Which is why instead of our defense budget being spent on Air Force and Army toys that likely will never see the light of day, we should pay the actual men and women fighting in the armed forces a hell of a lot more than we do. I am not sure what the average combat-ready soldier makes in the US, but I know it is not much. Personally, I think if you are willing to put on that uniform and die for your country, you should be making at least $75,000 a year.antin0de wrote:
I can agree that certain professions' compensations are a bit unfair. I'm reminded of Bill Maher's stand-up, when behind him was a poster depicting a fireman, a teacher, and a soldier. The poster said "We call them our heroes... but we pay them like chumps."
LMAO - I thoroughly, completely agree about your response to this man.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
That may be what you meant. But it just sounds like your trying to talk down to an adolescent rather than form a legit debate about the subject. Yet he could be a 25 year old college student with a major in political science....but oh well....like us Americans to assume.Darth_Fleder wrote:
I was wondering how long it would take you to chime in. I disagree, however, and this aplplies to you as well. These are arguments fostered in and by the young who have had their brains indoctrinated by the school system where there are a great many leftists promoting such cures to social ills.Marconius wrote:
His age and where he goes to school are irrelevant here. He's posed an initial argument and wants intelligent debate on the issue. Stop trying to bog everything down by insisting that irrelvant questions get answers for your own benefit.
Lets all move to Cuba.
(P.S. Hahahaha...this thread has just exploded..how bootyfull my kweeayshun!!!!!)
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 09:40:06)
In the past you and I have agreed that corporate welfare is unacceptable, so no point in us debating that. We are talking about individuals here. Quite simply, and individual has a right to property legally obtained. It doesn't sound like anyone is disagreeing with that. If you say an individual has no right to property legally obtained, in part or in whole, I would like to know why. Saying, "That person has too much" is a judgement call, and government by opinion is largely to be discouraged.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The question wasn't answered because it wasn't there when I was typing my response. However, who ever said it was a right to take all that you can? Show me the right that allows people to pillage the public coffers for their own pleasure. I believe in a person's right to earn money, I believe in a person's right to gain assets. I just don't believe in a person's right to gain more assets than a whole class of people. I think there is a difference between restricting income, and restricting a person's ability to control budgets of small countries as their own money.whittsend wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS:
You didn't answer the question I asked of Xietsu any more than he did: By what RIGHT would this be done?
I think an issue many of you are forgetting about this idea of "who can possibly spend that much money?" is that people have children and want to provide for them. If most parents had enough money to get by comforatably on (2 mil, or 100 mil as the argument goes), they would put more than their fair share into the market or banks for the kids. So no matter how much you make, you can always make more and still be using it - even if that money is simply saved for use in the future.
It's easy to get lowwer wage jobs, which is more in porportation then they where making in there country. So miminum wage looks alot better than getting little money from the counrty they came from.whittsend wrote:
Really? Peculiar that so many people are beating themselves up to get here then. In any case, I wonder if someone from Camaroon would agree.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well supposly in America we have one of the hardest lands to social climb in the world.
So they aren't really climbing any where. But they are given an oppurnity to which they did not have before.
Exactly man. Exactly. It's also key that I have emboldened domestic government application of these funds. I'm all for improved education, public facilities (parks, transportation, plumbing, blah blah, etc). Maybe our debates wouldn't be so down-trodden .KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I actually have debated this concept with many people. If there was a cap, say 1 billion dollars, on the total amount someone could have as assets, how would that affect society? 1 billion dollars is a lot of money. Show me any way that a private person should need 1 billion dollars, and I will rescind my statement. Any value over that amount would be redistributed to society. Not into social welfare or "handouts". Seriously, do any of you have any idea how much of your taxes actually goes to handouts? It seems that the first response people have when they hear "taxes" or "redistribution" is handouts. More of your taxes goes to military spending than education, transportation, and social services combined. If you have a problem with the amount of money you are paying into taxes, take it up with the defense department, not social services. I don't want people living off the dole more than anyone else, but at the same time I don't want the corporate robber barons controlling our economy. The fact of the matter is, that is what's happening. When people control a large chunk of circulating money, they control the economy. All these filthy rich people that have investments in the stock market control the way the market moves. Take away people's ability to horde exorbant amounts of money, and make them redistribute it through the government. If that were the way now, 49% of your tax dollars would go to military spending. You don't want the military to get more money? Then you are a traitor, not a true patriot (I know, its a ridiculous conclusion, just like reaching the conclusion that if people want a cap on earnings, they are a communist and want people living on welfare). Instead of just shooting down the problem, why not think about it first. It is very easy to just say, no, thats not a capitalist society, no, then no one would work because they would want handouts from the government, etc. Why not give rational, intelligent thought out arguments why it would not work, instead of why you don't want it to work.
