The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

[Kfox]

If (nearly) everybody lives comfortably, I have little objections. Like in capitalist Scandinavian countries. But in the US not everybody lives comfortably. In fact, more than 10% of US population is seen as "poor" and many of them as "working poor".

The USA can’t afford to operate like the Scandinavian countries because the US depends on the wealth created by the rich to tax and employ, so the government incentivize these wealth creators by allowing them to keep a good portion of the wealth they create. The moment you attempt to equalize everything by taking too much from the rich and giving to the poor, you discourage wealth creation and the only thing you will accomplish is less rich, and you will still have the poor.

Opportunity.
But contrary to their mantra, capitalists don't like equality of opportunity. I have asked them if they'd be OK with everyone starting with the same opportunity (Tax the Dead!) but the idea didn't find too many fans.

I don’t know what capitalists you talk to, but the rich capitalists want more people to be rich because that equals more customers who can afford their products, and more people paying taxes which will lower their tax burdens.

Can you only think in black and white? Color TV are a waste of money for your type.
The question isn't if a country can afford prosperity for everyone, the question is, if a country could afford prosperity for everyone, why do only the rich and their kin prosper while the rest live in less than ideal conditions?

I can only speak for the USA. In the US the rich and their kin are not the only ones who prosper, as a matter of fact, in the USA 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. The vast majority of todays rich did not inherit it from their parents, most built their wealth themselves.

Millionaire Myth Busters

Anyone who thinks all millionaires are just trust-fund babies or don't pay taxes will be surprised by the truth of how people become rich millionaires.

www.ramseysolutions.com

 

[Kfox]

If the CEOs were getting paid say 50 times what the average worker was getting, and the other 1,450 times the average worker's pay that they get, now, was spread out among all those workers, the average wage would be high enough for those workers to live well on. So well that some of their wives could stay home and raise the kids. And some of tha lower wage workers could give up their second jobs, and still live on their wages. Leaving all those jobs available for those what currently do not work because they can't live on the wages being offered.

Spread the wealth around, and everyone will be much better off. But capitalism is not about spreading the wealth. It's about getting as much as possible for those in control of commercial enterprise (the capital investor) and leaving everyone else to fight over the crumbs.

Line worker pay is not based on CEO pay, IOW the Line worker does not get paid more if the CEO gets paid less. Most of CEO pay is based on his performance and the performance of the company. If the CEO does a poor job, and does not get the big bonuses he gets when the company is doing good thus gets much less pay, the Line worker gets the same pay. Same goes if he is successful and gets big bonuses, the worker still gets the same pay.

 

[Kfox]

Company Pay Ratios | AFL-CIO

aflcio.org

Do they seriously expect us to believe the average person working at McDonalds makes less than $9,000 per year? C'mon get serious.

 

[Heyo]

The USA can’t afford to operate like the Scandinavian countries

The US - the richest third world country.

because the US depends on the wealth created by the rich to tax and employ, so the government incentivize these wealth creators by allowing them to keep a good portion of the wealth they create. The moment you attempt to equalize everything by taking too much from the rich and giving to the poor, you discourage wealth creation and the only thing you will accomplish is less rich, and you will still have the poor.

Do you really believe that bull****? Qui bono?
And it is not only that the US could afford more equality, they had more equality 50 years ago. Was there a natural catastrophe? Did some essential resource run out? Nope. In fact, productivity went up, the rich got richer and wages stagnated. The capitalists don't create wealth, they siphon wealth.

I don’t know what capitalists you talk to, but the rich capitalists want more people to be rich because that equals more customers who can afford their products, and more people paying taxes which will lower their tax burdens.

And how many of your capitalist friends would support a 100% inheritance tax?

I can only speak for the USA. In the US the rich and their kin are not the only ones who prosper, as a matter of fact, in the USA 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. The vast majority of todays rich did not inherit it from their parents, most built their wealth themselves.

