The search for millions...

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Connecting racism with this discussion is puzzling to me. First, if I do believe that the love of money leads to unethical behaviors and priorities and I place myself as a person who is relatively wealthier than 95% of the world, then what does that make me? Am I prejudiced against myself? (Let me answer that one. Yes, I am prejudiced against that part of myself that wants more, more, more. That unsatisfiable craving that tempts me to look around at all that I have acquired - some of it quite lovely - and say, but I still want…).</p>

<p>Second, kirmum, it seems an easy way out of the debate. Rather than parse the ethical dilemmas involved with obtaining and maintaining great wealth (as philosophers and spiritual people throughout the ages have done), just yell prejudice, intolerance, divisiveness, ignorance against those who dare to judge the actions and ambitions of the wealthiest humans who have ever walked the earth. I prefer a more nuanced discussion.</p>

62

<p>I know I may get flamed for saying this but I will anyway. Does everyone here still believe capitalism is the best way to go? I was reading a little about communism and I really feel that a communistic society that runs perfectly is the only way to bring a balance of wealth. Though I know human nature makes this impossible, I am still shocked at myself for even considering communism. I think after graduating high school earlier this year, I have started to really look at the big picture. I have seen a lot of poverty this summer which I just haven’t noticed before. I certainly want wealth for myself because I believe money will allow me to accomplish goals such as traveling and making charitable donations. However, I see the line between rich and poor growing farther apart by the day.</p>

63

<p>momof2inca,</p>

<p>I agree with the points you make about corporate giants. C’mon everyone, when was the last time the price you pay for X went DOWN? Yet corporations are outsourcing right and left. The savings are not passed on, they are part of the executive skim. Corporate CEOs make 100’s of times what their lower level employees make, a gap that is widening all the time. Corporations also have undue influence on government and lobby Congress with a megaphone that drowns out the voices of ordinary citizens (to paraphrase Bill Moyers.) </p>

<p>Thus our taxes are getting diverted one chunk at a time-- pork to corporate interests instead of repairs to the safety net.</p>

<p>If anyone has not read “Nickled & Dimed in America” it is an excellent book. I had both my older kids read it too.</p>

<p>This is not to say wealth = lack of ethics. This is just to say there is a very different climate in the world than when we were kids. One of the best ways to see the ethics of the wealthy at work (or not) is have a peek at the Mother Jones issue of the top political contributors in the US. Very instructive when you see who is giving what to whom and why.</p>

64

<p>ok so i am a white, middle-aged, suburaban, republican, capitalist… full disclousre over.</p>

<p>I have also lived and worked in several places in the world, including the middle east, and Russia (siberia) a couple of years after the fall of communism</p>

<p>I appreciate Indy making the comment about capitalism — especially at your age --BUT At any age-- think about what we are doing</p>

<p>Your comment about the practicalities of communism is the truest thing, human mentality doesnt allow it to work well without force and coercsion (sp). But I sense your comment is more theoritical.</p>

<p>My general view is that the biggest fallacy of commuism is the assumption that wealth is a set pie. and theonly issue is how to divide it up. At its best ( and i dont want to be political) capitalism and free enterprise allows for increase of goods for all and the freedom for each individual the sense of ownership that generates personal self-worth. </p>

<p>I don’t have the data handy, but I think there is general agreement that --let us limit to the US-- there is some increasing (but possibly not extreme) seperation between rich and poor. However, the standard of poor has gone up–for example, how many people do not have plumbing, hot water, and general access to food.</p>

<p>My opinion (note profile above) is that we have focused too much on the big corporations and not the smaller business and entrepeneurs. I think the minimum wage should move up some, and some work on providing (accessible and portable) healthcare/insurance so that we can be freer to work and earn in many places. I SEE THESE AS INCREASING FREE ENTERPRISE AND CAPITALISM, …</p>

<p>well a bit of a ramble, but consider whether your concern is about the system or the effeciency of the system. I work with a homeless group (high end homeless–more later if you want) and what they most need is a job and means to keep the job (transportation, child care phone etc)</p>

<p>see what you think</p>

65

<p>indy787, you ask some great questions. Capitalism does lead to very unequal distributions of wealth and income. We actually don’t have a true capitalistic society where merit wins out. Wealth has its advantages. We do not have a level playing field. School wise, kids from upper middle class families get better educations than those from lower class families. Schools made up primarily of Mexican Americans and African Americans do not get the resources that schools with middle class kids get. This keeps the class structure in this country intact. </p>

<p>We favor certain industries over others. Real estate gets an incredibly large amount of tax benefits. We tax capital at lower rates than labor. </p>

<p>We limit the amount of people that can be doctors, lawyers, teachers, stocbrokers, cab drivers. This pushes salaries and wages higher than they would be otherwise.</p>

