Wealthy will ALWAYS have an advantage

The constitution allows for taxation, and taxation effects the economy. Also, when the banking industry can crash the economy, it is to the people's benefit to have the government regulate it. Like it or not, there is no government that doesn't have some effect on the economy.

 

Politicians don't often use their own money in a campaign. It doesn't matter how rich the candidate is, it matters how rich his or her backers are. It's harder for a candidate with modest means to run against someone whit big backers. That's why we need campaign finance reform.

 

I agree with you completely, and regulation and taxation which supports the revenue needs of the government and to protect consumers from unfair business practices is the norm in any healthy economy.

 

Why is it unfair for me to earn wealth and pass that wealth onto someone who did not earn it?

 

The problem with campaign reform is to do it such that it does not violate the 1st amendment.

Considering the garbage that the courts have allowed as "freedom of speech" it will be difficult to effectively reform campaign financing.

 

Some people will always have certain advantages over others. What extents should we go to in order to try and counter that, if any?

 

If it is done with your approval it is fair. You can do what ever you want in helping people who earn it or not with your own money. I give away almost half of my income every year, sometimes more, it just has to be done in compliance with IRS rules.

 

My Opinion:

First let's eliminate the disabled from the discussion. They will always need assistance.

Most of the disadvantages people without disabilities have relate to their choices. So long as those choices continue to have an effect on their lives there will always be people who have certain advantages over them. In my opinion it is up to the individual to enhance his advantages if he is able, and it is up to the rest of us to help the disabled survive with dignity.

As to your signature line; I have always used real estate to keep me up with inflation. Investing in real property works well if you are in a position to buy and sell without those huge commissions. I have maintained a license to do just that for over 20 years after having collected properties with every assignment move over the years and it has done well in keeping up with inflation.

 

How do you expect the average American to get jobs when Corporations are shipping jobs out of the country? The problem isn't social welfare, it's a lack of jobs. We hand out a lot more money in corporate welfare than we do in social welfare and don't stipulate that the hand outs to corporations is to be used for job creation in the US. Instead, these corporations pocket the profits and screw the American people. Corporate American is the one creating the need for more social welfare. It's no benefit to the economy to let the rich keep more of their money. They don't contribute to the economy like the middle and working class do when the working class has jobs. Increasing the wealthy class at the expense of the middle class is harming the economy. The US has always done better with a strong middle class.

The lack of jobs is what's causing the need for more social welfare, not an ever growing lazy class as you call it. People don't want to be dependent on government, they want jobs. We should cut corporate welfare and use that money to rebuild the infrastructure which would create jobs and strengthen the middle class. Once that happens the social welfare spending will take care of itself. You can't take people's jobs away from them, then call them lazy moochers when they seek out government help to feed their families. This is what's wrong with the Republican party. They call good American people mooches and pander to the wealthy class.

 

I agree, Citizen's United ruling effectively says money is speech. That basically means that people with more money have more speech. However, that isn't the biggest obstacle to campaign finance reform. The biggest obstacle is that politicians don't want to pass it because it would harm them. They talk a big talk, but they have no motivation to make the changes.

 

In my opinion, supporting and maintaining a healthy middle class is the best way to offer people a path to creating a better future for themselves. Poverty is oppressive and it's hard for people with the strongest of character to rise above it. It's next to impossible for someone to rise from poverty to wealthy without a step ladder, of sorts.

 

According to several studies manufacturing jobs that have been shipped overseas are not the best paying jobs, but tend to be labor intensive. Other studies suggest that for every job sent overseas at least 1 have been created here in the US. Further, studies tell us that except in industry changes, those who lose jobs and fine new jobs do not lose significant income.

 

I have seen some of the studies you discussed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/

More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment.​

 

Supporting and maintaining a healthy middle class is essential and it will likely continue to vary in up/down cycles depending on the over all economy. Since wealth is not finite, what the highest paid earn, even though there is significant disparity, the middle class is not driven by that disparity.

 

Some wealth equality is necessary for health society. More wealth inequality leads to more violence and civil unrest. Example... the third world.

 

Maybe you could site these studies? A job is a job. Shipping them overseas have not benefited our economy or our citizens. If corporations continue to have their hand out for our tax money, they should at least be expected to create jobs here in the US. Taking jobs away from people, then calling them lazy and takers will only start another revolution or sorts. The middle class is already shrinking too much, and that will not bode well for long term economic growth.

