Bernie Sanders Rocks My World!

[Jaysyn]

If i ran the world i would get rid of high class and the lower class, by taking the excessive cash from the first to give to the second, so we would have only the middle class, and that would be equality

That's not how economics work. That very act would destroy the value of any currency.

[Ashendant]

If i ran the world i would get rid of high class and the lower class, by taking the excessive cash from the first to give to the second, so we would have only the middle class, and that would be equality

That's not how economics work. That very act would destroy the value of any currency.

Precisely forcing us to adopt one currency, fully controlled by a benign government(in that case was me)

[Tiberius]

Nice to see fascism is making a comeback.

:rollseyes:

[Ashendant]

Nice to see fascism is making a comeback.

:rollseyes:

Well that was my idea on how to rule the world, as you know that will never happen

[lilyannerose]

Tiberius' pid='107575' dateline='1291240452'
*sigh*

Equality doesn't mean people should be the same, it means people should be treated the same. The world doesn't work if you just take money form the rich and give it to the poor, for various reasons. Ignoring the fact that this behaviour is unfair in the first place (what right do you have to take that money, and what right do the poor have to it?), the main problem with spreading the wealth is that you remove any incentive to actually work.

It's a false argument to state that the poor won't work because the wealth is spread. This line of thinking is nothing more than Ronald Reagan's mythical welfare queen. You are dehumanizing the poor indicating that they don't have the same human needs as others to feel the accomplishment of a job well done. Just as you sacrifice the innovation and the need to innovate and create wrapping it up in the promise of wealth to be gained.

Your argument fails because you fail to acknowledge simple human need and want.

Society needs high earners who create jobs for the low earners. Society needs low earners to take those jobs in order for the high earners to create more jobs. It is a circle of growth, and it works.

This is old and failed thinking.

[DeistPaladin]

*sigh*

Equality doesn't mean people should be the same, it means people should be treated the same. The world doesn't work if you just take money form the rich and give it to the poor, for various reasons. Ignoring the fact that this behaviour is unfair in the first place (what right do you have to take that money, and what right do the poor have to it?), the main problem with spreading the wealth is that you remove any incentive to actually work. What is the point of working when you know the government will just give you free money? What is the point of inventing a new product if you know you can't sell it and take a decent profit? The market will just stop working, and without the market, you won't have anything being produced, so good luck actually feeding and clothing your population.

I certainly don't advocate "spreading the wealth", by which I mean taking money from the rich and simply giving it away to the poor. That's not what taxes necessarily are. Taxes are the method by which society gets the funding necessary to run its basic services, including law enforcement, fire departments, road construction and other infrastructure, garbage pick up, etc. I would also add medical care and schools to that list of basic social services. The rich benefit the most from a functional society and so they need to pay a greater percentage of their income.

Also, remember that part of what distinguishes America and other developed nations from the 3rd world is a skilled middle class. That middle class is disappearing in America.

[Minimalist]

Here you go, Adrian. From today's news. The Let-em-eat-cake crowd really does want them to eat cake.

Scumbags.


http://apnews.excite.com/article/2010120...J4EO0.html

House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children.

Republicans used a procedural maneuver Wednesday to try to amend the $4.5 billion bill, which would give more needy children the opportunity to eat free lunches at school and make those lunches healthier. First lady Michelle Obama has lobbied for the bill as part of her "Let's Move" campaign to combat childhood obesity.

[Tiberius]

Why would I be interested in that?

[theVOID]

I certainly don't advocate "spreading the wealth", by which I mean taking money from the rich and simply giving it away to the poor. That's not what taxes necessarily are. Taxes are the method by which society gets the funding necessary to run its basic services, including law enforcement, fire departments, road construction and other infrastructure, garbage pick up, etc. I would also add medical care and schools to that list of basic social services. The rich benefit the most from a functional society and so they need to pay a greater percentage of their income.

No, poor people benefit most from a functional society, the rich are the rich wherever you go.

And besides, that is absolutely no reason to have a scaled tax syste, all you need is a tax rate that is sufficiently high to gather the funds for social spending so to use that as an argument for scaled tax is a complete misfire

Even if it were true that rich people benefit more from a functional society It works like follows:

1. Necessary social spending requires funding
2. Taxes are the main source of the funding for social spending
3. Social spending helps create a functional society
4. The rich benefit most from a functional society
5. A greater benefit demands a greater cost.
6. Therefore the rich sould pay a disproportionately higher percentage of their incomes.

Even when 4 and 5 are accepted (and I would contend both) It just doesn't follow.

[ib.me.ub]

It is a circle of growth, and it works.

Umm, so have you heard of the Global Financial Crisis. I think the rich actually created less jobs this time around.

Edit: Greed & growth will never work in the end.