How much do you want?

[Army of GOD]

well, before BBS says it, isn't income inequality misleading? Just because the rich are getting richer doesn't necessarily mean the poor are getting more/remaining poor.

[BigBallinStalin]

I would even pay more if it helped my country. But right now it's being used to fund a giant-ass army and sh*t.

Everyone wants a lower tax rate, and I only make about $20K a year. But I would pay a higher rate to fund stronger social programs instead of Corporate Welfare and militaristic programs.

Suppose JB's taxes were reduced to 5%.


What percent would he voluntarily dedicate to charities?



___________________________


Whatever it may be, he'll assume that if people's taxes are lowered, then they won't voluntarily give enough to charities. Then these questions would follow:

(1) How do you know people won't dedicate enough?
(2) How much is enough?
(3) How effective are charities, whose revenue is derived from voluntary exchanges, compared to government-owned or bureaucrat-managed "charities," whose revenue is taken involuntarily?


Conclusion: If voluntary charities are more effective than "involuntary charities," then taxation would be unnecessary up to some unknown point.

[Juan_Bottom]

Bogna and Herdsdavagina really sticks out on that map. It's a shame that it is so.

[Night Strike]

Banks should be required to keep 100% of depositors money on hand.

Economy is dead if this were enacted. There would be no money to make personal and business loans, no person would gain interest on their accounts, and it would be impossible for banks to be open since they couldn't make money (unless they charge a large fee per account).

The government is in the business of doing what's best for the people. This level of wealth disparity is not in the people's best interest.

The government does NOT know what is best for me. I'd rather keep most of my money and make my own decisions as to what is best for me.

[patrickaa317]

Depends on how much you're making. All the money made over one million dollars a year should be taxed the shit out of.

Do you feel that way because:

A. I have it and you feel it is better for the government to have it?
B. You are jealous of my success and feel better by confiscating my wealth through taxation?
C. You don't think I need, or should, have that kind of money at my disposal?
D. All of the above.
E. Fill in the blank with whatever i missed.

Well, you definitely don't need more than one million a year and a government not owned in every by way private interests could do a lot more good with the massive stockpiles of money. At this point the top 1% own over 40% of the wealth in this country. That is obscene.

So you feel that I really don't need that much money but does anyone really need anything say over 30k a year? I mean that'll get you an apartment, food on your table, and some entertainment, if we are talking about what someone needs. Should we all strive for just what we need and be good with that? I mean does anyone really need anything over 75k a year? Those typically are just the people that drive around in Lexus or BMW's; they could definitely get by with a Focus or Cavalier, right? That's if we are talking about what someone needs.

There is a universe of difference between spending $5,000 on something frivolous and hoarding half of the country's wealth.

On the flipside, does the government really need to take over 450,000 from a person that makes a million per year? Does the government really need that kind of money?

If we were to pay for universal health care, free college tuition and a reasonable social safety net, yes.

And do you feel it is the governments responsibility to make sure that more than 1% have a share of 40% of the wealth?

The government is in the business of doing what's best for the people. This level of wealth disparity is not in the people's best interest.

What is an acceptable number there? What if 3% owned 40% of the wealth? Would that be better? 5%? 10%? 25%? What is a non-obscene number in your view?

While the perfect level of inequality is hard to pin down, I'd say that we should be looking for something comparable to the rest of the first world. Instead we're one of the worst.

Income inequality: https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 2rank.html

Here's a map of that (note that we're roughly on par with China):

So you are ok with people spending frivilous as long as they don't have a ton of money.

Free college tuition? If they are taking my money and allowing everyone under the sun to go to college, is it actually free?

The government is in business in doing what is best for the people? What government is this that you speak of? Certainly not the one that awards big contracts to the companies that in turn donate money to their campaigns.

We are one of the worst countries in your image but yet the American level of poverty is completely different than some of the other countries. Do we really want to get our poverty levels to resemble theirs just to get our numbers to balance out?

That Chicago Bears logo you have there, do you believe that Urlacher should get paid so much more than J.T. Thomas? Especially the frivolous amounts that NFL players get paid? Perhaps, they should pay the players quite a bit less, I'd assume that they would work out just as hard and be in just as good of shape for their fans, they definitely aren't playing super hard just to get a bigger contract, are they? They wouldn't be that greedy nor deserve that extra money, would they?

[Frigidus]

well, before BBS says it, isn't income inequality misleading? Just because the rich are getting richer doesn't necessarily mean the poor are getting more/remaining poor.