 

Oh, grow up. "Anyone could do it" just means anyone who is qualified. Just like saying, "Anyone can be president" doesn't literally mean anyone. It means anyone who can do the kinds of things someone has to do to become president.

No, it's just a manner of speaking. You know this.

Maybe I could, maybe I couldn't. I could invent a lot of things, because I have already invented things, and later found out someone else had been there first. The history of invention is full of examples of people who invented things independently at virtually the same time. In any case it's irrelevant, because we are not literally talking about anyone. It's enough that SOMEONE could, other than the person who happened to do it, apply for the patent first, and thus grab a monopoly privilege.

 

They can't be parasites, because they have to pay landowners full market value for access to that infrastructure, which their taxes just paid for.

No, that's false and you know it. Most of the tax money to provide the infrastructure did not come from property taxes, but from income tax, sales tax, etc. Land value measures how much more the landowner is being given than he pays in property taxes.

Such claims are absurd. The landowner qua landowner is always by definition a pure parasite. That is why you cannot answer The Question:

"How, exactly, is production aided by the landower's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"

LOL! No, that's just some more stupid garbage you made up. The landowner qua landowner only steals from the productive. Societies where landowner "foresight and investment" have been most conspicuous are the feudal societies that have stayed agrarian. The example of Meiji Japan is particularly instructive, and proves that your claim is the exact, diametric opposite of the truth.

Stupid, contentless filth noted.

Flat false. The lease system means the owner can't just sit around waiting for society to shovel money into his pockets for doing nothing. The lease will eventually run out, and everyone knows it. That's why there is so little vacant leased land in HK compared to cities where fee simple title dominates, like NYC.

Actually, it is you who have no argument, and have never even attempted to offer one.

Actually, you are just spewing infantile garbage. Again.

 

Since wealth is not finite the more wealthy do not prevent the less wealthy from acquiring more wealth.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/

More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment.

 

Since it is the land owner who paid the taxes and the non landowners use the infrastructure those taxes paid to create it is the non land owner who uses the infrastructure free of charge.

Wrong! Most infrastructure comes from money land owners pay in tax. Additional infrastructure comes from fuel taxes paid by the people after the fact to maintain the roads. Electricity infrastructure is installed by the electric company as an investment to sell electricity. New water lines tend to be installed by the real estate developers and maintained by land owner taxes, as do the sewer systems when there are central facilities, and land owners are a major contributor to our prosperity

Total bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

The land owner paid for what nature provided, paid the taxes to the community for the infrastructure and has the right to get a return on his investment.

Actually irrelevant to the US situation.

LVT supporters have nothing of value to say. The totally useless information you have posted is proof positive of that assertion. The lease situation in Hong Kong gives the lease holder virtually the same rights as do fee simply deeds do in the US. They can be bought and sold, inherited and used for rental income collected by the lease holder.

False!

Your special pleading in favor of a baseless tax system shows you have no real support to offer.

 

proof that being rich IS the reward, no need to give them super sized tax cuts the rest of us do not get on top of it


.

 

Why do you let yourself to get sucked into discussions with that guy? He is a zealot with a bad cause upon which to heap his zeal.

- - - Updated - - -

To what tax cuts are you referring? My marginal tax rate is near 40%. That is the highest marginal rate there is.

 

I ignore him most of the time because his views are so ridiculous, but gee, when he gets too aggressive he needs so see where he is wrong. His contention that landowners do not pay most of the taxes to pay for the infrastructure communities contract to produce is just so much hogwash, and he would rather let the landowner do his part creating that infrastructure then steal his land due to the greed and parasitic nature of LVT supporters.

 

The landowner pays taxes in the same sense that the slave owner gives his subjects clothes and food.

 

Horsemanure! The land owner pays taxes to the community and those taxes buy infrastructure and as the land owner uses his land he creates prosperity for the country and the community. And by his taxation for which the infrastructure is paid, all the land around him becomes more valuable making the investments pay off for those around him. Then of course there are the greedy parasitic non-landowners who get the advantage of the infrastructure who use that infrastructure without having paid for it. Any correlation to slave owners is pure bull crap, and unless you are cognitively impaired you know it already.

In other words Armor, the land owner is the first point of light in a healthy economy.