US views of Capitalism v Socialism

yep. Ireland's corporate tax rate is something like 18.5%, roughly half that of the US.

Are you familiar with the tax structure of Liechtenstein?

A few years ago a Nobel prize winning economist from Chicago was fined $60 million for tax violations.

He set up several tax exempt corporations with one American based for profit corporation and all he had to do to get by with his paper shuffle scam was let that company make money, but when he found a million on the table, he gave himself a million dollar bonus and because of that violation the whole house of cards collapsed and he had to pay the fine or go to prison.
 
I never said the rich were getting richer at the expense of the poor. As always, you guys have the same lines over and over again and decide to put words in my mouth in order to make the same tired points over and over again.

I'm all for capitalism amd making money. It is far better than the alternative. And its funny now that I am hearing it is about earners, not wealth. What exactly did Bill Gates Jr. do to earn what he gets? The guy on welfare is there because he doesn't want to get up and work and do something for himself...right? But now your saying that isn't really necessary, and if he can convince somebody to give him money he can get around it. Lazy people are perfectly capable of making a fortune. Hmmm.

And I think its great that everybody is on a rising tide, all I pointed out is some are riding a bigger wave than others. I'm not drawing a single conclusion, just pointing out the data...you guys are the ones drawing conclusions...convicting me of saying it is at the expense of the poor man. Please, you know damn well I have said nothing of the sort.

I have no doubt that those with the most have the most to lose. But this whole TARP, bailout, stimulus crap pushed by both administrations has kept some from having to deal with the consequences of bad decisions and paying the piper when their risk failed. The same ones, who probably, would tell me to go to hell if I made a bad investment, yet they are entitled to may tax dollars, because they work for a company that is "too big to fail" and the economy would suffer if they didn't get to keep their money. Horsesh*t.

Again, the same worthless and tired whiny drivel tied back to your ingenius data. By the by, your data is worthless as far as this debate is concerned. Aggregate income levels are simply immaterial to the conversation. It clearly implies that the wealthy are getting there at the expense of everyone else, which is dead wrong. Pretending that my message us the same ole same ole while you're trotting out the Nancy Pelosi fight song us just damn pathetic. Find another point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Again, the same worthless and tired whiny drivel tied back to your ingenius data. By the by, your data is worthless as far as this debate is concerned. Aggregate income levels are simply immaterial to the conversation. It clearly implies that the wealthy are getting there at the expense of everyone else, which is dead wrong. Pretending that my message us the same ole same ole while you're trotting out the Nancy Pelosi fight song us just damn pathetic. Find another point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

It is astounding you are calling me a whiner with a post like this. Would it make you feel better if I posted stats showing who pays the most taxes? Would your feelings not be as hurt then? I guarantee you would be singing a different tune if I posted that instead of what I did. You would be more than happy to draw conclusions then and you wouldn't be so uptight about it. I think it is pathetic you trot out the same ideas over and over again, and inserting words into my mouth to make those same points when I don't say it.

Again, and again, and again...YOU are the one making implications about the data here, and then convicting me of implying something I'm not. The only conclusion I drew was that the top 5% are on a faster upward swing than everybody else. Anything after that....that they are doing it at the expense of the poor...or whatever you are saying...is of your own. I've said nothing of the sort.
 
Intresting topic, Capitalism vs. Socialism...The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.
 
I find it interesting that people are so ready to jump on capitalism when they see failure. Failure is required and needed in capitalism, it is not a bad thing. It does not mean capitalism has failed, in fact, it means it has succeeded.
 
It is astounding you are calling me a whiner with a post like this. Would it make you feel better if I posted stats showing who pays the most taxes? Would your feelings not be as hurt then? I guarantee you would be singing a different tune if I posted that instead of what I did. You would be more than happy to draw conclusions then and you wouldn't be so uptight about it. I think it is pathetic you trot out the same ideas over and over again, and inserting words into my mouth to make those same points when I don't say it.

Again, and again, and again...YOU are the one making implications about the data here, and then convicting me of implying something I'm not. The only conclusion I drew was that the top 5% are on a faster upward swing than everybody else. Anything after that....that they are doing it at the expense of the poor...or whatever you are saying...is of your own. I've said nothing of the sort.

I don't care for any of your stats. If you're only point was that they're moving faster, why did you tell us all it has to stop? Maybe you recall the silly point about the wealthy eventually representing 90% of this absurd aggregate income measure. Remember that? Did I make that up? Further, pretending that the stupid point doesn't argue that our capitalist is hurting the luttie guy is an outright lie.

This isn't about my feelings. It's about your silly misplaced stats trying to make a statement, then you saying that you only put them out there.