Yeah it is, but it is borderline impossible to pin down the true wealth distribution considering the trillions of dollars that have been ferreted away in various offshore locations. As far as I know nobody actually keeps tabs on that shit. If someone has any statistics on it I'd be thrilled to see them, because I can't find it.

[Army of GOD]

That Chicago Bears logo you have there, do you believe that Urlacher should get paid so much more than J.T. Thomas?

this is now a football (real) thread.


Personally, I think the Bears are going to win the NFC North. Assuming Forte stays healthy, that is.

[Frigidus]

So you are ok with people spending frivilous as long as they don't have a ton of money.

I'm not arguing for communism, people are allowed to get luxury items if they want. I'm saying that there is a certain amount of money that people reasonably deserve, and that a shit load of people get more than that.

Free college tuition? If they are taking my money and allowing everyone under the sun to go to college, is it actually free?

It's free in the sense that you won't be a debt slave for decades afterwards once you're out.

The government is in business in doing what is best for the people? What government is this that you speak of? Certainly not the one that awards big contracts to the companies that in turn donate money to their campaigns.

We're speaking about what the ideal tax rate is, and I'm assuming that this tax is being made by the ideal government. The US government is a fucking joke, sure, but that's a separate discussion.

We are one of the worst countries in your image but yet the American level of poverty is completely different than some of the other countries. Do we really want to get our poverty levels to resemble theirs just to get our numbers to balance out?

Taxing the rich would not result in incredible poverty. Shit, we seemed just fine in the '50s when we had what I would consider acceptable tax rates.

That Chicago Bears logo you have there, do you believe that Urlacher should get paid so much more than J.T. Thomas? Especially the frivolous amounts that NFL players get paid? Perhaps, they should pay the players quite a bit less, I'd assume that they would work out just as hard and be in just as good of shape for their fans, they definitely aren't playing super hard just to get a bigger contract, are they? They wouldn't be that greedy nor deserve that extra money, would they?

You can get paid whatever you want, but you should expect to be taxed heavily if you get paid heavily. That's just how things should work. That applies to everyone, whether or not I happen to like them.

That Chicago Bears logo you have there, do you believe that Urlacher should get paid so much more than J.T. Thomas?

this is now a football (real) thread.


Personally, I think the Bears are going to win the NFC North. Assuming Forte stays healthy, that is.

I'm looking forward to the Bears/Packers game in Week 2. I imagine that it's going to be a lot closer than the last couple of years have been.

[BigBallinStalin]

There is a universe of difference between spending $5,000 on something frivolous and hoarding half of the country's wealth.

This is a false comparison. "Hoarding" is a term that describes "savings," but in a distorted and normative manner, which is intellectually dishonest. Money, which isn't consumed by one's self or by the government, would be saved. Savings signal to producers the approach of future consumption. What's wrong with that? Nothing.

Eventually, even the savings are consumed or the profit earned from saving is consumed. Furthermore, one's savings allows another to borrow and consume (thus increasing production/consumption), so there's nothing wrong with hoarding--as Frigidus presented it.

He is correct that there is a difference, but the presence of savings doesn't justify stealing* other people's wealth--*or if you prefer, "the involuntary extraction of the citizens' wealth." It also ruins the future incomes for the production of future goods. How can the government know what the optimal savings rate is for everyone? It doesn't, so trusting such an organization to make these decisions is based on faith.


Taxation of savings has negative consequences. So, does the manipulation of the interest rate by the Federal Reserve. If you force people to consume more, you'll end up having less in the future--than you would have had. It can also lead to inflation as you have more money chasing goods in the very short-run. This is becoming a business cycle theory argument, but I'm not sure if Frigidus has the demand to take it there.

On the flipside, does the government really need to take over 450,000 from a person that makes a million per year? Does the government really need that kind of money?

If we were forced to pay for (1) universal health care, (2) free college tuition and a (3) reasonable social safety net, yes.

*fxt. Frigidus should acknowledge that he is calling for the government to employ its monopoly on "legitimate" coercion in order to force other people to pay for these well-intended programs.


(1) Meh, maybe.

(2) Increasing the supply of college undergrads puts downward pressure on the wages that require undergrad degrees. It also depreciates the value of having an undergrad degree. These are outcomes which aren't worth the consequences of such extensive subsidies. Besides, if the government pays for it all, then colleges have an incentive to increase their tuitions. This would create problems which would call for more government intervention to fix problems that it created in the first place. Price controls and other inefficient policies would lead to additional problems that tend to be neglected by the government and/or shouldered by the people.

