3 ms·

You should be focused on bringing people up and creating wealth, not keeping people down and destroying it. All that does is make everyone equally poor. Wealth

You should be focused on bringing people up and creating wealth, not keeping people down and destroying it. All that does is make everyone equally poor. Wealth is created by providing value, with other people willingly paying you in return for goods and services. Nothing is losing anything. You can also take risks and get rewarded. That's what individual freedom and capitalism provides. Otherwise are you going to also cover the losses of every failed business? > "Why are you interested in keeping billionaires rich? ... Are you really so insulted at the idea of sharing the wealth?" This is a ridiculous non-sequitur. Some will always be richer than others. As long as the minimum standard of living is raised, there is no need to envy and take from those at the top.

w1nst0nsm1th 7y ago
The middle class in america is shrinking because of inequal wealth redistribution. Super riches amass more and more wealth through their stored wealth, while the revenues of the middle class lose its purchasing power because of that "controlled" inflation which never allow salaries to rise despise the rise of price of goods, or if you prefer, the cost of living. What created the middle class in America and western world was created thanks to redistribution of wealth through a tax sheme taxing you more according to your wealth, and these taxe paying for public expense, like medical care, instruction, public infrastructure and so on. Neo-liberal policies and tax reform removed that burden from the wealthiest and cut "public funding" shifting the cost of services assumed once by a strong State to individuals, like instruction. That's how wealthiest are now allowed to accumulate more and more wealth, and middle class is burdened under a crippling amount of debt. 15 years ago, Bill Gates wealth was "only" 50 billions. Now it's 100. And in 20 years it will be 200. On the other end, diabetics are dying because they have to save on insuline shots, people affected by cancer has to fill for bankrupties because of the cost of their treatment, people avoid visiting the doctor for serious issues unless it's a matter of life or death. Cuba has a better life expectancy rate than the Us.
lidHanteyk 7y ago
Please provide some motivation for your metaphysics beyond "I am a greedy person and expect that my greediness will be rewarded heavily." Risk requires leverage, requires investment, requires confidence and evidence. Ultimately, the public at large bears the costs of large investments gone wrong. Why should the public subsidize the risks undertaken by a self-selected few people? Whether they're narcissists, sociopaths, or stupid, there's no inherent right of people to take capital and burn it to the ground in pursuit of some particular ideological end or material goal. You may recall the phrase "negative externality" from economics class. "there is no need to envy and take" is such aristocratic fluff. Taxation is not an illegal or immoral appropriation of property; it is a basic condition of citizenship, a civic duty akin to voting or jury duty.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Why should the public profit from the successes undertaken by a self-selected few people? There's no inherent right of people to take other people's money and burn it to the ground in pursuit of some particular ideological end or material goal. If you want to take from the winners then you need to cover the losers. Now we could have a nice balance (reasonable taxes spent well for the public good) where both sides benefit but if you want to go extreme at the top then don't expect everything to work out. Either way, nobody has yet answered the question I've asked a dozen times: How does a govt poorly spending trillions get fixed by spending a few more billion?
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Oh, you're an Objectivist! I see. Unfortunately, I do not respect you. Recall that rights are social constructions. Then, there is no inherent right to private property, personal belongings, or peculiaria. It is granted by the public ("people") to members of the public ("other people"). The question you want answered is hopelessly uninformed. The government's spending appears poor because it is done publically, transparently, and by committee. You are complaining about the fact that sausage comes from sausage factories. In contrast, you might think that a corporation is good at spending money, but in fact, corporations are only good at appearing to be good at spending money. Let me spell that lesson out more clearly for you: Corporations are not good at anything besides appearances. So I would say that your question is begged; the government is doing the best that it can do under the circumstances. If you don't like how it's happening, elect better representatives.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Corporations need to make a profit and voluntarily be paid by people for delivering value. Governments force people to pay and can spend as much as they want. They are diametrically opposed in how they spend. But that wasn't the question, and as expected you haven't provided an answer although you hinted at what I've been saying all along near the end. The reality is that the more taxes won't make a difference, only a change in incentives.
- 7y ago

w1nst0nsm1th 7y ago

The middle class in america is shrinking because of inequal wealth redistribution. Super riches amass more and more wealth through their stored wealth, while the revenues of the middle class lose its purchasing power because of that "controlled" inflation which never allow salaries to rise despise the rise of price of goods, or if you prefer, the cost of living. What created the middle class in America and western world was created thanks to redistribution of wealth through a tax sheme taxing you more according to your wealth, and these taxe paying for public expense, like medical care, instruction, public infrastructure and so on. Neo-liberal policies and tax reform removed that burden from the wealthiest and cut "public funding" shifting the cost of services assumed once by a strong State to individuals, like instruction. That's how wealthiest are now allowed to accumulate more and more wealth, and middle class is burdened under a crippling amount of debt. 15 years ago, Bill Gates wealth was "only" 50 billions. Now it's 100. And in 20 years it will be 200. On the other end, diabetics are dying because they have to save on insuline shots, people affected by cancer has to fill for bankrupties because of the cost of their treatment, people avoid visiting the doctor for serious issues unless it's a matter of life or death. Cuba has a better life expectancy rate than the Us.

lidHanteyk 7y ago

Please provide some motivation for your metaphysics beyond "I am a greedy person and expect that my greediness will be rewarded heavily." Risk requires leverage, requires investment, requires confidence and evidence. Ultimately, the public at large bears the costs of large investments gone wrong. Why should the public subsidize the risks undertaken by a self-selected few people? Whether they're narcissists, sociopaths, or stupid, there's no inherent right of people to take capital and burn it to the ground in pursuit of some particular ideological end or material goal. You may recall the phrase "negative externality" from economics class. "there is no need to envy and take" is such aristocratic fluff. Taxation is not an illegal or immoral appropriation of property; it is a basic condition of citizenship, a civic duty akin to voting or jury duty.

manigandham 7y ago
Why should the public profit from the successes undertaken by a self-selected few people? There's no inherent right of people to take other people's money and burn it to the ground in pursuit of some particular ideological end or material goal. If you want to take from the winners then you need to cover the losers. Now we could have a nice balance (reasonable taxes spent well for the public good) where both sides benefit but if you want to go extreme at the top then don't expect everything to work out. Either way, nobody has yet answered the question I've asked a dozen times: How does a govt poorly spending trillions get fixed by spending a few more billion?
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Oh, you're an Objectivist! I see. Unfortunately, I do not respect you. Recall that rights are social constructions. Then, there is no inherent right to private property, personal belongings, or peculiaria. It is granted by the public ("people") to members of the public ("other people"). The question you want answered is hopelessly uninformed. The government's spending appears poor because it is done publically, transparently, and by committee. You are complaining about the fact that sausage comes from sausage factories. In contrast, you might think that a corporation is good at spending money, but in fact, corporations are only good at appearing to be good at spending money. Let me spell that lesson out more clearly for you: Corporations are not good at anything besides appearances. So I would say that your question is begged; the government is doing the best that it can do under the circumstances. If you don't like how it's happening, elect better representatives.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Corporations need to make a profit and voluntarily be paid by people for delivering value. Governments force people to pay and can spend as much as they want. They are diametrically opposed in how they spend. But that wasn't the question, and as expected you haven't provided an answer although you hinted at what I've been saying all along near the end. The reality is that the more taxes won't make a difference, only a change in incentives.
7y ago