Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

There really isn't anything wrong with being greedy. Where we have a problem is that our government provides favorable treatment to the greedy under our tax codes that are unfair. If all individuals had the same tax burden relative to income at both the state and federal level the fact that one person is greedy while another is not doesn't represent a problem. Unfair tax treatment under "crony capitalism" is the actual problem as it feeds the greedy at the expense of person that isn't greedy.

High income wealthy individuals, especially those that derive their income from investments in the secondary stock markets that do nothing for the economy, have a much lower overall tax burden relative to income than the middle and lower income workers in America today and that represents unfair tax treatment under crony capitalism.

 

This always raises a question in my mind. Only "people" have Rights such as the Right of Property. The government does not have any Rights, only powers, and so how was it ever justifiable that the "government" gave or sold land to individuals or corporations when the government didn't own the land? Much of the land in the United States that is privately owned was given or sold by the government to individual but the government didn't own the land because the government has no Rights of Property that would allow it to sell or give the land away.

Individuals can establish a "Right to the Use of the Land by Labor" but it cannot be given or sold to them by a government that has no property rights. We can also note that the Right to the Use of the Land can only be maintained by continuing the labor that established the Right to the Use of the Land in the first place.

Of course this whole line of reasoning is based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person but then our government was created to protect our Inalienable Rights and not to violate them.

 

Circles.... private ownership of capital is banned and this is it .
People like me you mean Mensheviks ? i don't recall Mensheviks killing anyone , as for capitalists we all remember both world wars, colonial wars and recent wars in the middle east ...not to go into dictatorships ....
My body definitely isn't owned by a mine or a plantation owner .

 

So basically you are upset that the Capital Gains tax isn't higher than 20% for those who make more than $400k annually through investments?
Or are you upset that some wealthy people put their money in extremely long-term investments, that are allowed to compound assets while deferring taxes until later dividends are collected?
How does that equate with the fact that the money which is saved, and then invested, has already been taxed 1-3 times before it is ever reinvested?

It is like the Estate Tax in that all the money in a person's Estate has already been taxed ... So when they die you take another 50% ... and people call the wealthy greedy.

 

I agree totally. There is nothing wrong with saying that GREED IS GOOD!!!. Greed is the real engine behind getting out of poverty. Government and economy doesn't go together. The top corporation have no choice but to capture the government otherwise the competition will do it. A mix economy sets it self up for a constant struggle for power. Taxes and regulations always going to favor those who has an access to politicians. I believe in no taxes only in voluntary charity and the absolute separation of state and economy. But I know that is unrealistic in the current political atmosphere. The current IRS scandal could server the opportunity to get rid of the IRS and the complicated Tax code and insert a 10% fair tax and let the government choke on what is available for them. Actually CATO proved that if the government put 1% tax on all goods and services and got rid of the Income tax they revenue would rise.. But properly its just going to be swept under the rug with a little spanking..

 

So you are saying you are the slave to the public, your body owned by the public. I can chose not to work in the mine or the "plantation". I can start my own "plantation".. I am still better off.. You stuck with what the public voted on. You cannot even pint point you own slave owner. You are against the machine where everybody is enslaved everybody. You have to leave the country or you become a criminal if you disagree with your slave owners. A machine doesn't have a soul a human individual has a soul. I rather deal with a busnies owner than faceless bureaucrats.

 

Attempting bull(*)(*)(*)(*) poetry ?
Yeah a system where you can make decisions for yourself is enslaving while selling your labor in a competitive price is freedom .

 

That is a Civil liberty issue, they can use the judicial system to protect them against discrimination, they are not inept, they maybe hard workers just been framed. When I say inept I am talking about the people who choose to no get a job or they loosing they job because they laziness or misconduct. Just to give them a government job is a "waste of inflation". If they did a horrible job at the private sector imagen what they gonna do in the public sector where is no oversite what so ever.

 

Why so little faith in Capitalism?

 

I have faith in Capitalism, you don't have faith in Capitalism....

 

For someone who believes Socialism is merely a requirement for States and statism to exist; I believe I have more Faith in capitalism than many of the those of the opposing view.

How can Any private sector be worse off with full employment in the market for labor, even if achieved through public sector intervention?

 

Yes your willingness to abandon capitalism makes your support for it unquestionable. How many trillions will you need to get full employment and how will you get it? Why are you better at spending the resource then the person who created it? Etc,.. Look if you want full employment, cut government workers pay in half and then hire all the unemployed. But you want government pay to remain higher the private pay right?

 

Ensuring full employment of resources is in no way, abandoning capitalism. If you had been paying attention to the argument, you would not need to resort to strawman arguments now.

Providing for the general welfare implies providing for the general prosperity; thus, public policy choices should be an investment in the general welfare and engender positive multiplier effects on our economy.

The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in the several States and the federal districts, and is currently underutilized. We could be lowering our tax burden by drawing participants from more expensive, means tested social programs.

