Income Inequality in America

There are 2 types of outsourcing.

1. International - companies move production to another country.

2. Domestic - Companies employ foreign workers to do jobs which can only be done inside the US (landscaping, construction, janitorial, truck driving, hotels, etc)

Both result in loss of jobs to American workers and a reduction in wages, thereby causing less consumer spending, and less money going into the American economy. Yeah, I've heard all those "Out sourcing creates job here" raps, until my ears fell off. They're wrong. Net effect of outsourcing is a disaster to the US economy, and both types of outsourcing are a main reason why our economy is so bad in recent years.

 

I have 2 Ibanez guitars. One solid body electric, and one acoustic electric. Love 'm. I'll grant the Asian manufacturers of musical instruments with a good commendation, however their quality is nowhere near up to par with American made instruments. Example > I have an Eastman mandolin. It's pretty good, but to get a really good mandolin, you have to go American, and pay quite a bit more money. It's just the way it is. Ask anybody who is an authority on mandolins and violins, and guitars. They'll tell you.

 

I don't agree with you. And I will continue to do business with American companies who do a better job for the price and with outsourcing companies when the American companies do not do a better job for the price.

It is my opinion that excessive corporate taxation and bloated union wage workers are responsible for most of the outsourcing, and until the 12% or so of American labor which is union choose to settle for responsible wages it will continue to occur.

 

So, somebody else would've been charging rent for what would've otherwise been free. SO? That's not an argument against the point I'm making in this post. We could just as well assume he was the first man to appropriate this land. Doesn't make a difference to this example.

The conman paid back some of the money he got for doing nothing, but hasn't contributed anything.

Other people's contributions made the infrastructure, services, houses, church etc. possible, not the conman's. The conman just gives back a portion of what he gets for doing nothing.

You sound exactly like the conman in my example. Creepy, to say the least!

So, you consider not stopping production a contribution to production. LOL!!!!! Face it, the conman just appropriated wealth others created by owning land neither he nor anyone else created. Giving back a small portion of it doesn't no longer make him a conman.

"Developer"??? Why so desperate to talk about improvements? Those are irrelevant to what my example describes. It exposes the corrupt nature of landowning. That's it. If he happened to be a developer too, that still doesn't change the nature of the return made through landowning. I'm not going to catch that red herring.

Already addressed.

Nope, the conman in my example took wealth that already existed, and which others created, then gave a small portion of it back, and then claimed to be contributing. LOL!!!!

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULTS<<<<

 

If your company gambled away all the money, you can get a bailout courtesy of the taxpayers, and even oversee criminal fraud and still get your "performance bonus" in millions.

When you refuse to prosecute they just do it again.

Fraud and theft caused the economic problems and it is as simple as that.

 

The only land that has ever been free is that which had no one set foot on it to settle down.

No it doesn't. The first person settling on that land automatically made it more valuable as others would seek company and rather than settle on his land would settle adjacent until there was a community formed which would start to tax the landowners to create infrastructure to serve the new community.

The first settler most certainly contributed, not only his taxes but his company as it is more secure to live in a community that alone in a large land.

All of the settlers paid taxes which then built the infrastructure. Settlers always came first and financed the infrastructure. You cannot deny that, it is irrefutable.

The creepy people are those who did not pay taxes to build the infrastructure and expect something from the land owner to maintain that infrastructure.

The settler preceded the infrastructure, and was the first to contribute to production. Maybe the labor to build his house, or food he grew on his land to sell and just like any other tax payer, paid his share of the costs of the infrastructure. He who you call the conman created the beginning of the community and as a result has contributed more to the community than anyone else.

Yes, developer. Of course developer. In any example, after the community is started by the first settler and taxes are paid and others move in to take advantage of the infrastructure the settler effectively created, there then comes to the community an entrepreneur to develop additional land for new comers and as is common it is that developer who builds infrastructure along with the power companies, the one who drills the well and sells water to the community which after there has been sufficient development the taxes pay for more infrastructure and on and on and on..............

Not sufficiently to justify suggesting the land owner does not contribute to the economy whereas he tends to be the first to contribute to the community economy.

No he didn't. The unused land was not wealth to anyone before he settled it, helped build the community, paid for the infrastructure along with others who settled on the land and as a community prospered such that agriculture or manufacturing started production and even more contributions to salaries, taxes and security of the community.

Calling me a liar again I see. My signature gives the best definition of rent seeking posted thus far. Rent-seeking is no more associated with land owners than it is with a manufacturing concern, or a professional person or anyone else. It is quite reasonable to presume that in any set of landowners there are no more rent seeking than any other group of people.