<p>Drug companies have paid about 800 million in lobbying costs to our politicians in the last 5 years. </p>

<p>I have never understood why it is assumed that private companies do everything better than the public government. Insurance can be done cheaper by the government. Why don’t we have single payer health insurance? Why don’t we pay for auto insurance at the pump or when we register our cars? We can eliminate the middle men.</p>

<p>Why should a country’s natural resources like oil and natural gas be owned by individual companies? </p>

<p>Who really benefits from Nafta and Globalization? Does the average American really benefit by globalization? Looks to me that wages and salaries are going lower for the middle class with globalization and corporation’s profits are going up.</p>

<p>If China revalues the Yuan who benefits? Prices will go up in this country and the average worker will have to pay more for products. Some corporations will benefit by having their competition’s costs go up.</p>

<p>Who gets the most subsidies in this country? With all the talk about welfare and social security, you would think those at the bottom get the most subsidies. Not true. Those at the top get the most. Sixty percent of our largest corporations don’t pay any income tax. Zero.</p>

<p>This country has been founded on the idea that democracy, individual rights, and prosperity are one and the same. Why do other countries have to have the same beliefs?</p>

<p>Maybe, other countries view community rights as more important than individual rights. Maybe, their people don’t value materialism. Maybe, you can still have democracy and have a system that resembles socialism. There are communities in this world that share their incomes with those in the community. Communities that would never send a family member to a nursing home.
We have people preaching capitalism, capitalism, capitalism in this country when they really mean capitalism for the masses and something different for those at the top. </p>

<p>indy 787, if you want to do well in our system you have to own. You have to own real estate, you have to own stocks. I hate to say this with asset prices looking pretty inflated, but if you are going to live another 60+ years, you have to own assets. If you don’t you will never be one of those at the top.</p>

<p>The questions you ask tell me you are very bright.</p>

66

<p>I think that communism is a great in theory. It just fails to work. So the discussions that are most useful I think, of course when they are had by someone more knowlegeable than me…, is how to evolve capitalism ever more humanely.</p>

67

<p>The way you evolve capitalism more humanely is by having a large safety net. You take care of those at the bottom. You have a progressive tax structure. You have an inheritance tax. You make health care available for everybody. You make sure social security is sound. You don’t give more in subsidies to the wealthy than you do to the poor. You make sure those at the bottom are getting great educations. You keep inflation in check. You don’t devalue our currency which just leads to higher prices for Americans. You don’t run large deficits when the baby boomers are at their most productive; thereby, putting burdens on the future genreations. You take care of people with special needs, and you take care of your veterans. You take care of the homeless. You raise the minimum wage. You tax the crap out of the CEOs who now make 400 times the average workers salary, compared to 40 times thirty years ago.</p>

68

<p>Great posts, Dstark. Agree completely!</p>

69

<p>I enjoy the coversation</p>

<p>I would say --why stop with oil and gas (btw-I am in that business) why should anyone be allowed to own a house or car… really no differnce, ditto cell phones, and computers…government shoudl own and distribute as they see best… no perturbed, just making a bit of a point…</p>

<p>I agree there are some inequities, but an inequity itself is not neccesarily bad, my concern is do I and my familiy have future a that is desirable and meaningful.</p>

<p>dstark–don’t agree with all you say, but thought provoking nonetheless… one point I do agree with is education – we need a solution --I am not a big fan of vouchers, but all citizens should able to get a good useful education.</p>

<p>I live in a border state and our economy --building trades in particular–woould absolutle shut down if we did not have the large number of illegal immigrants–in fact they did when it was rumored worksites were targeted by INS —so those jobs are available (or could be ) interested?</p>

70

<p>15mbw, I didn’t stop at oil and gas companies. I did mention insurance companies. Are you in favor of legalizing the immigrants?</p>

<p>Are you offering me a job? :)</p>

71

<p>well ok, why stop at insurance companies, :slight_smile: … Housing, it was owned by the Soviet Governemnt and assigned to the people… it was fair,</p>

<p>Yes, if you have a degree in petroleum engineering or geoscience … I can probably set you up. If you just want to work, the oil business is hiring, we can’t keep our rigs staffed. </p>

<p>Illegal immigrants, while they have been abused in the past, I would definitly support a guest worker type of program. But my point was of course jobs are to be had in US, </p>

<p>I find this a intellectual light conversation, all to the good.</p>

72

<p>Well 15mbw, why do I stop at the insurance companies? I am not a socialist (Not that there is anything wrong with somebody who is). And I have other targets. :)</p>

73

<p>Dstark, my friend, your thoughts are fully socialist. How would you describe yourself if not socialist?</p>