(3) "Reasonable" being the key word here. I'm sure if politicians and bureaucrats were Angels, then #3 would work as Frigidus intended.

And do you feel it is the governments responsibility to make sure that more than 1% have a share of 40% of the wealth?

(1) The government is in the business of doing what's best for the people. (2) This level of wealth disparity is not in the people's best interest.

(1) We've heard this one before. If it was true, then politicians and bureaucrats would be doing what's best for people. That's why crony capitalism, regulatory capture, deficit spending don't exist. It's also why politicians are sensitive to long-term problems which to them are worth more than short-term benefits. It's also why concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, which lead to rent-seeking, hardly exist.

At this point, most of our fellow ConquerClubbers can see that the statement, "The government is in the business of doing what's best for the people," is incorrect and is merely wishful thinking, which are used to justify stealing other people's property.


(2) What's in the people's best interest? Let's go ask everyone and find out. Wait, Frigidus didn't do this, so he's presuming to know what's in the people's interest; therefore, #2 is based on his presumption of knowledge--which is a false presumption. Not only that, but wealth disparity is not the only relevant factor. This one-dimensional view is lacking, so #1 is again shown to be false.

What is an acceptable number there? What if 3% owned 40% of the wealth? Would that be better? 5%? 10%? 25%? What is a non-obscene number in your view?

While the perfect level of inequality is hard to pin down, I'd say that we should be looking for something comparable to the rest of the first world. Instead we're one of the worst.

Income inequality: https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 2rank.html

Here's a map of that (note that we're roughly on par with China): [img]The%20GINI_coefficient_chart,_the_Call_of_the_Egalitarian_and_State_Coercion[/img]

To answer pat's question, no one really knows, but the central planners did know that the laffer curve justified lower taxes which resulted in relatively the same tax revenues.

The point is that the GINI coefficient is largely irrelevant. Even if there was a positive correlation, it still wouldn't follow that wealth disparity causes some arbitrarily deemed percentage of an unfair amount of income for the bottom 20%. It's an institutional matter, which involves a discussion on the actually relevant factors: social, economic, and political institutions.

The GINI coefficient is merely the outcome of interactions among individuals within those institutions. To look at an outcome, perceive some desired proportion, then prescribe policy is putting the cart before the horse. The GINI coefficient is useful, but unfortunately it's used in an intellectually dishonest manner.

[Army of GOD]

I'm looking forward to the Bears/Packers game in Week 2. I imagine that it's going to be a lot closer than the last couple of years have been.

It should be a great game. I'm thinking the Bears will come out on top because their defense is lightyears ahead of Green Bay's and their offense is a lot better than it's been in...well...a long time. Trust me, I know Cutler and Marshall from their days in Denver.

[BigBallinStalin]

Personally, I'd be okay up to 50%, but no more.
Assuming the 50% largely goes towards the benefit of an everyman. (Such as myself.)
As well as assuming the cost of living would be reasonable with this large tax in mind.
I'd like around 50% of my pay to actually be used to whatever end I may desire.

So if you have 50% that is using whatever you may desire; and I have 50% left for whatever I may desire; but you want the other 50% of myself to benefit everyman such as you; wouldn't it make more sense to let you keep say 80% so then you wouldn't need to utilize my 50%?

And by a 50% tax rate, do you really mean that 4-5 hours every day at my job, Uncle Sam is getting paid, not me?

Consider how much of what we make that goes into health care and college education. It wouldn't be too much of a tradeoff.

Are you implying that the involuntary exchanges are legitimate if these revenues produce government planned health care and college education?

[patrickaa317]

So you are ok with people spending frivilous as long as they don't have a ton of money.

I'm not arguing for communism, people are allowed to get luxury items if they want. I'm saying that there is a certain amount of money that people reasonably deserve, and that a shit load of people get more than that.

Free college tuition? If they are taking my money and allowing everyone under the sun to go to college, is it actually free?

It's free in the sense that you won't be a debt slave for decades afterwards once you're out.

The government is in business in doing what is best for the people? What government is this that you speak of? Certainly not the one that awards big contracts to the companies that in turn donate money to their campaigns.

We're speaking about what the ideal tax rate is, and I'm assuming that this tax is being made by the ideal government. The US government is a fucking joke, sure, but that's a separate discussion.