 

In my opinion the very suggestion that land owners as a group are any less good productive citizens or any more of a parasite as any other group of people is absurd and ludicrous. There has yet to be posted a shred of evidence or information which would support such a blatant miscarriage of honest assertion.

It is nothing but huffing and puffing by people who tend to be jealous of what others have accomplished.

 

I agree to disagree. Usually, people who want to quibble really don't have a valid argument or point to make. I am willing to go with the Standard fixed by our federal Congress regarding poverty guidelines for the US.

Official poverty is good enough to end that line of reasoning, merely to quibble without a valid point to make.

In any Case, why would any alleged conservative have Any problem with engendering a moral of; staying poor on an at-will basis basis must be an Individual problem if that Person cannot claim to be in official poverty?

There is Constitutional justification in our mission statement, which includes the directive, to promote the general welfare of the United States.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure what you mean; with sufficient morals, socialism can engender a Heaven on Earth, for "free".

 

Contributions which would not have been made if the land had not had taxes paid on it and if it was not available for someone to rent and produce wealth. You can't get past the fact that land owners are as honest and contributors as a group as any other group. You entire premise is flawed.

 

Be my guest Daniel. You obviously do not understand what real poverty is.

I don't quibble, I express opinion based on my experiences and what I read.

I really have no understanding what any problem a conservative would have. I also have no problem paying taxes to help those who are below that artificial poverty line if they are there through no fault of their own.

I accept that as well, but it does not specifically address helping those who do not help themselves.

Socialism engenders nothing but depreciating any economy in which it is practiced. It reduces economic progress making everyone less well off in the process. Any system which curtails ambition and reduces motivation is anti-progressive.

 

If would have been available to produce wealth on even if the landowning conman or any other landowning conman was erased from history, evaporated, and sucked into a black hole.

NEXT

Landowners not being productive contributors is not the premise. It's the conclusion after examination of the available facts.

 

Nothing is free.

 

Hopefully, the reader understands this is a product of both Democrats and Republicans selling us out
for their personal wealth. We all know this.
Yet we continue to vote for such hopes as Obama or deregulators like Bush.
Get it?
Both sides serve the same interests. And those interests are NOT "we the people".
As long as they have no difference in basic economic policy, their differences exemplified in social programs are just "fluff".
ObamaCare type "fluff" is not going to relieve the overriding problem of corporate thievery. If anything it makes it worse.
Any one who does not contribute to the profits of a private insurance company is violating the law.


Wake up and smell the
2016 opt out of the Two Party Game. Vote for any Third Party.
Such votes are statements that historically drive the two parties back to separate philosophies.
Vote for any Third Party in 2016 ! 2014 too

Exceptions
Elizabeth Warren
Jerry Brown
Rand Paul
have all demonstrated they do not serve "the plutocracy"

Moi


Suggestions for other exceptions gratefully received.

 

Certainly. And if my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle...

 

Is that all you've got to argue in favor of landowners' leeching? How weak.

 

I will continue to remind you that socialism is perfectly legal in the USA.

Get to work. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wish to follow you.

 

Our economy and that of the world would have suffered.

Obviously you have over looked lot of the facts as landowners have substantially contributed to the wealth of the country's economy.

- - - Updated - - -

Since landowners tend not to leech is is more than is necessary to put your argument to rest in peace.

 

The problem is that the news won't tell people about the damage caused by the too big to jail, due to egregious fraud like pension raiding, LIBOR rigging, market manipulations for pretty much all markets, while the economy is propped up on fake financial products like carbon credits, speculations etc. and a USD they won't stop printing which forever drives down the buying power of a hard day's work.

But they WILL tell you about the latest gaff some politician made, or the latest doping athlete that cheated at a game.

People will shake their fists at the food stamp takers instead. And while these destructive economic policies and government-sanctioned corporate theivery are what drive up the poverty and need for food stamps, the news will get the people shaking their fists at the food-stamp takers, or the NRA, depending on which opinion template the viewer has conformed to.

 

I have refrained from responding to this thread because its OP has been sideswiped and taken over by LVTrs with their flawed reasoning against private ownership in land. They are obviously very mislead and do not understand all of the real objections to that kind of taxation. A renowned economist, Murray Rothbard, wrote all of the objections to that system that should ever be needed. LVT which involves community or government owned land is the basis for socialism. http://mises.org/daily/4824

From the standpoint of economic theory, the famous physiocratic tenet that only land is productive must be considered bizarre and absurd. It is certainly a tremendous loss of insight compared to Cantillon, who identified land and labor as original productive factors, and entrepreneurs as the motors of the market economy, who adjust resources to the demands of consumers and to the uncertainty of the market. It is surely true that agriculture was the chief occupation of the day, and that most commerce was the transportation and sale of agricultural products, but this scarcely salvages or excuses the absurdity of the land-as-only-productive-factor doctrine.​

So then let's address LVT as a single tax system. http://mises.org/rothbard/georgism.pdf

The deficiency in that argument is the neglect of the time factor
in production. Capital is the product of human energy and land . . .
and time.