Finally, your cute little point about top 5% tax paying doesn't need any inference. It is what it is. However, it doesn't quite line up with the worthless little aggregate income chart, now does it?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
I don't care for any of your stats. If you're only point was that they're moving faster, why did you tell us all it has to stop? Maybe you recall the silly point about the wealthy eventually representing 90% of this absurd aggregate income measure. Remember that? Did I make that up? Further, pretending that the stupid point doesn't argue that our capitalist is hurting the luttie guy is an outright lie.

This isn't about my feelings. It's about your silly misplaced stats trying to make a statement, then you saying that you only put them out there.

Finally, your cute little point about top 5% tax paying doesn't need any inference. It is what it is. However, it doesn't quite line up with the worthless little aggregate income chart, now does it?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Look, you can believe what you want, if it makes you feel better to think that I posted that because I wanted to prove that the rich man is taking advantage of the poor man, so be it. Your point here is patently absurd, with no backing except either what YOU think I meant, or what YOU wanted me to mean. This whole exercise is fast becoming ridiculous.

And pray tell, what does that 90% business I said have to do with your point that I said it because they were getting there at the expense of the poor? I simply said they were getting there at a faster rate. Go look at the percentages again from 1980 on, compare it against every other group, and then tell me I am mistaken about the top 5% growth being faster. There is steady growth there, every other group, including the top 5th as a whole, remain on a steady curve.

I love how most work on here. I post a single set of stats, and immediately, like some knee jerk reaction, I hear "class envy", "pity the poor man", and "economic injustice" arguments. Yet I was not making any sort of inference, just showing where middle class is. Your posts are a perfect example of this. You know you have an arugment you can win everytime, and you use whether or not it even fits with the discussion at hand. It's pathetic, it really is.
 
Look, you can believe what you want, if it makes you feel better to think that I posted that because I wanted to prove that the rich man is taking advantage of the poor man, so be it. Your point here is patently absurd, with no backing except either what YOU think I meant, or what YOU wanted me to mean. This whole exercise is fast becoming ridiculous.

And pray tell, what does that 90% business I said have to do with your point that I said it because they were getting there at the expense of the poor? I simply said they were getting there at a faster rate. Go look at the percentages again from 1980 on, compare it against every other group, and then tell me I am mistaken about the top 5% growth being faster. There is steady growth there, every other group, including the top 5th as a whole, remain on a steady curve.

I love how most work on here. I post a single set of stats, and immediately, like some knee jerk reaction, I hear "class envy", "pity the poor man", and "economic injustice" arguments. Yet I was not making any sort of inference, just showing where middle class is. Your posts are a perfect example of this. You know you have an arugment you can win everytime, and you use whether or not it even fits with the discussion at hand. It's pathetic, it really is.


I just have a hard time understanding how statistics regarding the percentage income change between of various income distributions from 1967 to 1980 helps anyone figure out "where the middle class is" at this point.

I typically try to refrain from making assumptions, but aside from posting those stats to preempt an argument that capitalism is unfairly creating a greater disparity between the rich and poor, I can't why those statistics are relevant to this conversation in any way. I'm sure if you were to explain how they are relevant, most would back off from their accusations.
 
Upper Middle Classis still Middle Class.


Middle-class is, income wise, between $25,000-$100,000/year. You said, outright, anyone making that amount was stupid and lazy.
upper middle class and middle class aren't the same at all.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
The average teacher in california (and in a lot of the rest of the country) is a far bigger socialist than even obama. my gf is a teacher. you wouldn't beleive the crap that comes out of her friends' mouths.
Droski, get out of California before it's too late......
 
I just have a hard time understanding how statistics regarding the percentage income change between of various income distributions from 1967 to 1980 helps anyone figure out "where the middle class is" at this point.

I typically try to refrain from making assumptions, but aside from posting those stats to preempt an argument that capitalism is unfairly creating a greater disparity between the rich and poor, I can't why those statistics are relevant to this conversation in any way. I'm sure if you were to explain how they are relevant, most would back off from their accusations.

I have explained, the middle fifths should be middle class, and it shows what percentage of the aggregate income they take in.

What is so controversal about all this? I posted a graph. That's it guys. I don't know how many times I can say that I don't think the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. Draw whatever conclusion you want, but don't start throwing out accusations that I am turning this into some class envy anti-capitalist assertion. It is what it is. Geez.
 
You have indicated that if the rich continue to get richer that the situation is unsustainable and feeds corruption. I believe you used your data as evidence no? A logical inference then would be that capitalism (at least the version since 1980) should be tempered to prevent a furthering of this trend. Is that your position?

If I've misinterpreted your use of the data please state what the point of the data is in your view. What is it telling us about capitalism v. socialism?
 
