In response to:

So What If Taxing Rich Hurts the Economy?

God_Of_War Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 12:20 PM
As a repulican of no great wealth who has worked hard all my life and gotten nowhere, I totally support taxing the rich. With all of the current laws which have proven to be very efficient at extracting maximum dollars from my paycheck and favoring business to the detriment of the worker, I want to see a maximum limit of wealth for any individual capped at one million dollars. That would screw em good and put some justice back into the world.
oldervoter68 Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 2:30 PM
Maximum wealth or maximum income? There is a big difference. I have never earned a six figure income, but my wealth (net worth) is over $1M (due to prudent living, good investing and hard work. Would you deny me the fruits of my labor?
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 1:16 PM
Please explain again how "favoring business" which is the source of the capital and opportunities that provide job opportunities and greater compensation (as opposed to unions and pro-labor legislation that flatly accomplish no such thing) is soehow "detrimental" to the worker. Setting a maximum wealth limit is a tremendous way to send capital out of this country destroying millions of jobs and vastly increasing poverty. Is that really what you consider "justice"?
God_Of_War Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 1:30 PM
For example: Laws with force me to purchase products I do not want or automotive insurance and health insurance. These laws are a grab for money by the insurance industry. Also, society is like a pyramid.......only so many can be wealthy and sit at the top. The problem is the system has been rigged to keep the individual enslaved and always working... i.e if everyone were wealthy and didn't have to work then who would do the work? You know, like pick crops. collect garbage, keep the electricity flowing, etc?
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 1:41 PM
Actually, the socialistic intervention regarding health insurabce is overwhelmingly denounced even by the people in the insurance industry. But society is unequivocally, absolutely NOT like a pyramid. There is NO limit to how many can be at the top and the wealthy get that way by CREATING WEALTH which increases the overall size of the pie for EVERYONE. It is the free market that has been directly and SOLELY responsible fior the vast improvement in living standards, particularly for the poor and working people over the last 300 years.

The notion that a wealthy society cannot produce workers to collect garbage, etc. is based on the (ludicrous) fallacy that there is no constant incentive to make oneself even more well off.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 1:44 PM
This is why poverty as understood even as recently as 100 years ago has been effectively eliminated in this country. It is why the "poor" here have a home, more than one color TV, often more than one vehicle, air conditioning, major appliances, etc.

Human beings work in order to better their lot in life (INCLUDING the wealthy). History completely obliterates the notions that a) wealth is a zero-sum game, b) wealth eliminates the need for or availability of workers - including for "dirty" jobs and c) that workers are in ANY way "enslaved". All those contentions have been completely debunked.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 1:50 PM
In addition, you might arguably have a point that mandatory insurance laws are detrimental to CONSUMERS, but not to WORKERS - which was my point. Businesses and workers have CONCURRENT interests, not conflicting ones.
God_Of_War Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 5:57 PM
The truth remains that someone has to do the work of society. Picking crops, building streets, drilling for natural gas, running a nuclear power plant, building your car, your home, your clothes and on and on and on. A rich man isn't going to do that. The worker (getting slave wages) is going to do that. I think we should all share in that misery and that means limitations on wealth. I got screwed being a worker and now I want to screw the rich. F**k em'. I worked hard all my life so now its their turn.
BK22 Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 8:48 PM then you want socialism. If it wasn't for the rich man you wouldn't have a job...understand? Maybe not!
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 9:56 PM
The truth remains that someone has to do the work of society. That is true. There isn't an atom of truth in the long debunked fallacy that "a rich man isn't going to do that. Only a blithering idiot uses the oxymoronic term "slave wages" particularly when it is an inarguable FACT that the free market has been the greatest (and sole) cause of ever increasing compensation (and lower prices for goods). Limitations on wealth serve only to CREATE poverty. You are simply an economic ignoramus repeating silly fallacious absurdities.
Zimbo Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 1:06 PM
I have an idea why you have gotten nowhere; you are ignorant. Economics 101 lesson: It is not a zero-sum game; when business prospers, it grows, hires workers, provide cheaper products, and everone at all levels prosper.
Tekov Yahoser Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 12:52 PM
You are indeed , a "repulican."
Consider this headline from a Reuters article in The Huffington Post: "Raising Taxes on Rich Won't Hurt Economic Growth, CBO Says."

But the first paragraph refutes the headline: "Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much (emphasis added) in 2013 ..." The CBO did not say, as the headline suggests, that raising taxes on the rich has no negative economic effect. In fact, the CBO actually said that extending the Bush-era rates for all would increase economic growth by 1.5 percent. If, however, the Bush era rates expired for the rich -- but...