Thus, pure site value could never be found in practice, and the single tax program could not be installed except by arbitrary authority. But let us waive this fatal flaw for the moment and pursue the rest of the theory. Let us suppose that pure site value could be found. Would a single tax program then be wise? Well, what about idle land? Should the sight of it alarm us? On the contrary, we should thank our stars for one of the great economic facts of nature: that labor is scarce relative to land. . It is a fact that there is more land available in the world, even quite useful land, than there is labor to keep it employed. This is a cause for rejoicing, not
lament.

The single taxers claim that the tax could not possibly have any
ill effects; that it could not hamper production because the site is
already God-given, and man does not have to produce it; that, there
fore, taxing the earnings from a site could not restrict production, as do
all other taxes.

This claim rests on a fundamental assumption—the
hard core of single tax doctrine: Since the site-owner performs no
productive service he is, therefore, a parasite and an exploiter, and so
taxing 100 percent of his income could not hamper production.
But this assumption is totally false The owner of land does
perform a very valuable productive service, a service completely
separate from that of the man who builds on, and improves, the land.
The site owner brings sites into use and allocates them to the most
productive user. He can only earn the highest ground rents from his
land by allocating the site to those users and uses that will satisfy the
consumers in the best possible way. We have seen already that the
site owner must decide whether or not to work a plot of land or keepit idle.
He must also decide which use the land will best satisfy. In
doing so, he also insures that each use is situated on its most produc-
tive location.

. A single tax would utterly destroy the market’s important job of supplying
efficient locations for all man’s productive activities, and the efficient use of available land.

A 100 percent tax on rent would cause the capital value of all land to fall promptly to zero. And if rents are zero, a 100 percent tax on rents will also yield nothing.​

 

Those arguments put the concept of the LVT as a single tax completely and totally absurd.

 

Oh for sure. American made instruments are the best. I had an old fender p bass, Gibson SGO from the 60s. Excellent guitars. A Tobias bass too, beautiful guitar and made in America. American craftsmanship and wood working really is excellent. I think my band (we sucked but it was fun) had only one non American made piece of gear and that was a Sovtek tube amp.

 

He quoted a very good economist who made a good case against LVT single tax schemes.

Not true. You brought me into this when you reminded me I had told you I owned property and got reasonable rent from it.

Your "facts" were passe opinion. 19th century thinking by a 19th century thinker.

every time you said I was lying it was ad hominem. You posted nonsense, I rebutted it, you didn't like it so you insulted.

Yep, and it seems like you spent half your posts directing them at me.

It becomes your problem when you call me a liar in anyone of several different ways, or accuse me of being what I am not.

Most landlords are nice guys. The very idea that land owners as a group are any less nice than any other group is absurd.

 

The problem is that the news is no longer a sincere journalistic effort.
It is bought and paid for political persuasion. Fox/MSNBC can agree on one area.
Any candidate preaching outside the will of the wealthy is labeled a "nut" by all of Media, Inc.

Oh for the days of Edward R. Morrow, Walter Cronkite, and honest journalistic effort.

Moi

 

No. Paying the bill never "justifies" the expense. After all, the word "expense" means "paying the bills".

If there isn't a real reason to build "infrastructure", it shouldn't be built. For example, Governor Moonbeam's Magic Choo Choo will never justify the expense, but Californians will be paying taxes on it forever.

very little.

The state isn't supposed to be rendering "services", except in strictly limited activities.

Nothing you said about "infrastructure" has been truthful so far.

The only price tag rights come with is blood.

Yeah, amazing that. All people have to do is support themselves and in the process they grow the economy.

 

Yes, under the Freedom of Religion clause, socialists are free to hold any of the loony ideas they feel most important to them.

Under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, no, Congress cannot implement socialism.

Under Article I, Section 8, Congress is prohibited from passing the legislation socialism demands.

Under the Fifth Amendment, people's property cannot be seized by the government without exchanging equal value to the victim.

Under the Thirteenth Amendment the enact of involuntary servitude socialists always demand is illegal. We're far far past the point where taxation ISN'T slavery in the US already. We passed that point when tax dollars were taken from the useful and handed directly to RAT voters.