What happens to the 99%?

fatherofcaitlyn

fatherofcaitlyn

CAGiversary!
Feedback
82 (100%)
I finally got around to watching Mikail Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story. It is an absolutely beautiful movie.

However, it got me thinking. Let's say the Marxist revolution happens as bloody and as efficient as it is supposed to be or God forces the Rapture based on net worth.

If the top 1% of the population had their property and possessions forcibly redistributed or lives removed, what direction do you see the country going in?

Will the remaining top 4% just weasel the wealth out of the remaining bottom 96%?

Will there be a vacuum of power where people and representatives beholden to none can revolt and restore some semblance of wealth sharing?
 
eh, its kind of a way out there hypothetical. Everyone would be paranoid that it would happen again someday.

We dont really need to kill anyone or take everything. We want them to be productive if they want. Just tax them at 91% to minimize the damage that they create and everything will be fine.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']eh, its kind of a way out there hypothetical. Everyone would be paranoid that it would happen again someday.

We dont really need to kill anyone or take everything. We want them to be productive if they want. Just tax them at 91% to minimize the damage that they create and everything will be fine.[/QUOTE]

If we were a democracy (or republic) instead of a plutocracy, that might work.
 
Let's say we took the top 1%'s assets, liquidated them, then divided the money evenly amongst all Americans.

In 20 years or so, I suspect we'd be in a place similar to where we are now. You know the stories where some poor smuck wins the lotto and is bankrupt five years later?

People who earn money tend to respect it.
People who grow up around money tend to know how to manage it.
People who have money fall from the sky tend to have no idea what to do.

Or, as I've heard before: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing what made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer for the same reason.
 
I don't believe in 50/50 and true socialism since some people are smarter/work harder but something has to change. The fact that the supposed #1 country in the world more or less crashed AND the people on top were like "Oh that sucks LOL" is appalling. However, nothing along the lines of a Marxist Revolution would ever happen.
 
Thats a tough question to answer really without having more detail. I mean yes bill gates is a multi billion dollar man but if he had his money taken away would it effect microsoft? Probablly not because someone like bill doesnt run microsoft, it runs itself with its fleet of lawyers and board of directors, chairmans and all that. They are the ones that run that company, not bill, he just owns it.



[quote name='UncleBob']Let's say we took the top 1%'s assets, liquidated them, then divided the money evenly amongst all Americans.

In 20 years or so, I suspect we'd be in a place similar to where we are now. You know the stories where some poor smuck wins the lotto and is bankrupt five years later?

People who earn money tend to respect it.
People who grow up around money tend to know how to manage it.
People who have money fall from the sky tend to have no idea what to do.

Or, as I've heard before: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing what made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer for the same reason.[/QUOTE]

Well people who earn money are just as liable to lose it all and really mess up. The reason you dont hear about it to often is because the amount of people with lots of money is pretty small. Not to mention the very rich dont exactly want people to know they are losing their ass because it would be bad for their image and for alot of wealthy people that image of being wealthy is what keeps them in money. If someone rich lost it all and everyone knew about it their status would drop and their rich friends wouldnt be with them as much.

The statement about the poor getting poorer is a true statement but its intent in how you used it is a wrong. Poor people dont get poorer because of their ability to use money properly, it has to do with the ratio of people who get lots of money is pretty slim. As we all know the very wealthy are a very very small percentage in this country and to become wealthy takes a insane amount of luck no matter how you cut it. Even the most intelligent and inventive rich people got there by mostly luck, whether they won the big jackpot lottery or built microsoft. They got there by being in the right place at the right time, knew the right people and did the right things in the right order. Bill gates for instance isnt exactly the smartest computer guy ever and I know guys who know more than him, he just happen to do the correct things at the right time and now is a billionare for it. You cant be rich just by being smart or a desire to be rich. If that was the case this country would have a hell of alot more rich folks in it than we do now.

But you are right about growing up around money and being able to manager it (or failing that hiring someone to manage it). Just like I grew up pretty poor on a farm, if you took george bush and stuck his ass on that same farm with no money he would commit suicide if he had to work for a living. I can live without much money because I am used to it.
 
I just can't believe you watch the garbage that Michael Moore puts out. After being forced to watch bowling for columbine in high school, I didn't like him. After seeing the documentary (can't think of the name) of how he edits stuff around and blatently lies, I will never give him a cent of my money through sales or viewings of his movies. They are garbage.
 
To anyone babbling that the rich are rich because of their habits and the poor are poor due to theirs, roughly thirty years after a bunch of policies were enacted coddling the rich to the detriment of everyone else has brought us to today.

