No, I don't. I believe that humanity has a moral obligation to help the poor and disadvantaged (specifically not the lazy, drug users or alcoholics).

I think we also have a moral obligation to treat one another fairly. If force is going to be applied against an innocent citizen, it should be applied equally against all citizens. I'm fine with low income households paying no taxes, but once you get to the point where people are paying taxes, it should be a flat rate.

What about the idea of sharing the fruits of labor?

Should we be required to do such a thing? The fruits, of course, in capitalism is profit.

Is the person not a part of humanity? Are the poor and disadvantaged not a part of the people of their own state? I think we're quibbling over nothing here. It seems you agree.

Is the accumulation of wealth possible without society?

This use of the term "force". Is an individual forced to live in the country?

No, the fruits of each person's labor belongs to that person. If I can't keep the fruits of my labor, why should I continue to work hard? Why should I try to better myself, if my wealth will just be given to my neighbor who chooses to not work so hard?

Yes, through free trade.

No, we are a free nation. We can leave if we want. So do you think it would be a good thing to tax the wealthy until they leave the country?

The "rich" are often owners of small businesses. Much of their post-tax income is used to reinvest in their company. Take more of that money away and they will have less money to spend on their business, which means less growth and fewer employees.

The rich are the most mobile of all members of our society. If they want to leave the society, they are the most able to do so. Raising their taxes can drive them out of the economy. You can see this happening now in the flight of the rich from NYC.

And if your neighbor is the owner of the company your work for?

Who owns the fruit?

Without society "trade" cannot happen.

The country is a name.

A nation is a group of people working cooperatively for the mutual benefit of the nation.

An individual or a group of individuals who live in this nation, who get the protection of this nation, who sell the bulk of their goods and services to this nation, who have those goods and services produced outside of this nation, who buy the products required to produce their own outside of this nation, are those who are reaping all of the rewards that this nation offers - who depend upon this nation - but do not belong to this nation, have no loyalty to this nation, because the aforementioned actions are not about the mutual benefit of the nation. Rather they are about their own benefit at the expense of the nation.

This nation can and will survive without them. They will not survive long without the nation. Let another nation support and protect them.

Good riddance.

I just really couldn't let this pass. First, to be clear, the arguments about "taxing the rich" pertains to personal income taxes. Has nothing to do with corporate of capital gains taxes. In other words, this tax is only relevant to money that people take home to spend on their life-style.



It doesn't matter whether you are talking about a tiny mom and pop corporation or a giant multinational, it is only lifestyle money that we are talking about. Money that remains invested in a business doesn't get taxed at all. Money that remains in a Corporation as retained earnings is taxed at the Corporate rate. The large business CEO and the small business owner have the same choices to make. If a small business is well enough managed to provide for large lifestyle money withdrawals, then the owner will accumulate personal wealth and lots of toys. A large portion of his lifestyle money will likely find it's way into the stock market, where it will do no good for the consumer economy. No different than the large CEO. If his business requires more capital, he can chose to forego the lifestyle money and will possibly not reach the threshold where people are thinking that it would be reasonable to raise his taxes. His tax-free investment in his business will create more jobs and more growth. That's how small business gets to be the major job generator in our country.

Stop wasting everyone's time by posting this kind of worthless drivel. . . Your post is rambling nonsense that clearly shows you don't understand how economies work in even the most simple terms. You don't bother to try to think deeply, because your beliefs are dogmatic. You don't base them on principles, you try to base them on your inflated sense of moral superiority. You and creativesoul make quite a pair here. Neither of you have any idea of what you are talking about, neither of you is open to learning the facts, but you are both convinced you have all the answers. . . I was taking a walk earlier while looking at one of your posts and realized it wasn't your post at all, it was dog **** on the sidewalk. Easy mistake.

Read the above bolded text. Stop wasting everyone's time by posting this kind of worthless drivel that attacks a strawman fallacy and not an actual statement I have made. A company owners take home money IS THE MONEY THEY REINVEST. Where do you think they get the money to reinvest? Pick it off their money trees? Run a lemonade stand? [

The majority of people have their retirement money in the stock market in the form of 401ks. Investing in the market can help their retirement by raising the stock market. The money that is invested in the market goes to the companies across the country and across the world, which they can then use to expand and create new jobs.

The money that goes to foreign countries will partially be used to buy American goods and possibly start new factors or offices in the USA, which creates jobs.

That seems to be pretty personally insulting to me, but keep it coming. This kind of thing says much more about the poster than it does about me. I think your opinions are wrong and lead to specious conclusions. It's just a fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The traditional way is to borrow it from the bank. this is a good thing because it increases the money supply without necessarily being inflationary.

I am afraid that this is simply not true. Unless you are fortunate enough to Invest in an IPO, the shares you are trading are already in circulation, like trading baseball cards.the fleer bubble gum company doesn't get any money from it. The only financial benefit to the company is the higher value of the shares that it itself holds. That's the way the stock market works.

