The stupidity of "Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts..."

[kingjust627]

"Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts will empoverish the whole."

This is the stupidest statement made as there is NOTHING in place that can empoverish the counterpart of the currently empoverished (the wealthy). Here are my contentions.

1. The opposite (or counterpart) of the poor are the wealthy... correct? There is no opposite of the middle class because they are in the middle (though they are not the focus of this post).
2. If one is making a million dollars and is taxed let's say 10% more then the current rate (let's say 25%)... how is taking home an annual salary of 650k empoverishing the counterpart. What can they not afford now that they could afford before?
3. Even if the salary is 250k a year and taxes are raised to 35%, that would still be 162500 dollars annum. Empoverished??? Get fucking real.
4. On the opposite side of the coin, an individual who makes 25k a year, is taxed just 5% more from 10%, to make it 15% total takes home 21250 annum. Depending on where this persons lives, he is just getting by with minimal necessities... if not having to take up a second or third job.
5. The "oh whoa is me, i'm being empoverished" wealthy can essentially still move about as they please. The other person, well... what do you think.

Now this isn't taking into account the background, as this is just a hypothetical. But the point of the hypothetical is to show the amount of dung that exudes from the statement as it asserting something that is not even a thought or have been gestured... ie empoverishing the wealthy.

Summation: The notion is bullshit. No one is touting for a 90% tax on ANYONE. Lastly, the WHOLE will never be empoverished, another BS assumption that taxing the wealthy a tad more will just SHATTER them (and the rest will follow)... only those that are not wealthy will shatter, as the wealthy have money... money to BUY power and influence to rig the game their way.

Afterthought: Wouldn't empowering the empoverished with REAL paying jobs and salaries, and taxing them less giving them the ability to spend more outside of necessities, which would and should drive up demands, ENRICH the WHOLE? But it seems that ENRICHING the whole isn't on EVERYONES agenda, is it...

[Dan74]

But it seems that ENRICHING the whole isn't on EVERYONES agenda, is it...

Of course not. If everyone was rich, the current rich would lose their power and status.

I agree with your general tone, though we have different methods of approaching this. Anyway, I'd prepare for a 10 page long shitstorm wherein annoying conservatives ask irrelevant questions and bring up dumb points.

[crimethinker]

Seems no accident that Henry Ford and J.D. Rockefeller made the bulk of their vast fortunes in times where taxes were twice what they are today.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

And that the three richest Americans -- Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Larry Ellison -- are all liberal Democrats.

An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats. Furthermore, if you look at it from a “family” point of view and not as individuals, thereby eliminating duplication caused by people from the same family being included in that Top 20 list (Wal-Mart & Koch) that ratio widens even further to:
25% Republican / 75% Democrat.

http://newamericangazette.com/2011/0...ple-democrats/

If only they meddled in politics more.

Clearly, these guys aren't too worried about not being able to create jobs, or whatever conservatives complain about all the time. Maybe it's possible that if the majority prospers, the wealthy minority will prosper as well? That's what has happened historically.

[Angry Citizen]

If everyone was rich, the current rich would lose their power and status.

If everyone were rich, no one would be. The point of money is to allocate disparate shares of objects or services that are considered valuable to people of variable societal worth. This is largely because everything from foodstuffs to luxury items are inherently finite. Inequality is necessary. The level of inequality we witness in America, however, is not.

[kingjust627]

Of course not. If everyone was rich, the current rich would lose their power and status.

Understandable... but enriching isn't reallythe context I meant; to make someone rich. It can seem that way, but a better quality of life for ALL is where I was heading at or eluding to. I just can't for the life of me understand why that is such a hard society to envision where ALL contribute to uplift one another.

I agree with your general tone, though we have different methods of approaching this. Anyway, I'd prepare for a 10 page long shitstorm wherein annoying conservatives ask irrelevant questions and bring up dumb points.

LOL I know, but what is even better is that I do not once imply a liberal or conservative ideal (though some may disagree). As stated... i'm for ALL haveing better quality of life, as subjective as that may be. Personally, they can go fuck themselves... individualism (in the sense that one feels they don't need anyone) I feel will lead to isolationism, factions, segregation... and in the end, our demise (ok, that was kind of overstated, but possible). I will try and answer what ever questions or retorts as they may arise.

[kingjust627]

Seems no accident that Henry Ford and J.D. Rockefeller made the bulk of their vast fortunes in times where taxes were twice what they are today.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

And that the three richest Americans -- Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Larry Ellison -- are all liberal Democrats.



http://newamericangazette.com/2011/0...ple-democrats/

If only they meddled in politics more.

Clearly, these guys aren't too worried about not being able to create jobs, or whatever conservatives complain about all the time. Maybe it's possible that if the majority prospers, the wealthy minority will prosper as well? That's what has happened historically.

Blah... this is bullshit information (sarcasm)! LOLOL

[kingjust627]

If everyone were rich, no one would be.

Ding ding... a very good concept, though again "rich" (monetarily) isn't the context I was trying to convey. True none the less.

The level of inequality we witness in America, however, is not.

It's perfectly ok; why not? (devils advocate...)

[Dan74]

This is largely because everything from foodstuffs to luxury items are inherently finite.

No, they're not. Nothing but an agricultural disaster would severely impact the global supply of food. Luxury items shouldn't be treated as something that's necessary for society to function, but those are not very limited in supply at all.

Inequality is necessary.

Oh boy...

[crimethinker]

It's perfectly ok; why not? (devils advocate...)

See Richard Wilkinson's "How economic inequality harms societies" (TED Talk).

[kingjust627]

Oh boy...

I understand why you would feel this way, but unfortunately it is (necessary, caused by the systems in which we recieve payment for labor/work)... Removing the monetary system and moving to a meritocracy based system will eliminate your oh boy. Such as the Venus Project. But our obsession with luxuries (material) dilute the real luxury of the human experience... experiencing and sharing life, knowledge, and information with one another. It's no fun to race Nissan GTR's when your the only one on the highway... (ok, that is one of my material fantasies... let a man dream will ya!)

[kingjust627]

See Richard Wilkinson's "How economic inequality harms societies" (TED Talk).

LOL... you really didn't have to reply to me... if you got the devils advocate part/sarcasm. I'm all in with videos such as this... and the one on the home page about job creators. GREAT TED piece.

[grandpa]

It's no problem really, provided we get rid of policies that impose class difference.

Grandpa h.