We are one of the worst countries in your image but yet the American level of poverty is completely different than some of the other countries. Do we really want to get our poverty levels to resemble theirs just to get our numbers to balance out?

Taxing the rich would not result in incredible poverty. Shit, we seemed just fine in the '50s when we had what I would consider acceptable tax rates.

That Chicago Bears logo you have there, do you believe that Urlacher should get paid so much more than J.T. Thomas? Especially the frivolous amounts that NFL players get paid? Perhaps, they should pay the players quite a bit less, I'd assume that they would work out just as hard and be in just as good of shape for their fans, they definitely aren't playing super hard just to get a bigger contract, are they? They wouldn't be that greedy nor deserve that extra money, would they?

You can get paid whatever you want, but you should expect to be taxed heavily if you get paid heavily. That's just how things should work. That applies to everyone, whether or not I happen to like them.

That Chicago Bears logo you have there, do you believe that Urlacher should get paid so much more than J.T. Thomas?

this is now a football (real) thread.


Personally, I think the Bears are going to win the NFC North. Assuming Forte stays healthy, that is.

I'm looking forward to the Bears/Packers game in Week 2. I imagine that it's going to be a lot closer than the last couple of years have been.

So the government should be the decider of what amount of money people "reasonably deserve".

Slave to debt once you are out? Wouldn't it be fair to consider a 50% tax rate being comparable to being a slave to debt? And what about those individuals who don't go to college, they still pay for the rest of the individuals So they become slaves for something they don't even utilize.

So since you agree that the US government is a fucking joke, then you surely don't want them raising taxes until they get their shit cleaned up, correct?

In the 50's, we also didn't have the welfare state we do now either. Do you want to discuss about bringing things from today back to the 50's? Surely the tax rate isn't solely related to poverty rates, is it? Couldn't we look and see if there was a better work ethic among individuals then? Less government regulation in what businesses can and cannot do? Less giant contracts given to corporations in a back scratching fest?

If I was busting my ass and making 150k a year and you were being a slacker and only making 25k a year; if we were both to pay 33% in taxes, I would be paying $50,000 while you only pay $8,000; which means I would already be being taxed $42,000 more than you? I would pay more in taxes than you even MAKE! Should I really also pay a higher percentage just because you aren't motivated to do anything more that being a cashier at the local dollar store? Sure I have more money but I also sacrificed more blood, sweat and tears into getting where I am while you just have lumps on your ass from sitting around.

[Timminz]

If I was busting my ass and making 150k a year and you were being a slacker and only making 25k a year; if we were both to pay 33% in taxes, I would be paying $50,000 while you only pay $8,000; which means I would already be being taxed $42,000 more than you? I would pay more in taxes than you even MAKE! Should I really also pay a higher percentage just because you aren't motivated to do anything more that being a cashier at the local dollar store? Sure I have more money but I also sacrificed more blood, sweat and tears into getting where I am while you just have lumps on your ass from sitting around.

Or maybe I'm the one busting my ass, making $20k/year, while you're some smarmy SOB who happened to inherit a good portfolio, and spends your days playing polo, and butt-fucking lap dogs, while "earning" $200k/year on dividends? Sure you were born into the right family, but you're a useless cunt, while I'm losing fingers on an unsafe assembly line, just trying to feed my family, and hoping to Allah that we'll find a way to pay for mama's dialysis, and granny's chemo.

[patrickaa317]

If I was busting my ass and making 150k a year and you were being a slacker and only making 25k a year; if we were both to pay 33% in taxes, I would be paying $50,000 while you only pay $8,000; which means I would already be being taxed $42,000 more than you? I would pay more in taxes than you even MAKE! Should I really also pay a higher percentage just because you aren't motivated to do anything more that being a cashier at the local dollar store? Sure I have more money but I also sacrificed more blood, sweat and tears into getting where I am while you just have lumps on your ass from sitting around.

Or maybe I'm the one busting my ass, making $20k/year, while you're some smarmy SOB who happened to inherit a good portfolio, and spends your days playing polo, and butt-fucking lap dogs, while "earning" $200k/year on dividends? Sure you were born into the right family, but you're a useless cunt, while I'm losing fingers on an unsafe assembly line, just trying to feed my family, and hoping to Allah that we'll find a way to pay for mama's dialysis, and granny's chemo.

