too rich?

[Mister Agenda]

I hear this bit of bullshit all the time. I concede that there are about 8 million fewer manufacturing jobs since about 1980, but our manufacturing output has doubled in the same time.

The result of more manufacturing jobs or the result of more automation since 1980?

Your superficial 'manufacturing job outsourcing' logic would conclude that nobody in the U.S. has anything to eat. I'm counting on the absurdity of this conclusion catching your attention.

I believe the logical fallacy you've employed here is called "reducto ad absurdum". This is akin to arguing, "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Brach's and Hostess are simply very poor examples for your corporate raider theory.

Our highly conservative, corporate-controlled media spins such demolished companies as the result of labor unions run amok and greedy workers demanding too much compensation. You have to go to foreign media and blogs to get a full picture of what's really going on. Here's one blog entry that I remember vividly.

Why would you consider more manufacturing jobs to be an option when you're quoting someone who is stating there are fewer manufacturing jobs?

I assume charitably in the 2nd case you are grasping Cato's point that it is absurd to conclude a reduction in output from a reduction in jobs in that 'field'.

Cato's point in the third case was that the failure of those particular companies had nought to do with corporate raiding.

You two seem to be miscommunicating. I don't think your point was that output was lower, so Cato's response confirmed your claim about jobs being outsourced with a 'but domestic production still increased' added.

I'm probably going to regret getting in the middle of this, aren't I?

---

To return to my theme, 100 people could supply enough to end extreme poverty from a fraction of their yearly income, if Oxfam is correct.
Along the thread we see two seemingly traditional camps (left right) emerging, which I will paraphrase if you don't mind.

It is those hundred peoples money, a wrong would be done to them even to take part of it.

On the other hand we have voices implying the greater good would justify, a slight removal of wealth from a few individuals.

The extreme inequality does rankle my emotions, so I wondered how would the situation look from a different prospective. and I thought about crime and then the death penalty.

We need a justice system to keep order, and as there is no perfection we know innocent people will be imprisoned. Many people support a death penalty.

Now what is interesting is that I think a lot of people who would say taking money from a few individuals for a greater good is wrong, would also say that although the death penalty will take some innocent lives the greater good justifies it, and visa versa.

Thoughts anybody-

I would like to chime in, but I'm against the death penalty too.

25% isn't a 'slight' removal. I have no strong objection of the recent US tax hike against the wealthy, it's mild, there's a special need, and if it turns out to be useless or counterproductive, at least it wasn't a big bite. I'm not optimistic that any increased revenue will actually be used to pay the debt down more than we increase our borrowing, but I'm hoping to be surprised.

But, going with 25%, I wouldn't be outraged by a 25% charity tax that didn't apply to people already giving at least 25% of their money towards charity. It's a wrong, but as has been pointed out, the targeted class will not actually suffer material deprivation from it, and the lives of a family in extreme poverty are just as important as theirs.

That said, the lives of a family in extreme poverty are just as important as ours, too, and the same logic could be applied to justify taking 25% from all Americans making more than $40,000 per household member. Globally, they are in the top 1% of income, and we will still be living like kings compared to someone in extreme poverty if 25% of our income was seized to help the most deperately impoverished people. It would save millions of lives at the expense of America's middle class having less money for consumer electronics and cell phone plans.

Of course the consequences would be more far-reaching than that in the long run.