74

<p>I know my thoughts may sound socialist. I’m not trying to end capitalism. I’m trying to end BS. We don’t have an equal opportunity country because we don’t have equal access. So let’s stop pretending we do have an equal opportunity country. Let’s stop blaming people who don’t make it and let’s help them. If you really read my post 67, it isn’t socialist. Actually, I want to end socialism for the upper class by ending some tax breaks, and subsidies that they benefit from and give the money to people who really need it.</p>

<p>Zagat, is it really socialism to want to keep inheritance taxes? I thought this country rewards merit and not which family you are born into. </p>

<p>Is it really socialist to want to raise tax rates for those at the top? I don’t want to raise them to pre-Reagan levels, but I do want to raise them to pre- Bush 2 levels. One reason we lowered them was the economy was weak. Well, it is strong now, but we still have huge budget deficits. I would like to see the deficit narrowed. That’s socialism? Is it socialism because I don’t want to burden future generations with our borrow and spend policies? </p>

<p>Is it really socialism to want the top corporations to pay some income taxes. They used to pay income taxes. </p>

<p>Is it really socialism to want to see CEO pay cut after it went from 40 times an average worker’s salary to 400 times? </p>

<p>If taking care of people in need, the homeless, veterans, those less fortunate in this society makes me a socialist then I guess I am a socialist.</p>

75

<p>Dstark, I’m an MBA and accountant. Inheritance tax, simply, is double taxation. These people have already paid. If it were just a matter of taxing the wealthy, things would be fine now, We’ve tried that. We keep trying that. It ain’t enough. As other threads have pointed out, the wealthy already pay most of the taxes collecetd. It still ain’t enough. It’s not the answer.</p>

<p>CEO’s represent less than .10% of America. Oh yeah, taxing the heck out of them is the answer!</p>

76

<p>Zagat, as an accountant you know that there are many taxes that are double taxed.</p>

<p>Also as an accountant, you know that you can keep trading your invested real estate and never pay capital gains on it. Then you die and the basis goes up to the market value and all the capital gains are wiped out. We used to collect this money through inheritance taxes. Now we are slowly ending those taxes. So those gains will never be taxed. Not taxed twice, or even once.</p>

<p>Capital gains on stocks are not taxed until you sell. If you don’t sell, no tax. When you die, again the basis goes up to market value. No more capital gains. Inheritance taxes go down and these gains may never be taxed. Not twice. Never.</p>

<p>Since you are an accountant you know that only 5% of estates even qualify for inheritance taxes. What? You don’t believe in a true capitalistic, meritocracy? You believe that those that are born into wealthy families should have huge advantages right from birth?</p>

<p>CEOs are a little greedy. They sit around and decide each other’s pay and it goes up and up. Then they send jobs overseas and save their companies a few bucks and watch their pay go up and up.</p>

<p>We used to tax the wealthy more than we do now and guess what? We didn’t run enormous deficits and the difference between income and wealth levels of the different classes were smaller in this country.</p>

77

<p>dstark, I agree. FWIW my wealthy dad also favors inheritance tax for the reasons you state.</p>

78

<p>Considering that the inheritance tax has something like a $1M/estate exemption to start with and considering how large estates have had much of their accumulation tax-sheltered in the first place–whether at the point of original earning or through various forms of accumulation and growth–I can’t bring myself anywhere near a frenzy considering the estate tax as double taxation. </p>

<p>Whereas making the rich richer, creating semi-permanent aristocracies, making the world safer for Paris Hilton, is a down side.</p>

<p>Indy, communism is a cure worse than the disease and socialism is merely a disease with a different set of symptoms. “tweaked” capitalism is going to produce the greatest amount of economic “pie” to support a civilization. Some of the tweakings include a uniform approach to inhibit self-destructive environmental practices and a constant vigilance to the effect that economic might does not make right, e.g., there is room for pro-labor safeguards. There is a difference between believing in capitalism and believing “anything goes.”</p>

79

<p>Estate taxes ought to be eliminated. They are of highly questionable ethical status.</p>

<p>I think that they would be even if you lowered the exemption and collected them from everybody. I think it even if you raise the exemption and collect only from Buffet and Gates</p>

<p>They are a confiscation of private property, based soley on the idea that the government can find a better use for it than the owner. THe idea that what you save after all ongoing, normal taxes belongs 1/2 to everyone else through the government is quite a stretch, regardless of how you might try to dress it up.</p>

80

<p>Dadx, you’re dead when the inheritance tax bill arrives so 100% of the money is going to somebody else. There is no ethical issue here. All taxes are private property used for the public good. </p>

<p>The ethical issue is we don’t collect enough in taxes to pay our way so we are burdening are children and grandchildren with the debt. That’s unethical.</p>