Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Massive loads, low speed. Meh, I thought stoners weren't in a rush?!
Should there be a cap on attainable wealth?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Energy budget. We can't generate enough to even get a tonne of thrust. And the fuel! So far, it's xenon. Have you priced that lately?
And let's not forget that ion drive won't work in atmosphere.
There's a speculative, hybrid tech called "Vasimr" but it hasn't been proven, and it suffers the same energy-hunger and no-atmosphere cavils as ion. cn
Doer
Well-Known Member
It is pointless, (Not to mention renewable...) and it is the science of coopre-tition. Compete to make bigger pie. It is emergent. Meaning, self aggregating. Organic, in a human, alturistc sense, and is as old a barn raising as community barter.
Nash's Equilibrium. It is well practiced in my Industry, and even the Worlds' Military find it better to keep a lot of openness going on. We exchange officer inspections with the Chinese Navy, for example.
The math on this is bullet proof and proved in Game Theory. It is in play naturally on a local community basis as i mentioned. But, govt gets in the way or acts too late in the case of Monopoly. Big business, needs govt oversight, not help. Not pick and choose. Little business...most of business, btw, govt should just butt out.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
All of the minerals on earth came from where? Space. All of the minerals on earth will eventually return where? Space. Just because YOU'VE limited yourself to two dimensional thinking, doesn't mean that's all there is....which sort of applies to many of our discussions if you think about it.
All ball busting aside, I posit that one person can "create" wealth and it doesn't have to be at the expense of, or practical limitation on another persons ability to create wealth.
I agree that some resources in a given area, earth for example have limitations, but that there is STILL much opportunity for inventive, industrious or creative people to become prosperous if that is their goal. (you knew this was coming) Further, the greatest limitation on creation of opportunity has been thru government related intervention.
Doer
Well-Known Member
The truth vs the dupe. People are so easiy fooled. We want to be the sucker. We what to play to power. All, so called power over people finds willing particpants throughout history. The rest are brought to heel by force.
BIG DUPE ALERT
Don't be one. Created wealth is not a Zero Sum Game. This is all high math as a proof, but it is a natural fact. it is what we call economic growth. You do not need Govt. Goyt is for oversight, not wealth distribution. Wealth actually creates itself. Necessity is the driver.
You can sew, I can hunt. I get Beaver pelts. You make gloves and boots, I can do more hunting. You can trade some boots for flint points. I get more Beaver pelts than before. I begin to help brother Beaver with his Fox problem. Fox fur worth MORE PIE. Wealth just created itself. But, I got a nasty bite from a Fox, but it was worth the RISK, for the REWARD. We just saw the opportunity. Fox and Beaver. What else is out there? Maybe bag a Moose now that we can trade for a sled and dogs?
A moose hide is worth even more PIE, but, I could DIE. What is missing?
Currency, Tax, Association, Laws, Dues, LIES. And the moose is not biggest danger.
timbo123
Active Member
I am not in favor of a "cap" on attainable wealth... having said that I saw in yesterday's new that Kelly Osbourne spent $250,000 on a manicure to go to the Emmys.
Not long ago, Clint Eastwoods daughter and her boyfriend spent around that much on a designer purse to set on fire and chop up with a chainsaw for "art."
I believe that when people are living in that stratosphere of personal wealth, they could certainly afford to pay a hell of alot more in taxes. Working people who have trouble putting food on the table could be afforded more of a break on taxes while the uber-rich could bear more of the burden and still live a life of unbelievable excess.
Not long ago, Clint Eastwoods daughter and her boyfriend spent around that much on a designer purse to set on fire and chop up with a chainsaw for "art."
I believe that when people are living in that stratosphere of personal wealth, they could certainly afford to pay a hell of alot more in taxes. Working people who have trouble putting food on the table could be afforded more of a break on taxes while the uber-rich could bear more of the burden and still live a life of unbelievable excess.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
This is the part people seem to miss...
It is not a zero sum game. If one person is a billionaire it does not mean that 1 million people are poor because he has all their money.
I like to use the example of a house.
You start with an empty plot of land (the only thing arguably finite in this example) the land is worth 30,000. Say it takes 50,000 dollars in materials to build a house. And it also takes 50,000 in labor to build a house. Once the house is finished it is worth 150,000.
Where did the extra 20,000 come from? It was created by assembling materials into a house worth more money than the parts.
That is why we have an economy worth trillions of dollars. Businesses create wealth by providing goods and services.
So, dont be a hater, be a creator....
It is not a zero sum game. If one person is a billionaire it does not mean that 1 million people are poor because he has all their money.
I like to use the example of a house.
You start with an empty plot of land (the only thing arguably finite in this example) the land is worth 30,000. Say it takes 50,000 dollars in materials to build a house. And it also takes 50,000 in labor to build a house. Once the house is finished it is worth 150,000.
Where did the extra 20,000 come from? It was created by assembling materials into a house worth more money than the parts.
That is why we have an economy worth trillions of dollars. Businesses create wealth by providing goods and services.
So, dont be a hater, be a creator....
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
What seems to have escaped you in your example is someone got PAID 250,000 to do that manicure. That is a huge redistribution of wealth from Kelly Osborne to the business that did her manicure. What you are saying is that instead of her being able to spend that kind of cash you want the government to confiscate it and distribute it as it chooses.
How about this... If the government didnt spend so much money your taxes wouldnt have to be as high.... Why not lower taxes for everyone?
