The Cause for Poverty

[Nakosis]

But our problem is that the billionaires have taken all the fish out of the public pond, sigh/

It's a metaphor for being taught a useful trade/craft. So you believe the rich have removed the need for skilled workers?

 

[Nakosis]

You obliviously have never been in business. Any tax imposed on a business is passed right along to the consumer. Taxes, like insurance, overhead, etc., is considered a cost of doing business and you, dear consumer, pay said costs. Don't just believe me, look up some Economics 101.

or you hire really expensive lawyers to find loopholes. But you can't blame them for that. You got to blame the government for creating the loopholes.

 

[Erebus]

Ok, so Warren Buffet possesses about 80 billion dollars. He earned it through his financial dealings.
Is that wealth or greed?

With that amount of wealth? Greed, pure and simple. Nobody needs that much wealth.

When it comes to billionaires, I think a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their heads around just how much money that really is. They tend to be seen as roughly in the same league as multi-millionaires. In reality, the difference in wealth between those two groups is phenomenal.

To illustrate this, imagine that you earn $1 every 10 seconds. With that income, it would take roughly 4 months to become a millionaire. To make it to 80 billion would take roughly 24,800 years.

 

[Nakosis]

With that amount of wealth? Greed, pure and simple. Nobody needs that much wealth.

When it comes to billionaires, I think a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their heads around just how much money that really is. They tend to be seen as roughly in the same league as multi-millionaires. In reality, the difference in wealth between those two groups is phenomenal.

To illustrate this, imagine that you earn $1 every 10 seconds. With that income, it would take roughly 4 months to become a millionaire. To make it to 80 billion would take roughly 24,800 years.

So he is very successful at creating wealth. Should he stop? Should he hang around the house in his bathrobe and binge Netflix instead?

 

[BSM1]

His tax rate was much lower than the average working stiff. I'll give him the work but not the low tax rate.

Outside of fair taxation, I also think it's useful to focus on what someone does with one's money. Some try to improve society and some wallow in their cash.



India is hardly a dictatorship but I saw abject poverty when I visited there during the 1970's and 1980's. They've come a long way since then for many.

The question is better addressed as others are doing on a universal level - what causes poverty not comparing poverty in the US to poverty in India or Nigeria.



But corporations are people. And if I make a product as a partnership why should I have to pay taxes when corporations do not. Why should they get an unfair advantage. Let's treat all business profits the same whether corporate, partnerships or individuals.



Greed will be with us until humanity grows up more. Government action can minimize the impact of greed.

Warren's initial income was taxed at the same rate as any other worker. His capital gain tax is lower, but he is being re-taxed on it.

As to your "corp is Peep" assertion, corporations are entities, not people. And suppose you are going to paint someone's house and you have to make 'x' amount of dollars to sustain yourself and your business. The customer is going to have to pay you that amount over and above what it's going to cost you to do the job. This cost would have to include paint (material), labor, cost of maintaining and replacing and/or repairing equipment, insurance costs, taxes, fuel, etc. What you make above these costs is your profit. What you have to make above these costs is your profit margin; the two are not the same. Keep in mind you're also competing with your cousin Vinny for this job, so you have shave that profit margin or eliminate some costs. This is the same for corporations except on a much larger scale.

 

[BSM1]

With that amount of wealth? Greed, pure and simple. Nobody needs that much wealth.

When it comes to billionaires, I think a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their heads around just how much money that really is. They tend to be seen as roughly in the same league as multi-millionaires. In reality, the difference in wealth between those two groups is phenomenal.

To illustrate this, imagine that you earn $1 every 10 seconds. With that income, it would take roughly 4 months to become a millionaire. To make it to 80 billion would take roughly 24,800 years.

How much money do you need? And who should determine that amount?

 

[BSM1]

or you hire really expensive lawyers to find loopholes. But you can't blame them for that. You got to blame the government for creating the loopholes.

There ya go...another cost of doing business that's passed on to you. If you eliminate taxes on corporations you would immediately see the price of goods fall. This would mean more money in your pocket that you can give to the poor.

 

[bobhikes]

What do you believe causes poverty?
What do you believe the solution is?

I don't at this time have a position to advocate. That may change, but I am curious about what other people think.

Money(any form) causes poverty. If we would get off the monetary system we could eliminate poverty naturally. Work and products should be paid for with work and product.

 

[Nakosis]

Convince as many people as possible that greed is not good.

Do you think wealth equals greed?

 

[metis]

The unfortunate reality is that countries develop economic systems that fit the powers-that-be versus all the people, and this is what one gets especially with capitalism, which benefits those most that already have the most. A truly people-based economic system would seek full employment with benefits for all whereas there are minimal wealth differences.

Contrary to the belief of some, one doesn't need money to encourage humans to compete with one another as that's already in our genes. Much like chimps, we'll compete on our own volition. Instead, we could use other incentives, such as shorter working hours and/or higher levels of leadership.

 

[Nakosis]

There ya go...another cost of doing business that's passed on to you. If you eliminate taxes on corporations you would immediately see the price of goods fall. This would mean more money in your pocket that you can give to the poor.

I would like that to be true. However, once you get people willing to pay higher prices, I don't think companies are going to cut back on those prices.

Maybe if the government were to tie tax cuts to price reductions. Once the government screws things up, it takes a lot of effort/work to fix it.

