spread the wealth, more like make everybody poor

Post Reply New Topic

Well, the Bush era of huge tax cuts for the rich, coupled with huge taxpayer giveaways to the rich, has succeeded in making most Americans a lot poorer than they were a decade ago. So, let's just redistribute everything the other way for a change.

Well, if you mean increase poverty, then yes, eliminating money would work. However, decreasing it does not seem as likely.

Not only that, but the financial system is not a matter of uselessness either, money is a representative unit of societal resources, moving it around is moving resources around, and to some extent, the financial system is a system of allocation and rationing.

Getting rid of money is only rational if there is a good economic system to replace it, however, amongst economists, the monetary system is relatively popular. Also, political opinions of economists really don't seem to have a lot to do with their personal wealth from studies I have heard of on the matter.

The "rich" had their taxes lower from 39% to 36.5%, but the top 25% of earners pay 85% of the taxes. I think they already pay their fair share.

And it isn't a give-away when you allow people to keep more of what they earn. It is a give-away when you give people money they DIDN'T earn!

Why shouldn't the top 25% pay 100% of the taxes? Why should the rest of us pay anything?

I don't believe that the majority of millionaires are, in fact "earning" what they get--other people are earning it for them. Corporate Chief Executive Thieves who arrange for themselves to be paid millions of dollars worth of salary, benefits and perquisites are not "earning" it. They're simply very clever at manipulating things to their advantage. If we were to raise their taxes substantially, then either their income could be redistributed by the government to others who are more deserving, or they might be less inclined to hog so much for themselves (seeing as how much of it might be taxed away anyway), and allow others to enjoy a higher income.

I'm of the opinion that the majority of people in America, and the rest of the West, make too much money. As awsomelygloriously already stated, money is a commodity that represents societal resources, a unit of stock in society's total productivity. In order for everyone in the world to live an "american" standard of living, the world would have to quadruple it's productivity. That's a massive feat. There is no way to magically create value out of thin air. If there are not enough commodities to back up the currency then inflation occurs.

Because you are getting the services of the government, so you everyone should have to pay.


That is an extremely simplistic way of looking at things. Most people who are in the top earning tier have worked hard and sacrificed much of their lives to get where they are. Their high level decisions decide whether or not the company will live or die, and thus whether or not the rest of the employees will have jobs. They do indeed earn their pay.


If you were to raise their taxes substantially, they would find ways around paying it, including moving their assets to other countries. And there is NO ONE more deserving of someone's money than the person who earned it. The absolute best thing they can do with their money is spend it or invest it, thus providing jobs for others.

Money will always go where it is treated the best.

Compared to how much they profit from the system, they could fairly pay much more while still remaining much better off than 75% of everyone.


Were Enron executives poorly paid? Did the top tier of Freddy Mac management live on food stamps? How about the auto-industry executive's performance of late, or the multi-national bank executives who cannot recognize a well-known con-game when they see one? Is there any evidence that the performance of many earning these top dollars, is any different to what any sensible person would have done in the same circumstances, in many cases, because there is evidence that what some of these people are doing and have done, was exceptionally dishonest, and/or stupid and economically devastating for those employees earning much less.

The other really scary part of that, if the majority - anywhere over 50% - and especially at 75%, and was getting any amount of handouts or refunds off of money they never paid (redistribution checks); anytime the government wanted to raise taxes to give more money out - the majority would agree. That's a rather severe breakdown of democracy and it would be death of our economy as well. Of course, to those who would like to see us all equally poor - that's not a bad thing (which quite frankly scares the hell out of me - its like a bunch of sleepwalkers sharing a common nightmare and acting it out as if under the need to make the whole waking world feel their pain; all the makings of a new Lion's Gate zombie movie I think).

Compared to how much we move the system forward, how much risk we take, how much we sacrifice, we DESERVE to keep more of our money!




For every one of them, there are 100 or more that do a great job. How about Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Steve Forbes? Ross Perot? Lee Scott? They have provided jobs for hundreds of thousands of people! Just because a very small minority of people within a profession screw up / screw people over, that doesn't mean the entire group should be demonized.

So you claim, but others would claim otherwise. There are many who never have anything more to risk than their lives, and they do so in their daily profession, they work as hard as anyone can be expected to work, why should they have so much less? What have you ever done that honestly was as hard and risky as running into a burning building (as fire-fighters routinely do)? How can you measure how much a good teacher advances us all? And how often are the risks you talk of taken with other peoples' money/resources? Many of the top-earners have a huge string of failures behind them before they succeeded, and often with other peoples' money.
Is there really? Because a lot of the time, these peoples' jobs consist of nothing more than doing what is sensible. Rarely they involve the need for exceptional skill and insight, such as the automobile industry's need to develop strategies for the obvious future trend toward rising fuel costs, coupled with American preferences for fuel guzzling vehicles. At the point where some actual exceptional skill or knowledge or innovation is required, how often do we find that these big paid executives had no more than average of these things? The test does not come along often. Mostly it's business as usual, and most multi-national corporations can withstand less than optimal management most of the time.