You have indicated that if the rich continue to get richer that the situation is unsustainable and feeds corruption. I believe you used your data as evidence no? A logical inference then would be that capitalism (at least the version since 1980) should be tempered to prevent a furthering of this trend. Is that your position?

If I've misinterpreted your use of the data please state what the point of the data is in your view. What is it telling us about capitalism v. socialism?

You guys really are making entirely too much out of this. This is bordering on comical. It seems like you all want really really bad for me to start going into an anti-capitalism rant so we can have old arguments and the stale points you all want to argue can be brought out again.

I was showing where the middle class sits in terms of income. The data shows the top 5% are on a faster upward trend. I was answering a specific point in the thread. That's it. Really, I promise.

But since you guys are hell bent on having this conversation because you have a point you need to make...let's talk about it. According to the tax foundation, the top 5% pay about 50% of the taxes. The top 10% pay around 60%, and the top 25% pay around 80% of total taxes (these are rough numbers, not exact). Is this too much? Sure, I think it is. But the argument that higher taxes stifles economic growth and prosperity in those income brackets simply isn't true. They are still doing better, and have done marginally better in terms of growth than the bottom 80% of wage earners. Especially since 1980. If everybody is on an upward trend in terms of standard of living (middle class is better off now than in the 60's, etc...), I don't care how much the top wage earners make. However, if standard of living stays stagnant, or drops off, and those top wage earners are accelerating faster and faster, then yes, my opinion is its unsustainable.
 
just asking a question rjd -- I was trying to figure out what the data was supposed to tell us.

I understand, and my point at first was there was no point, other than trying to show where middle class is. If this is a bad way to show it then so be it. Since then it has turned into something else because some on here have decided to make an issue of it.
 
just asking a question rjd -- I was trying to figure out what the data was supposed to tell us.

Same here. I am not the type of guy who likes to argue for the sake of arguing (if you consider what I was saying as arguing). I just wasn't seeing the connection and was trying to get clarification.

As to your point rjd, I do think the rapid increase in the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is unsustainable. However, much of the rapid growth is due to society's general acceptance of highly paid executives and the like, as well as the public's general indifference to do anything about it. I think the top-earner salary bubble is going to pop just like housing. It will just take time for the public to act and let the "invisible hand" take its course (i.e., people stop buying products from companies that they feel are paying executives too much or by shareholders actually voicing their disgust when employees recieve extraordinary bonuses in years of losses). My fear is that the governement isn't going to wait that long before they step in and try to regulate private salaries.
 
Now that CEOs are the bad guys, only athletes and entertainers will be crazy rich!

Time to cap their salaries.
 
I don't understand the "income bubble" statement. It's not really tied to the same market forces as housing or tech stocks is it?
 
Now that CEOs are the bad guys, only athletes and entertainers will be crazy rich!

Time to cap their salaries.

Why not? After all they are being paid insane money to play a game, and only play that game anywhere between 4 to 6 months depending on the sport!
 
Now that CEOs are the bad guys, only athletes and entertainers will be crazy rich!

Time to cap their salaries.

Haha. Now, I just want to clarify, in case your response was a dig at me, that I don't think CEOs are "bad guys" at all (at least for the most part). My point was simply that I don't think we are going to be seeing the same extremely high salaries they have been seeing for no other reason than the media making them out to be bad guys. I think that, eventually, this characterization that the rich are bad will end up deflating the salaries of the "bad" guys to an extent. Not saying I agree whatsoever. Just wouldn't be surpised if it happens.
 
I don't understand the "income bubble" statement. It's not really tied to the same market forces as housing or tech stocks is it?

Not saying its the same thing, just saying that I think salaries are going to take a drop similar to that which happened in the housing market.
 
Haha. Now, I just want to clarify, in case your response was a dig at me, that I don't think CEOs are "bad guys" at all (at least for the most part). My point was simply that I don't think we are going to be seeing the same extremely high salaries they have been seeing for no other reason than the media making them out to be bad guys. I think that, eventually, this characterization that the rich are bad will end up deflating the salaries of the "bad" guys to an extent. Not saying I agree whatsoever. Just wouldn't be surpised if it happens.

It wasn't a dig at you. It's a dig at the "outrage" over CEOs and other business people in general that is creating the bubble you referenced. I agree that the "rich as bad" wave of feelings will pull salaries down - we are already seeing it via government regulation.
 
That's fair enough.

Welcome aboard. You will soon find, that if you believe in any way that isn't capitalistic, socially conservative, and Jesus friendly around here...your derided by some as a dirty socialistic atheist commy. Just fair warning.

At least you know what you are.

:hi:
 

VN Store



Back
Top