Read the whole post don't just pick and choose what you want to comment on.whittsend wrote:
Really? Peculiar that so many people are beating themselves up to get here then. In any case, I wonder if someone from Camaroon would agree.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well supposly in America we have one of the hardest lands to social climb in the world.
Of those, only an 'ethical' right could be interpreted as existing outside of government. It seems to me that you believe our rights are granted, for the most part, by government. Would you agree?Xietsu wrote:
There is no "natural" right. There are civic rights, which apply, to the effect, a preservation of established allowances within a society ; There are legal rights, which apply, to the effect, a punishment/guideline within a society (often to protect civic rights) ; there are ethical rights, which apply, to the effect, a beleaguring against "immoral" behavior (which of course, are so greatly subjective). Whittsend, you are DODGING my questions. Though, I think that's okay because I don't think you understood.
Please, tell me what types of rights are referred to in the following passage:
Some Guy a Couple Hundred Years ago who probably didn't know what he was talking about wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Indeed. I have merely created the alternative ranges because the former displays, what, in all contexts, over-indulgence need not surpass (who the fuck needs their own library in their "HOUSE"?) and the latter (100 mil) displays a respectable amount of cash as to appeal to the highly established figures in society, so that they may "continue their style of life" {that way they wouldn't feel so set back by losing all of that...excess billions.Sabertooth71 wrote:
I think an issue many of you are forgetting about this idea of "who can possibly spend that much money?" is that people have children and want to provide for them. If most parents had enough money to get by comforatably on (2 mil, or 100 mil as the argument goes), they would put more than their fair share into the market or banks for the kids. So no matter how much you make, you can always make more and still be using it - even if that money is simply saved for use in the future.
In truth, this is a concept of ethics. As I said before..."What type of over-indulgence must peopled need?"
That in no way limits the subversion of income. Although, I shall follow up with your request however useless. There are private, public, and civic rights within that pragraph. Legal rights can't be found within it because that is merely a document in which lawmakers have used to forge their legal rights, so in essence, it is a partial, incomplete portrayal of legal right as well.whittsend wrote:
Of those, only an 'ethical' right could be interpreted as existing outside of government. It seems to me that you believe our rights are granted, for the most part, by government. Would you agree?Xietsu wrote:
There is no "natural" right. There are civic rights, which apply, to the effect, a preservation of established allowances within a society ; There are legal rights, which apply, to the effect, a punishment/guideline within a society (often to protect civic rights) ; there are ethical rights, which apply, to the effect, a beleaguring against "immoral" behavior (which of course, are so greatly subjective). Whittsend, you are DODGING my questions. Though, I think that's okay because I don't think you understood.
Please, tell me what types of rights are referred to in the following passage:Some Guy a Couple Hundred Years ago who probably didn't know what he was talking about wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 09:52:10)
CAP MAXIMUM GPA: 3.75
a 3.75 GPA in college is good enough really to land pretty much any job in the field you are studying. I propose we take the top 0.25 off anyone who gets higher than a 3.75 and redistribute it to anyone under 2.49. It's not the lower tier's fault that they just aren't as smart or didn't have parents who taught them the best study skills.
No one should be studying so hard as to get a 4.0 anyway. Go drink a beer or something.
a 3.75 GPA in college is good enough really to land pretty much any job in the field you are studying. I propose we take the top 0.25 off anyone who gets higher than a 3.75 and redistribute it to anyone under 2.49. It's not the lower tier's fault that they just aren't as smart or didn't have parents who taught them the best study skills.
No one should be studying so hard as to get a 4.0 anyway. Go drink a beer or something.