Now there are a few issues with that.
The government should ensure you have a safe place to work.
Your mama and granny are obviously not also from Canada, as you do have a Universal health care system up there, no?
I know people who were born into rich families, fucked up and are now broke ass losers.
I know people who were born with nothing and took what they had and made a name for themselves
Everyone in the US is given a free public K-12 education. That guarantees equal opportunity, not equal result.
Some people get a better drop in life and great dice along the way; some people make do with what they have and turn a bad drop into a great ending by some well executed moves and a little dumb luck; and some people get a shitty drop and can't do anything about it, except curse the dice and demand a do over.

Either way, if you are busting your ass, you know what it's like to work hard for what you do have. Why would you want to take that away from someone else?

[BigBallinStalin]

If I was busting my ass and making 150k a year and you were being a slacker and only making 25k a year; if we were both to pay 33% in taxes, I would be paying $50,000 while you only pay $8,000; which means I would already be being taxed $42,000 more than you? I would pay more in taxes than you even MAKE! Should I really also pay a higher percentage just because you aren't motivated to do anything more that being a cashier at the local dollar store? Sure I have more money but I also sacrificed more blood, sweat and tears into getting where I am while you just have lumps on your ass from sitting around.

Or maybe I'm the one busting my ass, making $20k/year, while you're some smarmy SOB who happened to inherit a good portfolio, and spends your days playing polo, and butt-fucking lap dogs, while "earning" $200k/year on dividends? Sure you were born into the right family, but you're a useless cunt, while I'm losing fingers on an unsafe assembly line, just trying to feed my family, and hoping to Allah that we'll find a way to pay for mama's dialysis, and granny's chemo.

You've taken economics, and you should know about the role of savings in the economy, so I don't understand why you're labeling savings (however it is voluntarily gained) as within the realm of useless cunts. If the "useless cunt" saves wisely, or hires someone to this for him, then what's wrong with this? And if he doesn't save his money wisely, then he'll likely go bankrupt, so he might be useless at that point--but he would serve as an example as others, which is useful.


If you're bestowed a certain amount of money and save it (or hire someone to do that for you), then regardless of whatever other capitalist acts you do, then how are you being "a useless cunt"?

[jimboston]

Depends on how much you're making. All the money made over one million dollars a year should be taxed the shit out of.

Why?

Why the number one million? Why not 500 thousand? Why not 10 million?

Do you differentiate between various types of income?
Wages? Capital? Small business owners?

Does the number change if you have kids to take care of?

What if I earn $2 million in one year... Maybe I signed a major league contractor or wrote a book... But then I couldn't keep that up and I earn only $10k for the next 20 years? wouldn't it have been nice for me to sock away that money?

Is there something morally wrong with earning over a million a year?

Why should that person pay more to the Gov't for the same services? Should a millionaire pay more to eat at McDonalds because they "can afford to pay more... To keep the prices down for everyone else".

[Lootifer]

Flat tax, 20% on net income--wherever you got it from, doesn't matter. First $15,000 of your income is exempt unless you make over X amount, where X is equal to "rich guy/gal amount."

That wont work, since youll get some inflection point where people take pay drops to avoid the tax cutoff.

Just make everyone exempt for the first 15k (in your suggestion).

Ideally I would tax only disposable income, but tax it at a VERY high level (ie 50%+). Problem with this is you get smart rich people employing even smarter tax men to exploit the enivitable loopholes and you get a situation similar to what we currently have.

I havent even remotely thought any of the following through so obviously will have some epic fails but here are some ideas I think are good:

- Single tax system: Sales tax. Sales tax that is graduated to be very high for luxary items, and very low for neccissity items. I.e. Your ipad will carry a 40% sales tax, but your veges at the supermarket will be tax free. Extreme luxary items will carry extreme taxes up to 80-90%.

- Higher version of what we have at the moment in NZ: Graduated from 5% (down from 10%) for the first 10-20k, up in 10% increaments until 45-55% at above 100-200k. Really dont know what to do about companies tax rate because on one hand you want it low to promote economic growth, but on the other you want it high to ensure the companies tax is not being used by the wealthy execs to avoid paying the higher income tax. As opposed to what BBS will say; I suggest anally retentive tax auditors

[jimboston]

Estate tax - 100% with a standard exemption of $500,000 and an exemption for land and businesses.

Why 100%?

What would stop someone from creating a bogus business to transfer assets to heirs?