The more government takes, the less growth we have in the economy. Profit is turned right back and invested in the growth of most companies. Tax revenue is simply spent one time and gone.
timbo123
Active Member
Lower taxes for everyone would be great, but that wasn't the point I was trying to convey. I am suggesting that at whatever level of government spending is ultimately going to take place... for purposes of this discussion lets say the current level of spending... I favor a system which would collect MORE of it from people who can comfortably drop a quarter million dollars on a manicure and LESS of it from working folks who struggle to even meet their basic needs at times.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
We already have that system....
The government is currently spending 40 cents more per dollar than it is collecting. The rich cannot possibly pay for all of it.
I am suggesting we cut spending before there are no more rich people left.
Why is everyone expected to do with less when the government always needs more?
timbo123
Active Member
No argument here on reduction of government spending. You said "we already have that system."
Yes, I am speaking of our existing system... and the need for it to be adjusted to collect less from the "have-nots" and more from the "haves."
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
50% of the population does not pay federal taxes...
the top 10% of the population pays 70% of the federal taxes...
I think you are insane if you think the scales should be tipped even farther.
What you are assuming is that if we raise the rates then the government would get more revenue to spend on shit. However, that rarely happens. Usually, when the government raises rates it gets less revenue as people work harder to hide the income they have.
The rich are not the problem, government spending is the problem. Everyone agrees that the government should cut spending but no one does it...
Doer
Well-Known Member
This un-beliveable excess actually creates wealth for the people that can see opportunity to provide the Luxury. We need to go back, as a Society, to the simple idea. If you have to ask, you can not afford it.
Why is the world do we know, Kelly Osbourne spent $250,000 on a manicure....?
And why do we believe it? How much cocaine was involved and how big was her entourage? Why in the HELL, do we spread these lies around? It's called prurient interest. ENVY, that is why the press asked in the first place.
They know we want be envious. They know we are easily manipulated. Ask yourself why you care and how you even know? Then, why repeat it? ENVY.
How do you know what they can "afford?" Don't you really mean they should pay the govt instead of buying what you call the stratosphere of wealth items?
Don't you mean, re-distributiuon, to put food on the table of a bunch of people in the Govt manufactured, lower class? It is GUILT and ENVY.
If the "Rich" payed everything and the govt Doled food to them also, would that make your Envy any better? Do you actually think the Rich are not paying through the Nose Already? Not giving massive amounts to Charity, already? Do you think all the money in the world could feed everyone? OK. For how long? Then what?
Do you not see the Rich are already paying for everything? It is a Progressive Lies Tax system. Just go read the numbers. If you over-tax the Rich, they just take the money to Brazil or somewhere.
timbo123
Active Member
No, I'm not insane. At least I haven't been diagnosed or anything. And I don't give a rat's ass about the whole 70% blah, blah, blah rhetoric...
I am speaking of the basic reality of working people struggling financially to exist. While those folks who already according to your stats pickup 70% of the tax bill can STILL despite their current tax burden piss away $250,000 like it was $10.
I am COMPLETELY comfortable saying "If you are living that sort of a lavish lifestyle, you can go ahead and pay more than 70% of the nations tax burden."
Why is 70% some sort of magic threshhold that is used to divine craziness in folks suggesting tax reform? Why not 80%? 90%?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Is it your assertion that the government deserves to tax people more because *they can afford it*?
Because it does not increase revenue. That means the government does not get more money.
Why would it make you feel better for them to raise the rates on the rich when it will likely have little to no effect?
The government does not have a RIGHT to take more money just because it exists. That is not sufficient justification.
And if the government needs more money why shouldnt YOU pay more?
timbo123
Active Member
Q) "Is it your assertion that the government deserves to tax people more because *they can afford it*?"
A) No. In our existing tax code, as you know, there is a graduating scale... make a little, pay a little... make alot, pay alot... what I am suggesting is that the government taxes people in order to obtain a specific amount of revenue OVERALL... to pay for the budgeted expenses. I am saying that under the current method of determining how the tax collections pie is split up... there are taxpayers who have a hard time meeting basic needs. While at the other end of the taxpayer spectrum are those who could pick up more of the tab without alot of human suffering.
Q) Why would it make you feel better for them to raise the rates on the rich when it will likely have little to no effect?
A) See above. It would make me feel better that while overall no more taxes are collected, the burden would be shifted from those who are clearly already 'overburdened' to those who would appear to have quite sufficient resources to cover it.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You are part of the 50% that have no problem taxing the rich 80 or 90% of their income because you dont think it will affect you.
However, you are wrong and it would be really painful to find out just how wrong.
The ultra rich can live anywhere they want to. With the internet, cell phones, etc they are connected wherever they are. Raise taxes to 90% and watch the wealthy flee to Europe, Singapore, Switzerland, anywhere they want to. In the meantime you face a diminishing tax base that cannot support the increasing government demand.
If you want less of something, punish it. If you want more of something, encourage it. Just think about that for a while.
It seems you would be happy if the government just eliminated the rich through excessive taxation.
timbo123
Active Member
Did I say "eliminate" the rich? I said adjust the burden more equitably. I believe this would be best accomplished by a tax on consumption.
timbo123
Active Member
I am not talking about the envy aspect. Talking about the ability or lack thereof to put food on the table. Dismiss it as envy for now if you like, but the divide between he rich and the poor is growing greater and the middle is going away. If left to get bad enough, hungry people will eventually eat the rich.