Sure enough we have seen the skyrocketing of the fortunes of the megarich while everyone else has more or less stayed in place if not outright declined.

Fixing a whole mess of problems in this country would be fairly easy and you don't even have to soak the rich, just getting their toes wet would be enough.
 
[quote name='Msut77']To anyone babbling that the rich are rich because of their habits and the poor are poor due to theirs, roughly thirty years after a bunch of policies were enacted coddling the rich to the detriment of everyone else has brought us to today.

Sure enough we have seen the skyrocketing of the fortunes of the megarich while everyone else has more or less stayed in place if not outright declined.

Fixing a whole mess of problems in this country would be fairly easy and you don't even have to soak the rich, just getting their toes wet would be enough.[/QUOTE]

The rich are rich due to their habits. When they hit hard times, they force a bailout. Then, they inflate another bubble to draw in more suckers.

The poor are poor due to their habits. When they hit hard times, they file bankruptcy. Then, they are turned down for jobs when a potential employer runs a credit check.
 
Moore is a big fat liar.

Apparently "the rich" is anyone who makes over 250K. Unfortunately, "anyone" isn't always an individual but is also a small business. We tax their money away and then they have less money to hire workers, spend less on expanding their business or buying products or services. You can see how taxing the "rich" trickles down, hurting more than just the few individuals who can handle it. The poor yardman, nanny, house cleaner, restaurant employees, entertainment professionals, etc. see less business from the taxed "rich guy." Then the prodigal government spends it crap we don't need.

You all are bottom feeders complaining and making excuses. You want equal outcomes. You want to tax the shit out of anyone who makes $1 more than you because hey, you aren't going to be affected. You are all selfish and completely unaware of economics and a free market. You can't see past your own miserable lives to see the good that the rich creates for you and how the welfare state is ruining our country.

Moore is a big fat liar.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The rich are rich due to their habits. When they hit hard times, they force a bailout. Then, they inflate another bubble to draw in more suckers.

The poor are poor due to their habits. When they hit hard times, they file bankruptcy. Then, they are turned down for jobs when a potential employer runs a credit check.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, they really "forced" that bailout. The politicians were more than happy to hold the taxpayers down and force us to bend over.

Question: How much direct corporate welfare has been given out in the past 100 years. How much direct individual welfare has been given out in that same time frame. I'll give you a hint, one of those numbers is far bigger than the other.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The rich are rich due to their habits. When they hit hard times, they force a bailout. Then, they inflate another bubble to draw in more suckers.

The poor are poor due to their habits. When they hit hard times, they file bankruptcy. Then, they are turned down for jobs when a potential employer runs a credit check.[/QUOTE]

A couple of years ago they even made it harder to declare bankruptcy.
 
[quote name='Msut77']A couple of years ago they even made it harder to declare bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]

YMMV.

In Indiana, you can declare bankruptcy if you make less than the median income in your area.

As long as I have a job and my wife keeps getting passed over for promotions, I can't declare bankruptcy.

I've considered it simply because I could retire if all of my consumer debt, my first house mortgage and the wife allowed me to take care of the kids. It would be a complete waste of my potential, but five years of paying dues at tech support is as much of a waste.

EDIT: Of course, I might be able to do something cool with my life if I had an extra 160 hours of free time.
 
So if we take enough of the money away from the uber-rich to give to everyone else, something like 300 million people living in America?, until they are at best working class than what? Now that nobody makes above 5 figures do we then tax the new rich or do we let those who made all those millions make them again so we can supplement the poor again?

Here's my crazy theory. How about we create jobs for people, give incentives to companies for each person they hire and give health insurance, with more workers having health insurance the health industry can make money off the young kids who are healthy just like the gov. does with social security to grow a big pot which would hopefully mean better healthcare for us, cause don't think you are going to be 65 when you start collecting SS, yay no more stupid Obama care, now everybody has a job and is insured using the same stimulus money, hell have the gov. use that stimulus instead to pay the first year of every new employee they hire and keep? Think how much these companies can grow, and with all those working how much money we could pump into the economy and with that, all the glorious taxes the gov. and recoup, what a wonderful world it would be.

Taking all the money away from the rich will not make the rest of us rich, giving everyone a job and the freedom to work for their dream and this country would be booming again. We will never live in a world where everybody is rich unless everybody has a million dollar idea.
 
Jobs arent created because someone has more money or because their taxes are lower. Jobs are created for one, and only one reason - to meet a demand in the market. Right now there is a problem with demand in the market, if taxes were zero or you gave would be employers free money, it would do nothing. No one creates jobs out of the goodness of their heart. Similarly very few people are crazy enough to hire people to provide a product or service that no one is buying.

