Capitalism Explained
 

Where's the parts about licensing and taxation?

hahah... nice.

Change Bob to Dave and that 's me.

hahahahaha

and what of unions and regulation?

"you cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. you cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. you cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. you cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn(tax). you cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independance. you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

perhaps the self proclaimed "new Lincoln" should consider the words of the "old" and original Lincoln.

You know normally I don't enjoy Shattos posts but for this one High Five! Nice!

true story...

i talked to a customer whom i consider to be intelligent and informed today about our economic woes. he is middle aged and college educated.

he holds the belief that govt SHOULD tax millionaires(and billionaires) up to 90% of their income to "help" the rest of us. and he denied that it was a socialist view! i explained that it is not for govt to decide, besides they would just increase needless spending and waste.

he said higher education should NOT equate to higher pay. i replied that altho many CEOs and such are overpaid, they do deserve more compensation than the rest of us.

here's the kicker...

i suggested that CEOs should have a relatively low base pay(arbitrarily sub $million) w/ bonus and profit sharing based on performance. furthermore, profit sharing should be distributed evenly among ALL employees of a given company. so, CEOs and above average employees would still make more than the rest, but profits would give satisfaction and extra compensation for everyone.

he said, it's not right to give the profits to lower level employees while the CEO grew the company. so, the blue collar guys and gals did nothing to produce increases? he explained that the CEO and upper management deserve the spoils. :eek:

so, it's okay for govt to mandate redistribution of wealth(profits), but not individual companies? we are in trouble if this is what the thinking of the majority(non-elite earners) is!

Maybe he wants the bonus to go to one person so the government can tax 90% of it...

it was a quick conversation as we both had to be on our way, but i am CERTAIN of his view(words). i'm still trying to figure if he understands his contradiction or if he really believes that govt has the answers to our issues.

BTW, he works for a high-end hotel who's existance DEPENDS on the wealthiest among us! tax them 90% and i guarantee you, HE will be looking for a job.

Since there is such a vast disparity between the income of actors and their audiences, I think we should tax the pants off actors.

there lies the rub. some are considered to make "easy" millions, either not really earning it or walking away w/ a "boat load" of $$$ while their company fails.

others founded their companies giving blood, sweat, and tears to MORE than earn their millions. these, like pro athletes, risk a shorter life expectancy. so, how do we differenciate in regard to taxes? in short, we CAN'T!

think of how many variables affect our economy and the ONLY conclusion one can come to is that the tax code will never be fair until those variables are addressed. the links in my signature are a start however.

illegals, govt waste, people working "under the table", abuse of healthcare, welfare fraud, double dippers of social security, over paid govt pensions, etc will continue to require responsible people to subsidize and pick up the tab by paying more than their fair share of taxes!

I will have to respectfully disagree with the highlighted premise in it's absolutism. Surely there can be a balance in sharing the wealth between the wage payer and earners who are productive and add to the value of a company.

With respect to the 90% tax rate, I think that goes back to an era of extreme taxation of the wealthy that really is socialist, but the reality of where we are today is a wealthy class that pays a mere 15% on dividends and capital gains as opposed to even the highest of the middle class paying a whopping 38% on wages that they ACTUALLY WORKED FOR!

Eliminating this special class of taxation for investors would go a long way toward evening the playing field.

hasn't history shown that this not only hurts the market AND the economy, but it also DECREASES tax revenue due to less trading?

so levelling the field in this respect may be a moot point, besides govt has shown us that they will continue to increase spending.

i question the REAL struggles of 2 income families(or 1 person, 1 income). we continue to "tax" ourselves by spending more than we make and accumilating debt, rather than wealth. to remedy THAT, would go a long way towards levelling hardships. someone else's wealth is their business.

A good investment is still a good investment, and there will always be fire sales and hoarding associated with changes in the tax code, but dividend payouts don't change - and should be taxed as regular income. Likewise, while higher capital gains taxes lead to reduced trading, it encourages long term investment that ultimately gets sold off or turned into dividends anyway. This further encourages investors to have a personal stake in the success of their investments, growing them for the long term vs. cashing out on a short sale or ripping a company apart and selling it in pieces. In other words, it puts a damper on corporate raiding and encourages corporate growth.

It's like a goldfish in a 50 gallon tank, they grow to utilize the excess. The only real difference between Republicans and Democrats is what the money gets spent on.

