and complete nonsense.

Wealth is the state of being rich; material prosperity. The fact that wealth can buy political power in this country is a problem. But wealth, in and of itself, does not provide or equate to power.

In any interaction between two people, someone who doesn't need something (aka the wealthy), and someone who does (aka the unwealthy) the wealthy person has power, not just wealth. Power cannot be separated from wealth.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

That's categorically false and complete nonsense.

Wealth is the state of being rich; material prosperity. The fact that wealth can buy political power in this country is a problem. But wealth, in and of itself, does not provide or equate to power.

In any interaction between two people, someone who doesn't need something (aka the wealthy), and someone who does (aka the unwealthy) the wealthy person has power, not just wealth. Power cannot be separated from wealth.

That's a bizarre strawman and has little to do with reality.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

In any interaction between two people, someone who doesn't need something (aka the wealthy), and someone who does (aka the unwealthy) the wealthy person has power, not just wealth.  Power cannot be separated from wealth.

That's a bizarre strawman and has little to do with reality.

Except the wealthy use it in every economic transaction they have with people who have less wealth, so not so much a strawman at all.

The Free Market Theory of Labor is completely based upon it.  So, everyone who works is on one side of this or the other.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

That's a bizarre strawman and has little to do with reality.

Except the wealthy use it in every economic transaction they have with people who have less wealth, so not so much a strawman at all.

The Free Market Theory of Labor is completely based upon it.  So, everyone who works is on one side of this or the other.

So you are purporting that there cannot be a fair and equal exchange of goods?

That's just dumb.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Except the wealthy use it in every economic transaction they have with people who have less wealth, so not so much a strawman at all.

The Free Market Theory of Labor is completely based upon it.  So, everyone who works is on one side of this or the other.

So you are purporting that there cannot be a fair and equal exchange of goods?  

That's just dumb.

Between parties of equal or nearly equal power, aka wealth, there can be.

When one party has the power of wealth over the other party in a transaction then the exchange is not a fair exchange of goods (or services).  

There is a price premium paid by the one with lessor power.

Really, this isn't rocket science.  Workers with unions, a power equaling method, are paid more near the value they create than workers without unions.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

So you are purporting that there cannot be a fair and equal exchange of goods?

That's just dumb.

Between parties of equal or nearly equal power, aka wealth, there can be.

When one party has the power of wealth over the other party in a transaction then the exchange is not fair.

That's dumb. No wonder your economic ideas are so wrong.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Between parties of equal or nearly equal power, aka wealth, there can be.

When one party has the power of wealth over the other party in a transaction then the exchange is not fair.

That's dumb. No wonder your economic ideas are so wrong.

It is pretty well known that wealthy people often pay less for items of equal value than the non-wealthy, and that the poor people of the world almost always pay more for items than those who are better off.

You lack knowledge. Also look at the edit I made to the piror post.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

That's dumb. No wonder your economic ideas are so wrong.

It is pretty well known that wealthy people often pay less for items of equal value than the non-wealthy, and that the poor people of the world almost always pay more for items than those who are better off.

You lack knowledge. Also look at the edit I made to the piror post.

Dumb. I can't even discuss this with you if that's your belief. It's just wrong.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:If the guy who's whimsy is shooting himself in space pays less of a tax rate then I do... the system is broken and I don't give a fuck if "it's UN'MERICAN" to tax wealth... he needs to pay his share. "e pluribus unum" includes the guys that can afford to pay someone to game the system or just to purchase the politicians to make their own system. Shit's broke. It needs to be fixed.

I believe the only reason the French Revolution hasn't happened in the US yet is because the dumbasses haven't realized R is voting against their best interest. If they ever get out of their own fucking way stuff will change.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:If the guy who's whimsy is shooting himself in space pays less of a tax rate then I do... the system is broken and I don't give a fuck if "it's UN'MERICAN" to tax wealth... he needs to pay his share. "e pluribus unum" includes the guys that can afford to pay someone to game the system or just to purchase the politicians to make their own system. Shit's broke. It needs to be fixed.

I believe the only reason the French Revolution hasn't happened in the US yet is because the dumbasses haven't realized R is voting against their best interest. If they ever get out of their own fucking way stuff will change.

Your post is an emotional tantrum, not a fact based argument.

It's an income tax. The wealthy pay their share of taxes based upon their income. The fact that they may have less income than their secretaries means they pay less taxes.

Pounding your fists on the table and being jealous that they have more money than you is NOT a valid reason to implement a wealth tax.

You smarmily claiming the richest people in the world actually have no income IS the EXACT reason the country need a wealth tax.
Accounting tricks do not absolve billionaires from their responsibilities.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Your post is an emotional tantrum, not a fact based argument.

It's an income tax. The wealthy pay their share of taxes based upon their income. The fact that they may have less income than their secretaries means they pay less taxes.

Pounding your fists on the table and being jealous that they have more money than you is NOT a valid reason to implement a wealth tax.

You smarmily claiming the richest people in the world actually have no income IS the EXACT reason the country need a wealth tax.
Accounting tricks do not absolve billionaires from their responsibilities.

So without going in to Trapper's philosophically incoherent ramblings, how would you implement a wealth tax? Please be as specific as possible.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:
You smarmily claiming the richest people in the world actually have no income IS the EXACT reason the country need a wealth tax.
Accounting tricks do not absolve billionaires from their responsibilities.

So without going in to Trapper's philosophically incoherent ramblings, how would you implement a wealth tax? Please be as specific as possible.

By using the IRS. duh. It's their job.