When all the money makes its way to the top, it doesnt trickle down, and it creates problems. I'm starting to think that there is no recovery as long as we are working under Reagan economic/trade policies. We'll just be fluxing between bad and worse in a downward spiral from here on out.

If only the people crying socialism were actually correct.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Jobs arent created because someone has more money or because their taxes are lower. Jobs are created for one, and only one reason - to meet a demand in the market. Right now there is a problem with demand in the market, if taxes were zero or you gave would be employers free money, it would do nothing. No one creates jobs out of the goodness of their heart. Similarly very few people are crazy enough to hire people to provide a product or service that no one is buying.

When all the money makes its way to the top, it doesnt trickle down, and it creates problems. I'm starting to think that there is no recovery as long as we are working under Reagan economic/trade policies. We'll just be fluxing between bad and worse in a downward spiral from here on out.

If only the people crying socialism were actually correct.[/QUOTE]

If you can get an additional employee on site that will increase your profit by $X, you consider it.

Things you take into consideration would be the cost of hiring (paperwork, drug testing, etc) that employee, the cost to train the employee to do the job, and the cost of keeping that employee (pay, benefits, taxes, etc.).

All those costs add up - $Y. As $Y increases and reaches $X, it no longer becomes a viable decision to hire the new employee. The goal, of course, is to either decrease $Y or increase $X.

What steps do you propose that the government take to decrease $Y or increase $X?
 
Getting an additional employee on site will not increase profit. Your $X right now is zero. You'd basically have to force a private company to hire more people than they currently want to. The additional employee would be making a product or service that isnt wanted. I dont know why an employer would want to do that. It will lower the price of goods slightly, but labor is a small fraction of cost of goods, even with very high labor products like cars.

The term free market is fiction of the highest order. Its the government's role to set up the rules of the market. In this case, what I want them to do is bring back trade tariffs to protect domestic industry. Right now half of US trade are US companies trading with their own foreign subsidiaries. Making it cost prohibitive to do that will slowly bring those jobs back here. If it doesnt, we are essentially doomed. It would be just the start, there are a number of progressive policies which will have to work in concert here.
 
I think what's missing in a lot of these arguments is that we have no third faction in the U.S. government. In Wil McCarthy's Murder in the Solid State there's something called the Gray party, and though my memory might fail me on this, I believe they were meant to serve an arbitration / Judge Dredd kind of function.

What you need is a force that can operate independently of corporate-political backscratching--one that has the power to execute corrupt CEOs. In turn, these ill-gotten assets can be seized and employed to create something useful, like more nuclear power plants. Not to be "privatized," not to be a "government budget issue." Purely a civil engineering project with the goal of stabilizing energy availability in the United States.

Let's not be pussies about this; the Gray option is the only real way America is going to have an increase of quality domestic jobs and a decrease of criminalized wealth going into offshore bank accounts.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Jobs arent created because someone has more money or because their taxes are lower. Jobs are created for one, and only one reason - to meet a demand in the market. Right now there is a problem with demand in the market, if taxes were zero or you gave would be employers free money, it would do nothing. No one creates jobs out of the goodness of their heart. Similarly very few people are crazy enough to hire people to provide a product or service that no one is buying.

When all the money makes its way to the top, it doesnt trickle down, and it creates problems. I'm starting to think that there is no recovery as long as we are working under Reagan economic/trade policies. We'll just be fluxing between bad and worse in a downward spiral from here on out.

If only the people crying socialism were actually correct.[/QUOTE]

They were lots of companies that had to do layoffs, I think that is why we are in this boat to begin with. If the companies got incentives for hiring again, they would get back the staff they lost, even if it was different people, nevertheless decreasing unemployment. If you want, give extra incentives to starting businesses as well. With those people back on, the company can hopefully produce more, with the incentives they would have to offer health insurance, and you kill two birds with one stone.

Why not, the stimulus money is there, just use it more efficently. Hire an employee and give them health insurance and for every year they work you give back 20% of that employee's pay back to that company, therefore they work at least 5 years with health insurance, the company gets the benefit of the employee hopefully leading to more jobs, and the gov spreads that money out over 5 years while collecting income, sales, and local taxes and not paying unemployment tax. Even at 20% a year up to $50K, at most a million dollars now would create 100 jobs per million dollars of stimulus per year (10K per employee back to the company) Now times that by 787 billion and we have solved the recession and health insurance for all.

The point is, the economy works best when people have jobs, increase the likelihood of businesses to hire, and there is more people buying stuff, which creates the need for more jobs etc, economics 101 here. Taking rich people's money away by force above the legal tax rate is unethical and will not cure poverty. If we aren't prosecuting rich people for how they got rich, than it's fair to say they got the money legally.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Jputa, why are you such a fan of corporate welfare?[/QUOTE]

Why do you think Robin Hood economics will solve the nations problems?