I did read the whole post, and I don't agree. An observation that poor tend to stay poor tells us little. That goes for what's his names article too. It may be difficult to become a millionaire in this country, but it just isn't that hard to rise out of poverty into the middle class. I have been to 15 countries on 5 continents, many of them poor and violent. I get a kick out of people when they say how hard it is to make a decent wage here, because clearly they are just seeing what they want to see.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Read the whole post don't just pick and choose what you want to comment on.whittsend wrote:
Really? Peculiar that so many people are beating themselves up to get here then. In any case, I wonder if someone from Camaroon would agree.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well supposly in America we have one of the hardest lands to social climb in the world.
I hear Bill Gates is giving all but 0.2% of his wealth to charity. That 0.2% is for his kids, its still ment to be $10million for each of his kids though.
Haha, tell that to some of my friends at school......G3|Genius wrote:
CAP MAXIMUM GPA: 3.75
a 3.75 GPA in college is good enough really to land pretty much any job in the field you are studying. I propose we take the top 0.25 off anyone who gets higher than a 3.75 and redistribute it to anyone under 2.49. It's not the lower tier's fault that they just aren't as smart or didn't have parents who taught them the best study skills.
No one should be studying so hard as to get a 4.0 anyway. Go drink a beer or something.
The issue really is that there will always be inequality in society, whether or not an outside source comes in and tries to change that. There will be people who (based either on cultural or religious values) have those better study skills or a larger drive to do well in life.
Who am I to say when a person has too much or too little? That is a good question, and I don't know if I could make that decision. I understand where you are coming from, but I think we as a society can come up with that answer. I know that in itself is very debatable, what with the trouble our Congress has when trying to agree on anything besides patting themselves on the back, but I believe if we put the correct people (read: rational, intelligent human beings) it could happen. My question to you is, is that your only beef with the idea?whittsend wrote:
In the past you and I have agreed that corporate welfare is unacceptable, so no point in us debating that. We are talking about individuals here. Quite simply, and individual has a right to property legally obtained. It doesn't sound like anyone is disagreeing with that. If you say an individual has no right to property legally obtained, in part or in whole, I would like to know why. Saying, "That person has too much" is a judgement call, and government by opinion is largely to be discouraged.
Thus, we debate it here (and clarify how rational of a stance this can actually be).KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Who am I to say when a person has too much or too little? That is a good question, and I don't know if I could make that decision. I understand where you are coming from, but I think we as a society can come up with that answer. I know that in itself is very debatable, what with the trouble our Congress has when trying to agree on anything besides patting themselves on the back, but I believe if we put the correct people (read: rational, intelligent human beings) it could happen. My question to you is, is that your only beef with the idea?whittsend wrote:
In the past you and I have agreed that corporate welfare is unacceptable, so no point in us debating that. We are talking about individuals here. Quite simply, and individual has a right to property legally obtained. It doesn't sound like anyone is disagreeing with that. If you say an individual has no right to property legally obtained, in part or in whole, I would like to know why. Saying, "That person has too much" is a judgement call, and government by opinion is largely to be discouraged.
-----
G3|, your analogy is truly inapplicable and fairly senseless.
"That in no way limits the subversion of income." I love it! It will comfort you to know that (as I have been told by your ideological comrades in the past) that you need not worry about this document in any case. It seems The Declaration of Independence is not legally binding; a source of some comfort to those who place the rights of the state above those of the individual, I'm sure.Xietsu wrote:
That in no way limits the subversion of income. Although, I shall follow up with your request however useless. There are private, public, and civic rights within that pragraph. Legal rights can't be found within it because that is merely a document in which lawmakers have used to forge their legal rights, so in essence, it is a partial, incomplete portrayal of legal right as well.whittsend wrote:
Please, tell me what types of rights are referred to in the following passage:Some Guy a Couple Hundred Years ago who probably didn't know what he was talking about wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I find it very amusing that you feel yourself qualified to critique Thomas Jefferson so callously. Fortunately, he was one of the architechts of this nation, and not you.