 

[icehorse]

It's a metaphor for being taught a useful trade/craft. So you believe the rich have removed the need for skilled workers?

No, no, sorry for any confusion - I was RESPONDING to another poster's fishing example.

What I think the PRIMARY problem is - is that corporate execs and their lawyers have figured out how to coerce politicians into giving wealthy corps and wealthy people HUGE tax breaks. The end result is that society is fraying at the seems because of ENORMOUS wealth and income inequality.

One simple answer that would solve a LOT of problems would simply be to revise our tax laws back to where they were in the 50s, and get the rich to pay their fair share. Now even if you don't believe in helping poor people, you ought to at least get on board with the idea that the wealthy have to pay their fair share to support our infrastructure, correct?

 

[Nakosis]

The unfortunate reality is that countries develop economic systems that fit the powers-that-be versus all the people, and this is what one gets especially with capitalism, which benefits those most that already have the most. A truly people-based economic system would seek full employment with benefits for all whereas there are minimal wealth differences.

Contrary to the belief of some, one doesn't need money to encourage humans to compete with one another as that's already in our genes. Much like chimps, we'll compete on our own volition. Instead, we could use other incentives, such as shorter working hours and/or higher levels of leadership.

Such a system would seem to me to require a very smart/intelligent government. Certainly a benevolent government. One interested in the wellbeing of its people. We seem hard-pressed to come up with one of those.

 

[icehorse]

There ya go...another cost of doing business that's passed on to you. If you eliminate taxes on corporations you would immediately see the price of goods fall. This would mean more money in your pocket that you can give to the poor.

Oh you're soooo adorable, you still believe in trickle-down economics

I have a bridge for sale, any interest?

 

[Orbit]

Ok, so Warren Buffet possesses about 80 billion dollars. He earned it through his financial dealings.
Is that wealth or greed?

When he uses his wealth to avoid taxes, it is greed.

 

[Erebus]

So he is very successful at creating wealth. Should he stop? Should he hang around the house in his bathrobe and binge Netflix instead?

How much money do you need? And who should determine that amount?

My personal stance on this is that if you have enough money for you and all your family to live comfortably for the rest of their lives, then that's more than enough.

For myself, I would say that about $10 million is more money than I could realistically spend in a lifetime. I could live comfortably on significantly less than that but what the hell, it's a decent starting point. Now there are about 10 people I would consider to be family. Not all of them are close family, but they're not second cousins or anything either. Let's give each of those 10 million too. So we're looking at 110 million there and that's me being far more greedy than I would actually be comfortable with.

That's 0.14% of Warren Buffet's wealth.

This is kind of what I'm driving at. When we're asking what an acceptable level of wealth is, we can certainly quibble over how many millions of dollars are too much. Billionaires are on another scale entirely.

 

[Nakosis]

No, no, sorry for any confusion - I was RESPONDING to another poster's fishing example.

What I think the PRIMARY problem is - is that corporate execs and their lawyers have figured out how to coerce politicians into giving wealthy corps and wealthy people HUGE tax breaks. The end result is that society is fraying at the seems because of ENORMOUS wealth and income inequality.

One simple answer that would solve a LOT of problems would simply be to revise our tax laws back to where they were in the 50s, and get the rich to pay their fair share. Now even if you don't believe in helping poor people, you ought to at least get on board with the idea that the wealthy have to pay their fair share to support our infrastructure, correct?

Who decides what is fair? It would seem the poor who greatly outnumber the rich use/need a great deal more resources than the rich. So the wealthy have to pay more, not because they use more but because they own more? Some might not see that as fair.

Other argument I heard is that forcing someone to give what they own to someone else is theft. They see the redistribution of wealth as immoral. Not saying they are right and you are wrong but their idea of fair maybe a lot different than yours.

And final thought... Ok so say I gather 1000 rocks a day. You OTOH gather 5 rocks a day. It's not fair I have 1000 and you have 5. So the government forces me to give 495 rocks to you so we have an equal number of rocks. What happens if one day I decide to stop gathering rocks? Of course, I lose my wealth but what happens to yours? Do you really want to tie your wellbeing to the 1%?

 

[Heyo]

Do you think wealth equals greed?

Not necessarily but they go often hand in hand.

 

[Heyo]

Such a system would seem to me to require a very smart/intelligent government. Certainly a benevolent government. One interested in the wellbeing of its people. We seem hard-pressed to come up with one of those.

Because too many people still think that greed is good. It is how capitalism works. People vote against their interests and for the greedy. Teach them that greed is not good and nobody will vote for greedy politicians.

 

[icehorse]

Who decides what is fair? It would seem the poor who greatly outnumber the rich use/need a great deal more resources than the rich. So the wealthy have to pay more, not because they use more but because they own more? Some might not see that as fair.

Other argument I heard is that forcing someone to give what they own to someone else is theft. They see the redistribution of wealth as immoral. Not saying they are right and you are wrong but their idea of fair maybe a lot different than yours.

And final thought... Ok so say I gather 1000 rocks a day. You OTOH gather 5 rocks a day. It's not fair I have 1000 and you have 5. So the government forces me to give 495 rocks to you so we have an equal number of rocks. What happens if one day I decide to stop gathering rocks? Of course, I lose my wealth but what happens to yours? Do you really want to tie your wellbeing to the 1%?

As a Libertarian, how do you think society should pay for "the commons"?