Those dollars largely go to American Corporations who manufacture their goods overseas. Creates jobs, but not in America.

Those arguing about the poorest members of America as if 'welfare' is the problem in the country are barking up the wrong tree. If we're going to be pissed off, let us at least be pissed off at the correct people. We could wipe the poor and their entitlements out completely and the problem would remain. The problem is our economy and it is not as a result of the 'welfare state'. It is the result of capitalism being employed by those who do not and could not care less about the society from which they accrue massive amounts of wealth. That is the problem. It is not the poorest members of society that are destroying the middle class in America. It is not govt. itself that is destroying the middle class in America. It is the wealthiest and their power, which happens to be in the govt. You people have been lied to and you believe it. It is a tactic as old as The Art of War... divide and conquer. The elite are buying media outlets which serve this very goal. To create division. They control they money. LOOK IT UP. And yes, if you think that it is a hypothetical "they" you are wrong. Look at the caimpaign contributions of the GOP. LOOK IT UP.

Greed and big business(corporationism) is the root of the problem in this country, the reason for the housing bubble and collapse, the reason for unnecessarily high fuel prices, the reason for the failing infrastructure. The reason that millions and millions of people's lives have collapsed. This country has been divided, people. A house divided cannot stand. There is no sense of "brotherhood". This country is a union. And it is being destroyed in the same way, with the same devices, that the working class unions have been in the past 30 years. This began with Ronald Reagan's "The government is the problem". Government is not a bad thing. It is necessary to govern the business activities of those greedy and callous enough to accure huge amounts of wealth while keeping employee pay rates at a sub-poverty scale, not because they cannot afford to pay workers a decent wage, but because they do not have to. This is clearly supported by the recent talks pushing the agenda to abolish minimum wage. As it is, it is so low that it is not enough to support a family, it is not enough to live and pursue a formal post secondary education, and so many still qualify to recieve 'welfare' even though they work full time. Take both of those things away, and what happens to the possibility of the American Dream for poor people?

Does that fix the economy? Hell no. It makes it worse.

Wake up.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That is the America that the world so loved, that is the America which everyone wanted to be a part of. That is the America that I love.

Now, there was, at one time, the ability to abuse the system and sit back and do nothing while having lots of kids and get paid for doing that. That is no longer the case. Clinton put an end to it - not Reagan who closed the insane asylums only to put those people on the streets and pay them 'welfare' while simultaneously ending good paying and necessary middle-class jobs. The entire 'welfare' budget is generously 12-14% of the overall budget. The actual amount going to those who do not work is much much less. The welfare budget is broken down into the six main categories below.

1.General retirement and disability insurance
2.Federal employee retirement and disability
3.Unemployment compensation
4.Housing assistance
5.Food and nutrition assistance
6.Other income security

The problem of the economy(after all that's the real problem here) is corporationism. The problem is greed. The problem is speculation. The problem are merchants. The problem is govt. corruption, and business/govt. collusion. The problem is Wall Street who drive pricing. The naturally occurring supply/demand model has been made obsolete. This is clearly seen by comparing the differences between the regulations in booming economic times and now. The problem is not those who receive govt. money and immediately put it back into circulation. That boosts the economy. The 'welfare' programs are inconsequential to the real problem. They played no role in creating the problem. Therefore, they ought play no role in fixing it. As I've said, anyone who believes that the poorest members are the problem is arguing from literal ignorance of the situation.

The middle class needs work that has been shipped overseas by the wealthiest. They did so in order to increase their own profit margin. It has been at the expense of not only the former employees and thier families, but also at the expense of Joe Q Public. Afterall, the savings are not passed on to the American public - the customers. Prices still increase, manufacturing jobs are lost(increasing the poor class), and the rich get richer while the middle class and the poor get poorer. LOOK AT THE DATA! The poor working need jobs that have been shipped overseas by the the wealthiest. The same story. The govt. offers incentives for big business to do such a thing. They liquidate assets, moving all operations overseas, and then do not pass the saving onto the customer - us. Their only loyalty is to their own pocketbook. They have no loyalty to this country, no loyalty to the people in this country, and this kind of divisive thinking is paid for by ads and politicians who treat it as if it is a problem with govt itself. THAT KIND OF THINKING IS THE PROBLEM. While moving American jobs overseas is extremely profitable - who benefits? It costs good-paying American jobs, lowers the average American income, increasing the need for the welfare programs, and creates a bigger and bigger gap between the haves and the have nots.

What sense does it make, to allow a person to have such power, influence, and direct determination regarding the livelihood of so many people and their families - which they could care less about?