You have a narrow view of what rights are...perhaps as dictated to you in a class? Of course, one who doesn't respect the rights of the individual can be expected to deny the existence of Natural Rights. In any case you are clearly not equipped to understand the natural rights of man, much less respect them. I suggest you do a little research on the Natural Rights you deny the existence of, for those are the rights enumerated by Jefferson ("We hold these truths to be self-evident..." Legal Rights are those defined by the state, Jefferson refers to rights endowed by the Creator = Natural Rights).
You will no longer be troubled by me in this debate. There's no point, you are too far from understanding what you propose. Meanwhile, your Reading list should include, among others, the following:
John Locke
John Stuart Mill
Thomas Paine
Thomas Jefferson
I wish you luck and wisdom.
Whittsend do you or do you know someone who is indepentatly wealthy?whittsend wrote:
I did read the whole post, and I don't agree. An observation that poor tend to stay poor tells us little. That goes for what's his names article too. It may be difficult to become a millionaire in this country, but it just isn't that hard to rise out of poverty into the middle class. I have been to 15 countries on 5 continents, many of them poor and violent. I get a kick out of people when they say how hard it is to make a decent wage here, because clearly they are just seeing what they want to see.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Read the whole post don't just pick and choose what you want to comment on.whittsend wrote:
Really? Peculiar that so many people are beating themselves up to get here then. In any case, I wonder if someone from Camaroon would agree.
It's not an observation when it's backed up by statistics, it becomes a little more fact. It isn't that hard to rise out of poverty to middle class? Do you speak from example cause I grew up middle class, and from what I can see in my own family is that they went from having money to live, down to strugling from paycheck to paycheck. Now being from middle class I can tell you that all my lower class friends are still lower class, and everyone that I know from growing up are probably going to end up in the same class if not lower then their parents.
Our education is getting worse, unless your rich and can pay for Private school.
And I'll say it again
"The American dream is still only for the immigrants(illegal and legal)"
Edit to correct my qote sorry my spl is bad today.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-05-16 10:12:00)
The whole point to this post (or at least what I'm trying to bring to it) is that your drive or better study skills don't really matter anymore it's were you came from. Money makes Money.Sabertooth71 wrote:
Haha, tell that to some of my friends at school......G3|Genius wrote:
CAP MAXIMUM GPA: 3.75
a 3.75 GPA in college is good enough really to land pretty much any job in the field you are studying. I propose we take the top 0.25 off anyone who gets higher than a 3.75 and redistribute it to anyone under 2.49. It's not the lower tier's fault that they just aren't as smart or didn't have parents who taught them the best study skills.
No one should be studying so hard as to get a 4.0 anyway. Go drink a beer or something.
The issue really is that there will always be inequality in society, whether or not an outside source comes in and tries to change that. There will be people who (based either on cultural or religious values) have those better study skills or a larger drive to do well in life.
First off, let me say that your english teachers must be proud of you. You do write rather well, although I do sense an attempt to obfuscate through your use of the language.Xietsu wrote:
Your questions are useless - tell me, what will you do once you have found out? If you say "Oh, I couldn't possibly know, I don't have the answer yet," then you have created a sidetrack of irrelevance. If you are going to say "Oh, well that's very intriguing seeing as where you stand amongst your background," then you have still created a sidetrack of irrelevance. The fact is that it matters not through what stance and perspective I have drawn this proposal (requiring debate). You will uncover such aspects - at least, in the most applicable degree - should you read my responses as of yet.Darth_Fleder wrote:
You are still dodging my questions.
*Please, provide some evidence to the "leftists" supporting such cures to social ills.
My mother, my wife, my son and myself all have spent considerable time working/attending in the school system at varying levels and I have had ample exposure to the ideas and philosophies of those who attend and work in these insitutions. While I am at work, I do not have the time to throughly present non-anecdotal evidence of my claims, although if you don't believe them you are either in denial or are blind to the truth.
The entire premise to my questions are not so much to derail and sidetrack, but to point out that these ideas are not new. They have been being debated for at least a century and a half and yet the young purport them as being something new. The answer to these questions also would allow me to tailor some examples that you could relate to.
Just a footnote...
