Dutchy wrote:That is far to easy.
It is, which is why it's baffling and sad that people genuinely think they should be able to take other people's stuff to use how they please.
Dutchy wrote:Companies and individuals whom has wealth as their main income, are paracitering on society.
First, what is parasitic about it? Which one of your rights has been violated by a wealthy corporation or individual? Has any such entity forced you into an economic transaction against your will? Did a Walton pull a gun on you? Ever been carjacked by Warren Buffett?
Secondly, when you say "wealth as their main income" what exactly do you think happens in the period between "wealth" and "income"? Do you believe it's a printing press churning out dollars and Euros? Or just a magical black box?
Dutchy wrote:They take (infrastructure, security, rule of law, education etc. etc.), but don't contribute in the form of taxes.
First of all, they benefit the same as the rest of us. The difference between a billionaire who sits all day in an opulent office and the janitor who cleans it has nothing to do with the road they drive on to get there. The police don't ask for your tax return when you call 911 either.
Second, they do contribute in the form of taxes. Quite a bit actually.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pa ... taxes.html
https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data- ... axes-2014/
Dutchy wrote:Since the '70-ish almost all the gains in the economy - in real terms - has gone to the top, not the middle class.
First, you'd have to be a moron to be surprised by that. Second, why do you think that is wrong? Of course the returns on investments go to people to those who invest. That doesn't make them a target to be plundered, it makes them an example to be emulated.
wingman wrote:As per the chart you linked to the Reagan years saw nearly the greatest relative decline of the middle class in all the decades posted, it also saw the greatest absolute increase in the top bracket AND an increase in the very bottom bracket.
Let's do the numbers. We'll use 1981 to 1991 as a proxy for the Reagan years. In 1981 you had 26% (17+9) of people below middle class, 59% middle class, and 15% (12+3) above middle class. In 1991 the chart shows 27% (18+9) sub-middle class, 56% middle class, and 17% (12+5) doing better than middle class. The middle class lost 3% and of those 2% went up and 1% went down. It's disingenuous to say the middle class was doing worse because more of them left the middle class by moving up.
seb146 wrote:They just need to pay taxes like the rest of us if they are, indeed, people.
That is the diametrically wrong conclusion. Corporations are people, therefore there is no reason to tax corporations and only people should be taxed. That's a big part of why FairTax should be enacted, it would cut corporations out entirely and only tax people. A company would be able to buy raw materials or inventory, do whatever manufacturing or other work they do and then export their products all without paying a dime in taxes. And since they'd not have to pay taxes, they would no longer have the cost of accountants and lawyers that has to be incorporated into the cost of their products. Same for all of the infrastructure involved with calculating and withholding income and payroll taxes.
Aesma wrote:At the end of the day our economies consume natural resources, and those belong to everybody.
No they don't. They have owners just like everything else. Natural resources belong to whomever holds the rights to them, period. Treating it any other way is a violation of property rights. That said, I'm all in favor of the government deriving revenue by selling or leasing natural resource rights for publicly owned lands.
LMP737 wrote:You conveniently left out what was going on in 1942 and why that law was passed.
I left it out because market forces do not give a shit what was going on in 1942 or any other time.
First, consider what the government actually did. That law took money out of the pockets of American workers by decree because the government didn't want to pay what it actually costs to execute a war. For as much as Democrats complain about the costs associated with the War on Terror what do you think they'd say if Republicans had taken the same steps to control costs as the Democrats did (twice)?
Second, because the administration attempted to fix the market and botched it horribly it is very likely that the country spent more money than it would have had it just paid what the market would bear during WWII.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... -spending/
Had wages not been artificially capped during WWII, we can safely assume that the big red defense spike during WWII would be somewhat higher (but not wider). But the government totally messed up the entire healthcare system in the process which introduced a massive amount of new spending over the future decades.
Scroll down a bit to the "Entitlement Spending as Share of GDP" chart and look at the dark blue portion for healthcare. All that spending was effectively caused by the unintended consequences of the Stabilization Act of 1942, and remember that this is counting the area under the curve. So doing some Windows calculator app calculus; figure 2.5% from 1970 to 1980, 3% from 1980 to 1990, 4% from 1990 to 2000, and 5% from 2000 to 2010 which gives you 145 GDP%*years spent on healthcare (and counting...). If you consider the American WWII period to be 1940 to 1945 (ignoring that wage controls didn't start until 1942), for the Stabilization Act to have paid off it would have had to save 29% GDP in defense spending per year.
The American government saved a few bucks for a few years and in doing so broke the system and introduced costs that have steadily grown and have no cap.
einsteinboricua wrote:Actually, strike that. The rich do invest their tax cuts...directly into the coffers of the politicians to ensure they're kept in place or made larger.
Please explain why that is different than any other investment. Do media buys, jet charters, catering for excessively fancy dinners, etc. not contribute to the economy?