But if somebody else's wealth is built upon the use of the roadways, sewer system, police, and fire protection that MY taxes pay for, they are obligated to pay their share as well. Evaluating what their share is remains the sticking point apparently, but it most certainly is not the same as what I personally pay, as I am not foisting countless noisy, polluting, road destroying trucks out into the community to make my living. Those who are should clearly pay more. Trucks are just one example. I could probably come up with something similar for any industry.

well i'll just respond this way...

we are getting a REAL crash course w/ socialism and it's coming hard and fast! we can look no further than new york and california to see where we are headed nationally. these are the models that WILL show us the nation's future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

get out, and once again, vote for change, if it's not too late already. yes we(America) can, 'cause no they(socialist democrats) can't!

Are you saying that you feel it is fair for someone that created a company from nothing and has made a healthy profit from said company is taxed like crazy? While someone that uses the same roads, sewers, police and fire protection but just flips burgers at MCDs and has 2 kids has a negative income tax amount on top of other programs such as medicaid and food stamps?

Everyone uses that stuff. Some choose to take advantage of what they have available to them and some don't. People shouldn't be punished because they actually tried at life. The tax system as it is, while it sucks for some and really rocks for others, works as it is.

There are many other places we should be looking for improvements. Such as, if we put limitations on the amount of time someone can be on a particular welfare program or actually enforced the rules that currently exist. There are benefits in New Mexico that you can only get if you are attending school so people sign up for classes, attend for two weeks, get their benefits, and then drop the class for a refund and keep the benefits.

I'm not familiar with NY's processes, but I can tell you that without question, allot of CA's problems with revenues has been from Republicans obstructing EVERY SINGLE NECESSAY TAX INCREASE SINCE BEFORE SCHWARZENEGER TOOK OFFICE! The CA budget was already in trouble at that point, but with their legislature requiring a 2/3 majority to pass an increase, NOTHING has gotten done.

The bottom line is that CA expenditures have been exceeding revenues for over a decade, and the Republicans in the legislature refuse to do anything other than cut services.

So long as that is your belief, I don't have the time to attempt to change your mind, but the game Monopoly illustrates the basis for all that is unfair in the tax system.

Ever played it to the end? I'll tell you how it ends if you haven't. One person ends up with EVERYTHING, and everybody else ends up with NOTHING!

It's all about the balance of power to succeed, and when the tax structure favors those who are already wealthy, it further erodes opportunity for the poor.

There is a reason for that. Southern California is a HUGE money pit. Soo many people getting government services and paying essentially no taxes. They've even had hospitals close their doors there because the ER couldn't legally turn people away that couldn't pay. Too many people buying $300 worth of food with government money a month while paying $350 a month to Aaron's for their huge flat screen TV and living room set.

Snax,

Do you happen to know how much of CA's finances go toward social and entitlement programs?

(I don't have any data, I would just speculate that it is a grossly-huge percentage.)

-Bob C.

here are 2 different POVs concerning taxes...
https://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1032
https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4201

the truth(correct action) may lie somewhere in between. how can govt continue to recklessly spend and raise taxes? i get it in respect to raising taxes does less damage than cutting services.

i don't think anyone in there right mind would suggest cutting infrastructure type spending. there is WAY too much waste of energy as well as salaries and special interest however. not to mention entitlements and illegals.

after those issues are addressed, then and only then, should tax increases be discussed. IF(and i doubt it) taxes are deemed not enough at present AFTER that, then strategic placement of taxes would be in order.

sin tax, big ticket tax, and emergency/law enforcement tax would be in order. raising the gas tax, sales tax, even the capital gains tax hurt low income earners more than the rich.

am i wrong seeing both views, yet concluding the greatest threat is not being addressed properly AT ANY LEVEL of govt?

As it should be.

A scientific paper is only as good as it's references. Others must be able to research and duplicate experiments and, done enough, theory becomes fact.

Regarding the above posted comments, the Book; "Freedom and Tyranny" by Mark Levine, is almost 1/3rd references and explains why taxes are being raised, seemingly beyond logic.

that book is NY Times Best Seller(#1 @ one point). i hope that equates to votes against the present "tax and spend" congress next session.

here's a suggestion that financial problems are largely the fault of the consumer NOT capitalism!...https://www.mcall.com/business/column...7698936.column

notice the focus on entitlements. hmmm...