Unless you want to become a society of bartering, please propose how 300 million people will get by. You think 1% of the population can maintain all of us forever. You think some rich people don't have the right to enjoy their success. People risk the life savings sometimes on an investment or an idea, and you want to take it away from them. When I get an idea like that in your utopia, I think I'll move to another country.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Unless you want to become a society of bartering, please propose how 300 million people will get by. You think 1% of the population can maintain all of us forever. You think some rich people don't have the right to enjoy their success. People risk the life savings sometimes on an investment or an idea, and you want to take it away from them. When I get an idea like that in your utopia, I think I'll move to another country.[/QUOTE]

Are these questions or statements?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Are these questions or statements?[/QUOTE]

Enlighten me as to your master plan, all I hear from you are generic one sentence statements, no ideas. Or try answering one of my questions, take your pick.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Jobs arent created because someone has more money or because their taxes are lower. Jobs are created for one, and only one reason - to meet a demand in the market. Right now there is a problem with demand in the market, if taxes were zero or you gave would be employers free money, it would do nothing. No one creates jobs out of the goodness of their heart. Similarly very few people are crazy enough to hire people to provide a product or service that no one is buying.[/QUOTE]

I think this just brings us back to the age old question... which came first the chicken or the egg?

the chicken being jobs and the egg being demand for products and services.

so... which do you create first? more demand or more jobs.... obviously more jobs = more demand.... and more demand = more jobs...

personally I think it has to be jobs.
 
[quote name='camoor']Don't get my hopes up like that.[/QUOTE]

Since I have a job, you'll want me to stay, part of my income is probably paying for your sloth.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Since I have a job, you'll want me to stay, part of my income is probably paying for your sloth.[/QUOTE]

Totally worth the sacrifice. Please, *please* leave.
 
I'm curious what country you could move to that protects their domestic industry less, has lower taxes for the wealthy, and a weaker safety net, while maintaining a standard of living acceptable to you?
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Enlighten me as to your master plan, all I hear from you are generic one sentence statements, no ideas. Or try answering one of my questions, take your pick.[/QUOTE]

I would prefer the KISS principle. You want to shrink the supply of labor and increase the demand of labor in order to increase the cost of labor for lower classes to accumulate wealth. Here are some ideas:

Strip away the welfare on agriculture. Some "subsidies" have been around since the Great Depression. They are used to artificially suppress the cost of labor overseas more than to lower the cost of food domestically. If you get rid of it, the cost of labor overseas goes up more than the cost of food domestically. A smaller labor force overseas reduces the advantage of offshoring jobs. If you can't offshore the job, it has to be done domestically.

Strip away the mileage exemption. The mileage exemption keeps the cost of a 3,000 mile caesar salad less than the cost of a 10 mile salad. When the cost of food approaches its true cost, more fruits, vegetables and meat would be grown locally. This action would increase the demand for local labor and cause an increase in wages.

Strip away the subsidy on child care. I piss away a ridiculous amount of money on child care. When I started my current job, I would have been miles ahead by watching the kids and working a second shift at Mickey D's flipping burgers. My wife consistently brought the child care credit to justify spending $10K per year on child care while making less than $25K and driving an 80 mile commute per shift. At the end of the year, we got back a whopping $600. Currently, I could be ahead $500 a month by working 30 hours a week and watching the kids. If six skilled workers such as myself did this, an unskilled daycare worker would be out of 40 hours of work, but there would be 60 hours of skilled labor available. The labor supply shrinks overall while increasing the cost of labor.

Allow student loans to be bankrupted on. Banks have a sure thing with student loans. You tie millions of people with debt for decades on skills they can't find a decent job for. While the workforce is more skilled, you simply have them applying for the same unskilled jobs during economic downturns. If you give people the ability to walk away from student loans, you shrink the demand for labor. Bank will charge more for loans. More importantly, they may not be willing to give a Women's Studies major $100K in debt.

Strip away the mortgage deduction. Debt is debt is debt. If people with massive mortgage debt weren't being enabled by the government, the current recession wouldn't be as severe. Without massive debt, people lose their incentive to work. You have a smaller supply of labor.

Kill the h1b1 visa program. It artificially inflates the supply of labor and reduces cost of the labor performed. It is corporate welfare of the highest and simplest order.