- - - Updated - - -

Some libbers are willing to resort to the fewest fallacies for their Cause, and claim it is a moral and ethic of true witness bearing in modern times. For the right, the reverse is true.

 

Statism whats opens the door for abuse of the markets against the poor, by cornering the market through the State. Why big corporations never support Libertarian candidates but they support both Statist parties.. Because the State what allows the to rob the public at ones through taxes. Socialist, pork, military programs and other random government programs are the most lucrative business. No competitions and ultra profites are guaranteed through the taxpayers, you can produce cheap bad quality products and charge high price for it like Chase making billions through food stamps or Haliburton providing goods for the war or Solindra alternative energy scandal or the War on Drugs Prison industry.....

 

Have you seen the Standard of living of truer AnCaps which are not as socialized nor even may have a central bank.

What you are claiming does have to do with the socialism of a delegated Power to our legislators, to write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our republic.

Yet, how often does the right complain about the lack of faith of our elected representatives in Capitalism, sufficient to merely purchase the best solutions money can buy, with an official Mint at our disposal?

 

So you agree it was mismanagement and greedy executives that destroyed the company, but you choose to blame the entire 30 year fiasco on the workers for not allowing the patient to live in a last ditch effort that may or may have not worked. Got it. It still doesn't change the fact that the company was destroyed by management, as I said all along, based on the CEO's admission. There was also no guarantees, just an opportunity for a few more years of looting by the criminals who drove the company into bankruptcy in the first place while they continued to accept multimillion dollar bonuses for their incompetence.

So are any of these guys applying for those $14 positions? Or are they just going to allow their unemployment to run it's course? Do they even have unemployment?

 

Poorly run companies die. That is the beauty of capitalism. Government rewards failing institutions with more money. That is its problem.

 

The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in the several States and the federal districts, and is currently underutilized. We could be lowering our tax burden by drawing participants from more expensive, means tested social programs.

 

Can those of the opposing view explain the mechanism for how an increase in the circulation of money in our institution of money based markets would be bad for any private sector engaging in Commerce?

 

Money isn't value. Goods and services are value. When you print money you are not making people richer, you are increasing the amount of money to buy goods, but since the pool of goods is unchanged, you cause inflation, and since the government decides who gets the money (banks), it hurts the average worker with savings or anyone with cash really. They usually invest it in blue chips, not the average consumer, so in addition to less money, it can often skew the economy. (Financial sector makes more then the productive sector b/c one makes money charging interest off of money created through inflation taxation of everyone) Here, let the man explain it:

[video=youtube;6W_9I0nk8uI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W_9I0nk8uI[/video]

Please watch it first, and then take up an argument against it.

 

Actually it's everybody's problem because when the government props up/runs interference to assure the success of a selective few institutions above all others to maximize profits (Part II why government gets involved), while eliminating the ability of competition to keep capitalism alive (part I of the government intrusion plan), small businesses and new businesses are curtailed, and/or eliminated. That is what we have now, lack of a competitive economic environment so more businesses can achieve success to obtain a piece of the pie, and cronyism capitalism.

 

Every dollar in the US economy is taxed over and over again as financial transactions are made. This is a stupid argument.

An investment in the secondary stock market is not repeatedly taxed. If the income is from dividends then it is taxed once when the investor is taxed on the income. Dividends payments are paid at the whim of the Board of Directors and fundamentally have nothing to do with the profit/loss or taxes paid by the enterprise. There are corporations that have made profits for years and have never paid out a dividend. If the income is from the sale of the stock, where most profits are realized, then the income has absolutely nothing to do with the enterprise as no corporate funds are involved at all.

At the federal level there should be a simple rule. Every dollar of income is a dollar of income and the same tax rates should be applicable to all income regardless of source or the entity (personal or business) receiving the income.

I've used this example before because I actually looked up the taxation based upon the IRS publications.

A small business owner with a net income of $100,000/yr pays combined federal income taxes of $37,300.

An investor with a net income of $100,000/yr pays combined federal income taxes significantly less than $20,000 (the maximum rate) and would probably pay about $10,000.

Why is the individual that owns a smally business, goes to work everyday, often working 50-60 hours per week, producing the actual wealth of American, and providing jobs, is paying $37,300 in taxes while someone sitting in a lawn chair on the beach, never working at all, producing no wealth, and creating no jobs is only paying somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 in taxes?

Anyone that argues that the small business owner that is working everyday, creating wealth, and providing jobs should be paying more in taxes than the investor that isn't working, isn't creating wealth, and isn't creating jobs is smoking something that's making them delusional.

 

Agreed. Here I have a mayor who is constantly throwin money around to attract new business instead of giving it back to the ones that built this town.

 

Charging too much tax that way for some places. Fairest way is zero corporate and business tax and no special treatment for capital gains except for an inflation deduction.