Millionaire Myth Busters

Anyone who thinks all millionaires are just trust-fund babies or don't pay taxes will be surprised by the truth of how people become rich millionaires.

www.ramseysolutions.com

Fine. Let's say the 80% earned their wealth. Would you agree that the 20% should have started with zero, like the others did?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wasn't suggesting it as the only factor at play, I was making the point that just because a person feels he deserves more does not mean this person is greedy, selfish, or wicked; though there are those who are greedy, selfish, and wicked who believe they deserve more, some people deserve more based on the choices they make. That was the point I was making.

Well, no, they don't and yes, they do. But that is in the end morality and ethics combined with psychology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wasn't suggesting that was all, I was just providing an example why one person might make multiple times more than another even though he doesn't provide multiple times the effort or work.

Yeah, but policy made on single factors can overlook other factors.
I am try to get you to consider that fair is a combination of X, Y, Z and so on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The USA can’t afford to operate like the Scandinavian countries because the US depends on the wealth created by the rich to tax and employ, so the government incentivize these wealth creators by allowing them to keep a good portion of the wealth they create. The moment you attempt to equalize everything by taking too much from the rich and giving to the poor, you discourage wealth creation and the only thing you will accomplish is less rich, and you will still have the poor.
...

How come that it works in other parts of the world, but it can't work in the USA?
Can you answer that?

 

[PureX]

Consider Professional Basketball. You have someone like Lebron James making $50 million and some no-name player making $1 million, Does Lebron James work 50 times longer, harder, and smarter than the guy making $1 million? No. But there are lotsa people who will pay to see a game Lebron James is playing in that they will not pay to see the $1 million guy play. IOW Lebron generates ticket sales the other guy doesn’t so even though his effort may not be 50 times more, he generates 50 times (and then some) the revenue as the other guy so he deserves 50 times the pay; don’t cha think? Look at what Musk did for Tesla, or what Bezos did for Amazon; if they generated billions of revenue for those companies that some no-name was unable to generate, shouldn’t they get much higher pay regardless of what the line worker is getting paid? If I were a share holder and I were going to pick between CEO’s and one would likely generate a massive amount of revenue, I would allow a clause in place allowing him to get a percentage of the revenue he generated if this is what he demanded, if this resulted in higher revenue for the company; wouldn’t you?

So you believe that unlimited greed is the proper motivation for all decisions involving commercial enterprise even though it clearly harms many of the people involved, the environment, and culture in general, and that it will ultimately result in economic and cltural collapse when all the wealth, power, and resources end up under the control of the most greedy and clever few among us.

Do you really disregard the well being of your fellow humans that much?

By the way. I have no issue with Lebron James being paid millions of dollars more than the average player. But not even Lebron's skills are worth hundreds of millions more than the other players, or more that any other human on the planet. And no human is doing anything to actually earn that much of a share of the nation's or the world's wealth. And we are fools to allow ANYONE to amass that much wealth and power. Especially when the people that want it are going to be exactly the people that should never have it.

 

[Kfox]

The US - the richest third world country.

Third world country with more rich people than all the other countries combined? Humm...... I wonder what is your definition of third world country.

Do you really believe that bull****? Qui bono?
And it is not only that the US could afford more equality, they had more equality 50 years ago. Was there a natural catastrophe? Did some essential resource run out? Nope. In fact, productivity went up, the rich got richer and wages stagnated.

Yes! After WW-2 the USA was the only country open for business, all of Europe and Asia were recovering after the war; the US was the only power not destroyed by bombs and it took them 30 years to begin to catch up. By the mid 70's the US finally started receiving competition from Europe and Asia and could no longer be dominant anymore.

The capitalists don't create wealth, they siphon wealth.

Can you give an example of Capitalists siphoning wealth?

And how many of your capitalist friends would support a 100% inheritance tax?

A 100% inheritance tax would have the opposite effect causing less of the poor and middle income to become rich

Fine. Let's say the 80% earned their wealth. Would you agree that the 20% should have started with zero, like the others did?

No; what would that have to do with anything?