Constitution of the United States wrote:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-05-16 20:48:17)
You're right, money does make money. However, that's not really what I'm getting at. To those without a large amount of income, intrinsic values are more important. My family came over two generations ago as poor Jewish immigrants (an ethnic group not particularly liked at that time). My family has worked their asses off to put me where I am now - upper-middle class and attending an Ivy University. I'm doing the same for my future. While there will always be stories told saying that it is impossible to have upward mobility, there will be others to contrast that.cpt.fass1 wrote:
The whole point to this post (or at least what I'm trying to bring to it) is that your drive or better study skills don't really matter anymore it's were you came from. Money makes Money.Sabertooth71 wrote:
Haha, tell that to some of my friends at school......G3|Genius wrote:
CAP MAXIMUM GPA: 3.75
a 3.75 GPA in college is good enough really to land pretty much any job in the field you are studying. I propose we take the top 0.25 off anyone who gets higher than a 3.75 and redistribute it to anyone under 2.49. It's not the lower tier's fault that they just aren't as smart or didn't have parents who taught them the best study skills.
No one should be studying so hard as to get a 4.0 anyway. Go drink a beer or something.
The issue really is that there will always be inequality in society, whether or not an outside source comes in and tries to change that. There will be people who (based either on cultural or religious values) have those better study skills or a larger drive to do well in life.
I disagree completely. It's simply supply and demand. Soldiering skill sets are far more easier to acquire than say, a NASA scientist or bio-engineer. Whereas a grunt only requires a high school diploma, most scientists require Doctorate degrees. Likewise with high school teachers, all that is required is a Bachelor's Degree and teaching credentials. The easier the skillset , the lower pay. I appreciate their sacrifice, but relatively speaking, there are far more people who can fight than cure a disease.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Which is why instead of our defense budget being spent on Air Force and Army toys that likely will never see the light of day, we should pay the actual men and women fighting in the armed forces a hell of a lot more than we do. I am not sure what the average combat-ready soldier makes in the US, but I know it is not much. Personally, I think if you are willing to put on that uniform and die for your country, you should be making at least $75,000 a year.antin0de wrote:
I can agree that certain professions' compensations are a bit unfair. I'm reminded of Bill Maher's stand-up, when behind him was a poster depicting a fireman, a teacher, and a soldier. The poster said "We call them our heroes... but we pay them like chumps."
Ummm... No...Xietsu wrote:
I never knew a man who could truly make use of 2 million. What type of over-indulgence must people need? All "communist" societies have never ever really been truly communist.
These are the typical homes near where I work:
ZESTIMATE™: $1,966,600
http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?c … p=20698639
Everyone deserves whatever they can make, however much they make.
Last edited by Ilocano (2006-05-16 10:29:57)
These are the typical homes near where I work:
ZESTIMATE™: $1,966,600
http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?c … p=20698639
What Xietsu was trying to say is that while it is possible to spend that much money (and quite easily in this day and age), is it ethical to want a house that costs that much when you can get by with a house a quarter the price.
Though I do happen to agree with you that I deserve what I make.
ZESTIMATE™: $1,966,600
http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?c … p=20698639
What Xietsu was trying to say is that while it is possible to spend that much money (and quite easily in this day and age), is it ethical to want a house that costs that much when you can get by with a house a quarter the price.
Though I do happen to agree with you that I deserve what I make.
Last edited by Sabertooth71 (2006-05-16 10:36:14)
Just for reference, I'm IN innovation, and what I've learned over the past 20 years here is that if there aren't entrepreneurs that fund the innovation and bring it to market, then innovation is completely wasted. How often has the 2nd (or 3rd/4th/worst) best technical solution won because of adequate funding?Xietsu wrote:
BTW, entrepreneurship doesn't steer innovation.
Many of the fortunes created world-wide are as a result of people wanting to get rich...if you provide a reason by which their efforts won't benefit them, they very well *might* choose not to work so hard.
There are visionary entrepreneurs who don't worry about profit per se, but very few of them have sufficient income so as to qualify for your cap...