And are famous because they stand out as exceptions, rather than rules. How about others who run giant scams for decades and how about the exceptionally well-incomed 'marks' including people seen fit to control multi-national banks, fit to be paid accordingly, but stupid enough to be conned....out of other peoples' money?


Just because a small minority of people within an income bracket, actually might generate value/productivity/worth correlated to their earnings, or otherwise merit their income, does not mean the entire group should be assumed competent and deserving of the same.

What is going to kill America more than the redistribution of wealth is the endless spending and bailing out everybody with money we have to borrow. The big three auto makers probably won't be around after 2010 unless we bail them out again.

Understatement of the year.

aigh! I'm having Economics flashbacks...that ain't good...

So, the main thought is Americans 'have it too good', and 'need to be taken down a few notches'. I hear a lot of this on BBC. We do (globally) have a problem here. Millions upon millions of jobs (especially in China) are dependent on us buying things. No customers, no jobs. Some of these workers are even Europeans.

Globalization is doing this just fine. Any job that doesn't require a physical presence in a specific location is being shipped overseas as fast as they can let us go. I'm still a hardware tech, because all the Network Administrators have lost their jobs, and those jobs went to Mexico, Poland and India (at least where I work). Any jobs that pay a premium in the US are being outsourced, because the world economy is becoming a 0-sum game. For all the good work I do at work, if there was a way to send my job overseas, I'd be digging ditches, or something like that.

I lost my job 4 years ago, when I was downsized. I took a hefty pay cut (several thousands), and come April, I will lose it again. If I manage to convince the new contractor to hire me, I will take another pay cut, again for several thousand dollars. I'm doing my part y'all...

Eliminating money is a bad idea. What would you replace it with? Any other form of money, or exchange, will eventually be treated like money. In the US, a decade or so ago, the Welfare checks handed out to those with no money were being used as money, and buying things never intended for consumption by the government (this is Gresham's law; bad money will drive good money out of circulation... Without money, you have to set a barter exchange for every item you want.

The picture many of you have of the US is getting dated. Most of us are already moving downward on the ladder, but the only thing reported is who's going up. From what I've seen, in nearly every measure that counts, Europeans outrank the US (what we don't hear about is the methodology). It's true we got shellacked in the last 8 years, that's why Obama is supposed to fix everything. We'll see when he gets there.

Well, the American bourgeoisie does have a bit of a ridiculous habit. I mean, I'm not one to gripe, but seriously. If they didn't b***h about their lives so much while they stare slack jawed at whatever banal junk they're on this week I wouldn't be experiencing so much schadenfreude at seeing them cut down...

Yes, those who want more of what they haven't earned.


As cold as this may sound, it is because it doesn't take an extremely rare skill to do those jobs. If there were extremely few people willing to or capable of doing them, they would be paid vast sums of money. That is just economic fact. If they were extremely unhappy with what they did, they would do something else. But often time, the freedoms that come with those jobs are worth the lower pay. My dad, for example, was a teacher. He could have done other things, but he chose to be a teacher because he enjoyed it and he got summers off.


Most often with a large portion of it their own money. In order to get a small business loan, you have to put up a large amount of money yourself. And the people who put the money up must have thought the risk worth it, or they wouldn't have lent it out. If you have no history of success, people aren't likely to lend out money without huge collateral on your end.


Yes, there is really. Look at the hundreds of thousands of companies in the US alone. Almost all of them have competition they have to overcome and/or keep up with. In the business world, it is NEVER EVER EVER business as usual. Companies that take that attitude die a quick and bloody death.


Yes, the "rule" is a profitable company that provides its employees / contractors with a living without all the celebrity fanfare that the ones I listed have received. The Enrons of the world are the EXTREME exception!


Given the number of companies that survive against competition and increasing burdens from government, yes, it can, as it is the VAST majority of people within the top 25% who's worth is correlated to their earnings. People don't pay you hard earned money to be incompetent. Again, just an economic fact.

Money is a generalized medium for barter of goods and services. Without some form of trade/barter who or what decides who gets what and how much? We can't base the allocation of goods and services on need. We all have needs. Why is your need of more consequence than mine? Why is my need of more consequence than yours? So if allocation of goods and services are not to be based on need alone, then production (of goods) or rendition (of services) must be factors in allocation.


I think your disgust with the misuse of money has blinded you to the need of money or some medium of trade.

ruveyn