 

[metis]

The USA can’t afford to operate like the Scandinavian countries because the US depends on the wealth created by the rich to tax and employ, so the government incentivize these wealth creators by allowing them to keep a good portion of the wealth they create. The moment you attempt to equalize everything by taking too much from the rich and giving to the poor, you discourage wealth creation and the only thing you will accomplish is less rich, and you will still have the poor.

That is 100% complete nonsense economically, and btw the Scandinavians do not try and "equalize everything" as there are millionaires there as well. Maybe actually do some studying, thus I again provide you this link: Nordic model - Wikipedia

And here's a different link: Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is 100% complete nonsense economically, and btw the Scandinavians do not try and "equalize everything" as there are millionaires there as well. Maybe actually do some studying, thus I again provide you this link: Nordic model - Wikipedia

And here's a different link: Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia

The joke is that the core idea of the welfare state was formulated by Otto von Bismarck.

 

[metis]

The joke is that the core idea of the welfare state was formulated by Otto von Bismarck.

The irony is that some believe that Lutheran social teachings was at least a catalyst to help create their system because it's a model's Jesus' teachings, such as his "Sermon On the Mount".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The irony is that some believe that Lutheran social teachings was at least a catalyst to help create their system because it's a model's Jesus' teachings, such as his "Sermon On the Mount".

Well, basically it is pragmatic. If you leave the poor too poor relative to a country's overall wealth, they will rebel. Give them a somewhat decent base and they won't.

 

[metis]

Well, basically it is pragmatic. If you leave the poor too poor relative to a country's overall wealth, they will rebel. Give them a somewhat decent base and they won't.

Good point, imo. But I also like to think that many if not most people have at least some compassion for others whom they don't even know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good point, imo. But I also like to think that many if not most people have at least some compassion for others whom they don't even know.

Yeah, but that can have a cultural aspect.

 

[metis]

Yeah, but that can have a cultural aspect.

I would hope so.

 

[PureX]

Good point, imo. But I also like to think that many if not most people have at least some compassion for others whom they don't even know.

Sure they do. Right up until the moment having that compassion costs them something.

 

[Heyo]

A 100% inheritance tax would have the opposite effect causing less of the poor and middle income to become rich

How so? They didn't inherit before but with a 100% inheritance tax, the other taxes can be cut or even eliminated, thus everyone can keep more of the income.

No; what would that have to do with anything?

That would have to do with morality, especially with the equality aspect.

But I think we have established that you don't care about morality or equality, let's switch to practicality. You said that the competition from Europe and Asia put the US in a position where they basically couldn't keep up a social net, like a third world country. I.e. Europe and Asia out-competed the US - with social systems intact. When a more social systems wins against a more capitalistic system, doesn't that tell you that the more social system is superior?

 

[Kfox]

That is 100% complete nonsense economically, and btw the Scandinavians do not try and "equalize everything" as there are millionaires there as well. Maybe actually do some studying, thus I again provide you this link: Nordic model - Wikipedia

And here's a different link: Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia

Did I actually say Scandinavians equalize everything, or that there are no millionaires in Scandinavians? If you are gonna put words in my mouth, try using MY words.
Look what it comes down to; is we don't want to be like the Scandinavian countries. Yeah; there are some who would want to be, but those are usually the ones who are less productive; happy to consume more than they contribute. But the majority like the idea of being able to keep most of the fruits of their labor. We have a different culture, a different economy than those of the Scandinavian countries, we don't want to be like them; if we did we would elect politicians in office to make us like them.

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, but policy made on single factors can overlook other factors.
I am try to get you to consider that fair is a combination of X, Y, Z and so on.

Give an example of a factor That I’ve over looked.

How come that it works in other parts of the world, but it can't work in the USA?
Can you answer that?

We don’t want it to work over here. There are too many Americans who like the idea of being able to keep the fruits of our labor without having too much of it taken away from us and given to someone else we consider less deserving of it. We have a different culture, and a different economic system than some of those other countries have and we want what we have, not what they have; that’s why we keep electing politicians that keep the current system in place.