And I'm sure that they had help through the jewish community? I put it in a question form because with majority of immagrent of certain desents get help from previous immagrents. I'm not knocking it, I'm just a little jelous cause my people are not from that kinda desentSabertooth71 wrote:
You're right, money does make money. However, that's not really what I'm getting at. To those without a large amount of income, intrinsic values are more important. My family came over two generations ago as poor Jewish immigrants (an ethnic group not particularly liked at that time). My family has worked their asses off to put me where I am now - upper-middle class and attending an Ivy University. I'm doing the same for my future. While there will always be stories told saying that it is impossible to have upward mobility, there will be others to contrast that.cpt.fass1 wrote:
The whole point to this post (or at least what I'm trying to bring to it) is that your drive or better study skills don't really matter anymore it's were you came from. Money makes Money.Sabertooth71 wrote:
Haha, tell that to some of my friends at school......
The issue really is that there will always be inequality in society, whether or not an outside source comes in and tries to change that. There will be people who (based either on cultural or religious values) have those better study skills or a larger drive to do well in life.
It's arbitrary - and nothing more. . . any cut-off level (in income) will represent an utterly arbitrary value; an idiotically arbitrary system - one with no goal other than “disdain & dislike” for something they the “mob”-mentality does not possess.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Who am I to say when a person has too much or too little? That is a good question, and I don't know if I could make that decision. I understand where you are coming from, but I think we as a society can come up with that answer. I know that in itself is very debatable, what with the trouble our Congress has when trying to agree on anything besides patting themselves on the back, but I believe if we put the correct people (read: rational, intelligent human beings) it could happen. My question to you is, is that your only beef with the idea?whittsend wrote:
In the past you and I have agreed that corporate welfare is unacceptable, so no point in us debating that. We are talking about individuals here. Quite simply, and individual has a right to property legally obtained. It doesn't sound like anyone is disagreeing with that. If you say an individual has no right to property legally obtained, in part or in whole, I would like to know why. Saying, "That person has too much" is a judgement call, and government by opinion is largely to be discouraged.
I am in favor of a different scheme (the existing one!) - as progressive tax schedules have already existed in the U.S. as high as 91%, in 1954, when the Federal Income Tax system was adopted. Currently the max progressive cap on personal (non-corporate) income is about 35%.
Raising the max cap on income-tax % is not that big an issue, justified by past U.S. law, and merely a matter of majority consensus.
Stripping the so-called "filthy" of their family's past acquired wealth - is an unnecessary step & value judgment.
(a) It is merely an unethical punitive measure - based upon a personal worldview - and is unsupported logically by the very system you exist in - a Darwinian Capitalist System.
(b) Social reforms and social programs, and other such elements adopted in a Democratic Capitalistic Society - do NOT make it a different system at the heart of it. Shades of communism, shades of Socialism - appearing in our system - does not make it so. At the heart of America there is personal wealth for the Entity in possession of it. The more important entity than the person being the corporate Entity - this is the Heart of America and any other Industrial Nation (just contemplate Japan and Germany for a microsecond please - that is all the time necessary).
(c) Increasing the max progressive tax-rate is justified by past law - but stripping wealth and capping wealth is not. Nor is it in our best interest to strip away “necessary” wealth from those who will build or maintain the necessary corporate entities - upon which a Nations Wealth & Military might is based upon.
(d) Lowering the corporate entity tax and increasing the max progressive rate on personal income would serve the common good better [see (c) as it is justified by past law]. It retains the necessary structure - that needs to be in place for this Nation to sustain its Economic and World status. It would not be a “trickle-down,” “trickle-on” someone system. As encouragement of corporate reform would be at the heart of any legislation of this type - the very problems with current corporate culture could be addressed - including corporate structures negative effects on the social well-being of the individual.
(e) As a corporate entity must be (or will be); owned in majority by someone (or some group), capitol investment values could easily exceed any max progressive rate established. This is irrelevant - as the capital value is necessary for the corporate entity to remain - this would only be taxed as the capitol investment (say stock) is converted (sold, made) into personal income - then is subject to personal income-tax.
(f) The conditions for this type of social reform is based upon pre-existing law (or past precedent), it does not compromise the capitalist system, by being a shade of another system to too great of a degree. It is in the interest of both the Nation and the Individual as it promotes investment - at the heart of the actual system. It would blend the issues of social reform and investment - such issues (as example) of personal health-care could and would be addressed (in legislation) as more money is available for the corporate entity for the participants in its structure (its employees).
Overall I see little merit to the idea conceived of as it was presented at the beginning of this thread.
Last edited by topal63 (2006-05-16 13:15:01)