Now, I'm laying the reasons why it is a mistake, a huge mistake, to believe 1. that the poor are the problem 2. that dissolving/cutting the govt programs would fix anything that needs fixed. 3. that raising taxes on the wealthiest is bad.

Poor people, those receiving SSI(disability) benefits are a very small percentage of the budget. That is a fact. Those who rightfully qualify cannot work due to some condition or another that is no fault of their own. That is another fact. That is how mentally retarded people survive, for instance. That is how severe amputees are able to survive, for instance.

A mother no longer receives the same benefits without being actively engaged in learning a skill and putting that skill to use. That is a fact. Those benefits are no longer given for an indefinite amount of time. That is another fact. In order to even receive maximum food stamps, a person must be engaged in a jobs program. These are all good measures, however...

Dissolving these programs would not create the funding that is necessary to balance the budget, nor would it fix the economy - which is the problem. There are no good paying jobs in this country for people who were not born into fortunate sets of circumstances. The middles class is shrinking at an exponential rate, for reasons already given. It is not because of govt. 'welfare'. That is clearly supported by the fact that the budget has been balanced under Clinton with all of these programs in place along with a more reasonable tax rate on millionaires.

Here is yet another point worth mentioning... If it were not for American society the huge amounts of wealth could not be accrued to begin with. No society = no possibility to accrue wealth. This current type of business model, which gives total power over worker wages and benefits to the owners' own moral compass, is completely unsustainable if the owners' do not care about thier employees, their families, and or society as a whole. The wealthiest people know this, and because they know this, they have pushed for the trade agreements and all of the laws which facilitate their business moves. If this country collapses, and it will if this continues, they could care less, because they will live somewhere else, already run their businesses somewhere else, all the while paying those foreign workers pennies on the dollar, running the slave labor sweatshops that this country outlawed long ago due to human rights violations. The owners will continue to amass huge fortunes on the backs of foreign workers at the expense of destroying this country.

The cycle begins anew in another. The working class will rise up and demand better conditions, better pay, etc. China is already showing the signs.

Wake up.

Govt. is not the problem, it is a corrupted govt. that is the problem. It is the greedy elected officials which do not have what is best for 98% of Americans in mind. It is the financial support behind those politicans which is the problem. It is the ability to buy a politican which is the problem. It is campaign finance that is the problem. It is the moral degradation of this country which is the problem. Not 'moral' as in whose right it is to abort a fetus or not. Not 'moral' as in whose right it is to be married or not. But moral as in whose interests should be pursued when comparing what is best for 98% of the country, and what is best for the remaining 2%.

For the security and interest of the nation on a whole, it is always better when - if the interests of 98% conflict with the wealthiest 2%, we err on the side of the poor and middle class? There is no conflict of interest between the middle and poor classes people.

Wake up.

And if your neighbor is the owner of the company your work for?

Who owns the fruit?



Without society "trade" cannot happen.



The country is a name.

A nation is a group of people working cooperatively for the mutual benefit of the nation. An individual or a group of individuals who live in this nation, who get the protection of this nation, who sell the bulk of their goods and services to this nation, who have those goods and services produced outside of this nation, who buy the products required to produce their own outside of this nation, are those who are reaping all of the rewards that this nation offers - who depend upon this nation - but do not belong to this nation, have no loyalty to this nation, because the aforementioned actions are not about the mutual benefit of the nation. Rather they are about their own benefit at the expense of the nation.

This nation can and will survive without them. They will not survive long without the nation. Let another nation support and protect them.

Good riddance.

We have the second highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. If we dropped it, many of the the companies that have left would come back.

And if your neighbor is the owner of the company your work for?

Who owns the fruit?



Without society "trade" cannot happen.



The country is a name.

A nation is a group of people working cooperatively for the mutual benefit of the nation. An individual or a group of individuals who live in this nation, who get the protection of this nation, who sell the bulk of their goods and services to this nation, who have those goods and services produced outside of this nation, who buy the products required to produce their own outside of this nation, are those who are reaping all of the rewards that this nation offers - who depend upon this nation - but do not belong to this nation, have no loyalty to this nation, because the aforementioned actions are not about the mutual benefit of the nation. Rather they are about their own benefit at the expense of the nation.

This nation can and will survive without them. They will not survive long without the nation. Let another nation support and protect them.

Good riddance.

So you're saying that the far cheaper labor overseas as well plays absolutely no role whatsoever in corporate migration? Hmm.

And if you're somehow NOT saying that, then how do you solve the labor disparity? Suddenly drop the minimum wage back to .35 so that all BUT the top 1% is now in poverty?

In some industries, yes it does. In some industries, it doesn't. Honda, Toyota and Mercedes Benz all have factories in the USA. It's expensive to move cars across oceans, so it's cheaper to build them in the USA. You guys act like everyone in the USA is jobless, but take heart, Obama hasn't been allowed to finish his "change" yet.