|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2005 : 01:15:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
And, as Robb's article suggests, much of this new wealth was not earned. It was acquired through the stock market. In other words, these people took dollars from the economy without exchanging a product or a service for those dollars. They put nothing back--Unearned income!
This is not correct.
To be able to produce goods and services you need both work and capital. Those that provide work should get paid and those provide capital should also get paid.
If people put their money into the stock market it is their money when they decide to take it out.
They have provided a service and risked their own money.
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 01:33:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
To be able to produce goods and services you need both work and capital. Those that provide work should get paid and those provide capital should also get paid.
Yes, quite right. The rich provide no goods or services. They own. That is their function in the system.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/10/2005 01:34:41 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 03:04:51 [Permalink]
|
| I would say that providing capital is a vital service. This does not mean that this has to be provided by a rich natural (as opposed to juridical) person. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2005 : 12:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Some of the "death tax" (a new speak term used to influence thought on the tax) is really a capital gains tax. When someone has stocks, bonds, property and so on it often appreciates in value. If I sold those assets before dying, I'd pay capital gains tax. If I die and my son was to inherit the assets he wouldn't pay capital gains. The assets are valued at the time of death and any gains after that accrue to the account of the heirs.
So it isn't all a double tax as many claim.
Given the fact the rich and poor gap is widening, and that some of the rich are obscenely rich given the living conditions of the world's have nots, I'd say while the amount exempted from the "death tax" might be adjusted, the tax itself should be raised, not eliminated. But of course the reason that won't happen is the fox rules the hen house. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 15:03:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Starman
This is not correct
Perhaps, I wasn't quite clear in my original statement, and apologize for my inability to express myself more coherently. Beyond that, I think we may be approaching this issue from different angles.
quote:
To be able to produce goods and services you need both work and capital
Actually, we need work or labor, capital, and land or resources. Today, some economists also toss enterprise into the mix. We appear to have no issue with the necessity of labor for the production of capital. I'll further assume that there's no conflict in the need for what classical economists refer to as ‘land'. Here, we'd simply be referring to the actual geographic location used for that production, and the raw materials or natural resources required for production. Our disagreement seems to arise with a discussion of the creation of capital and the nature of enterprise. I'll try to explain my opinions in respect to these issues.
I usually think of capital in the sense of ‘real' capital. I'm, of course, referring to one of the three factors of production established by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, I believe. In this sense capital is the goods used as the means of production. This would refer to assets such as machinery, stores of material, buildings, etc. This form of capital can only be produced by applying labor to resources. Both of these factors are required for the creation of any form of capital.
Abe Lincoln explained this much better in three sentences than I could in an entire book. He said, “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never exist if labor did not exist first. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
‘Financial' capital, or acquired wealth used for investment purposes, is not required and is dependent on the factors of production. ‘Financial' capital is a product of labor, land use and ‘real' capital. ‘Financial' capital does not produce a product. It is the result of that production.
Some economists add enterprise into the factors of production. For these folks, the risk of investment is as critical to the means of production as are the original three factors. I do not disagree with this idea completely, but only as far as third party investors are concerned. Production is not dependent on a third party investor. An entrepreneur that builds a company is investing his assets as well as his leadership and labor into the company. Furthermore, the person providing the labor may also be the entrepreneur or sole investor whose investment is not necessarily financial, but material. An outside investor interested only in growing his or her wealth is superfluous.
Today, our economic system has become almost dependent on the financial assets of the investor class, but this does not mean that it is required for all economic systems, nor does it mean that ‘real' capital or even wealth is created by ‘risk' capital. Wealth is the acquired goods and possessions in an ownership society that represent value in trade. Before we can create this wealth, we must create the goods and establish the ownership.
Finally, another term for ‘financial risk' is gambling. The wealth used in gambling comes largely from the wages of labor. The return from investment largely comes from the profits of labor. Financial risks do not create wealth—they gamble on a piece of the wealth created by the factors of production.
quote:
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 15:24:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Starman
I would say that providing capital is a vital service. This does not mean that this has to be provided by a rich natural (as opposed to juridical) person.
I wholeheartedly agree when speaking of real capital. Financial capital is only vital to the continuity of our present system of corporate capitalism. The juridical or artificial person is a creation of the state, and supposedly subordinate to the state. Unfortunately, the juridical person has been given all the protections of the Bill of Rights, and therefore equal to the natural person in economic and political issues without the social responsibilities and consequences for their bahavior. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 10:41:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by trishran
quote:
And, even if one deserves every dollar one has been fortunate/motivated/lucky/greedy enough to amass,
Why are three out of the four qualities of rich people negative?
Fortunate, motivated, and lucky are to me qualities that does not pray on the opportunities of other people, hence they obviously should be set apart from greed. If you consider three of the four above as negative, I can only guess that greed is the one you think positive?
A poor MacDonalds-worker would not have enough to live if half his money was taken as tax. A multi-millionaire will still have at least a million left if half of his fortune was taken, and would still be more than well to do. What is excessive? Where do you draw the line?
In the MacDonalds-worker's case a tax of $1000 is excessive, $10000 from a millionair is less than a percent of his worth.
Sweden has one of the highest taxes in the world. But I don't mind paying it, because I know that the money is (mostly) put to good use. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 10:48:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I personally believe that with money comes social responsibility. If you have a billion dollars and sit on it, you are morally wrong. We should keep what we need to live on and take care of our family and give the rest away to help people.
Does the average Republican live up to this?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 10:55:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
I thought a fool and his money are soon parted, so eventually that money will find its way back into the system where the smart, the talented, the skilled, and the hard working will get their hands on it.
The problem is that the rich fool has smart people (investors, bankers, and lawyers) protecting the money they have so it doesn't trickle down to the needy. Estate tax is just a way to counteract those smart people. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2005 : 11:06:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
And, even if one deserves every dollar one has been fortunate/motivated/lucky/greedy enough to amass,
Why are three out of the four qualities of rich people negative?
Fortunate, motivated, and lucky are to me qualities that does not pray on the opportunities of other people, hence they obviously should be set apart from greed. If you consider three of the four above as negative, I can only guess that greed is the one you think positive?
Good point Mab. I count one positve quality, (motivated), one negative quality (greed), and one neutral quality (since 'fortunate' and 'lucky' are synonyms). |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2005 : 12:40:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I personally believe that with money comes social responsibility. If you have a billion dollars and sit on it, you are morally wrong. We should keep what we need to live on and take care of our family and give the rest away to help people.
Does the average Republican live up to this?
There are also rich democrates. Few republicans, democrates or independants live up to this, it is a biblical perspective not the worldly view promoted by our society. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2005 : 18:59:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I personally believe that with money comes social responsibility. If you have a billion dollars and sit on it, you are morally wrong. We should keep what we need to live on and take care of our family and give the rest away to help people.
Does the average Republican live up to this?
There are also rich democrates. Few republicans, democrates or independants live up to this, it is a biblical perspective not the worldly view promoted by our society.
And yet with so large population confessing to christianity in your country, one would think the idea of social (and ecological) responsibility should be aparent in politics. But it certainly don't look that way to me. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