Now, have I raised any taxes on anybody? Nope. However, I have thrown a life preserver to the middle class.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The jobs also have to pay enough for people to be able to buy stuff above the basics.[/QUOTE]

what do you consider above the basics that people should have the right to afford?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Allow student loans to be bankrupted on. Banks have a sure thing with student loans. You tie millions of people with debt for decades on skills they can't find a decent job for. While the workforce is more skilled, you simply have them applying for the same unskilled jobs during economic downturns. If you give people the ability to walk away from student loans, you shrink the demand for labor. Bank will charge more for loans. More importantly, they may not be willing to give a Women's Studies major $100K in debt.
[/QUOTE]

Just so ya know... banks can no longer do student loans...


not to mention I don't see where allowing people to bankrupt student loans would shrink the demand for labor? or why you would want to shrink the demand for labor?

of course there's also the question of why it's the lenders problem that people choose a crazy field to get into?
 
[quote name='Afflicted']Just so ya know... banks can no longer do student loans...


not to mention I don't see where allowing people to bankrupt student loans would shrink the demand for labor? or why you would want to shrink the demand for labor?

of course there's also the question of why it's the lenders problem that people choose a crazy field to get into?[/QUOTE]

Pretty much what I was going to say. If you are going to sign a contract to pursue an optional higher education, and then bail out of the bill when it's over I would equate that with stealing. Go part time, join the army, or find an employer who offers tuition reimbursement as an incentive but don't think millions of students should have the right to bail on loans because they picked an unmarketable major. That's bascially the mortgage crisis on a smaller scale.

While I agree with some of your points, I think what I proposed or simply lowering income tax on people making under 100K would put a lot more money over your lifetime into the hands of working class people.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']Just so ya know... banks can no longer do student loans...


not to mention I don't see where allowing people to bankrupt student loans would shrink the demand for labor? or why you would want to shrink the demand for labor?

of course there's also the question of why it's the lenders problem that people choose a crazy field to get into?[/QUOTE]

Supply, not demand. My mistake.

https://www.pnc.com/webapp/unsec/Bl...4&WT.srch=13&gclid=CL2FvuGLx6MCFQXt7Qodblwftw

https://www.studentloan.com/

http://www.chasestudentloans.com/
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I'm curious what country you could move to that protects their domestic industry less, has lower taxes for the wealthy, and a weaker safety net, while maintaining a standard of living acceptable to you?[/QUOTE]

I like Australia personally, I haven't done the research as far as if I would get the best bang for my buck, but I know people who went there and overall, it's a better run country in my opinion and I think it's insignificant enough that they would not be nuked directly when judgement day happens.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What good or service would you offer the Australian economy or any economy?[/QUOTE]

I'm going to invent Starbucks.
 
I could go for Japan. Too many critters in Australia that want to kill you. But plenty of nice big government policies in both places. Being that they are developed nations that are not the US, you can count on at the very least:
- more stringent protection of their domestic industries, labor, environment, etc (commons)
- taxing capital gains at roughly the rate of income and not half as it is in the US.
- health care!
 
[quote name='Knoell']what do you consider above the basics that people should have the right to afford?[/QUOTE]

This isn't about "rights", when having a discussion about demand in an economy heavily tilted towards consumption it is not a matter of people "having jobs" but that those jobs allow them to purchase more than just necessities QED.
 
Having wealth isn't problem, but if you're wrecking the institutions of the American economy in order to siphon ever-increasing amounts some people might call you a traitor. With power comes responsibility, and if those in power have poor moral character it is up to the people to strip those individuals of privilege, lest we all silently consent to a life under tyranny.
 
[quote name='Msut77']This isn't about "rights", when having a discussion about demand in an economy heavily tilted towards consumption it is not a matter of people "having jobs" but that those jobs allow them to purchase more than just necessities QED.[/QUOTE]

But also people should have the right to make bad decisions. e.g. buying tattoos, drugs, cable tv, cell phones, internet, etc. instead of getting health and life insurance.

Recent story I heard: A young mother of 3 (about 45 yrs old) has a malignant tumor. She doesn't have insurance, deciding to spend the money on the above list. She still got healthcare and treatment to take out the tumor (a frequent misnomer is that people w/o insurance don't get any treatment), but she's not going to afford the chemotherapy. But even if she did, she'd still only add ~3 years to her life. Now she's leaving her family w/ a huge financial burden. Tattoos cost hundreds of dollars and she chose to buy them instead of life insurance for her family.

your and Dr. Mario Kart's perception of the economics, society, and world history is one of complete nescience. It really sounds like a 19th or 20th century vision instead of our current global market and personal freedom reality.
 
that may be, but in that case, thats also what nearly the entirety of the rest of the developed and developing world subscribe to, while the one country that has most bought into the Friedman flat earth crap is the one going down the tubes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top