What about other personal property? There is a lot of value transferred to heirs in the items people collect.... Even more with ultra-rich.... Things like expensive paintings, car collections, etc. etc. would these be taxed?

Why the arbitrary number of $500K.... Why not $10 million?

What about cash held by businesses that you exempt? Would the cash reserves of the business be taxed? If so... Many of the businesses would fail without those reserves. If not... This is a giant loop hole for people to create paper businesses to transfer assets to heirs.

[jimboston]

Banks should be required to keep 100% of depositors money on hand.

Really?

So like deposit banks basically can not lend money anymore.

OK... Well there goes the economy.

Say bye bye.

[patches70]

You've taken economics, and you should know about the role of savings in the economy, so I don't understand why you're labeling savings (however it is voluntarily gained) as within the realm of useless cunts. If the "useless cunt" saves wisely, or hires someone to this for him, then what's wrong with this? And if he doesn't save his money wisely, then he'll likely go bankrupt, so he might be useless at that point--but he would serve as an example as others, which is useful.


If you're bestowed a certain amount of money and save it (or hire someone to do that for you), then regardless of whatever other capitalist acts you do, then how are you being "a useless cunt"?

Saving is economic sin, BBS. You of all people should know that!

Spend spend spend God Dammit! Buy plastic junk with money you don't have. Gotta get that new thing a ma bob, that new fangamadangle don't ya know. Gotta make sure all the gutter rats ain't gutter rats no more. How dare a person save their earned money when there are so many other people with almost nothing because they buy plastic junk with money they don't have.
Gotta make sure everyone is giving the proper charity and to make sure we gotz ta haz da guberment take it from those evil savers since they obviously aren't being charitable enough because they are saving. Obviously.
We don't need savers anymore for capital investments, The Fed pumps all the ZIRP money one could ever fathom into the markets.
And people shouldn't have to be burdened by actually saving and funding an emergency fund, you know, in case something bad happens. There should be no risk in life, like there is no risk in the markets. If making risky investments turns sour, then you are in need of charity, obviously. Golden parachutes for everyone! Including the poor.
Get sick? Charity! Charity forced upon everyone by the good ole benign and magnanimous Guberment.

Of course, is charity really charity if it's forced from you? Somehow, I think, under those circumstances it's not really charity anymore is it? It's something else, the term escapes me but I'm sure it'll come to me eventually.
Until then, tax tax tax everyone everything they have.
The rich get taxed to hell, the poor, the not so poor. The working man, the bum! Tax them all until we are all exactly the same. Living in squalor. Then it'll be fair for all. Down with the damnable savers, er, I mean hoarders! Cause money not spent or given to someone else is bad!

[Lootifer]

Banks should be required to keep 100% of depositors money on hand.

Really?

So like deposit banks basically can not lend money anymore.

OK... Well there goes the economy.

Say bye bye.

As much as I disagree with you a lot Jimbo, you're 100% correct.

Bedub: You honestly think that mum and dads savings collectively summed up is anywhere near what is required for the economy to function?

Investment economics is no small subject people.

[jimboston]

I would even pay more if it helped my country. But right now it's being used to fund a giant-ass army and sh*t.

Everyone wants a lower tax rate, and I only make about $20K a year. But I would pay a higher rate to fund stronger social programs instead of Corporate Welfare and militaristic programs.

If you earn $20K you do not pay 57%.

If you earn $20k you pay nothing in income taxes... State or Federal.
You probably pay 5-20% in sales, gas, excise, etc. taxes.

[patches70]

Banks should be required to keep 100% of depositors money on hand.

Really?

So like deposit banks basically can not lend money anymore.

OK... Well there goes the economy.

Say bye bye.

I think he's saying to end fractional reserve lending. The US does well having only about 10% of actual cash compared to the total amount of money circulating. Of course, there are down sides. Like never being able to ever actually pay off the total debt, ever, because the money to pay the interest on that debt doesn't exist and to make it exist the nation must borrow it leaving yet another amount of interest that doesn't exist requiring even more borrowing to pay the interest....well, you get the idea.

It helps move a lot of things around, fairly efficiently but there are downsides. (Massive credit bubbles, exponential credit creation, inflation and a whole host of other problems). Just as there are downsides to completely ending the fractional reserve lending. (shortages of currency, limits to production and other things) Ending fractional reserve lending doesn't mean there won't be any lending, it just means the only people who can lend are people who have saved money and aren't using it for a certain amount of time so they can lend it out.

The biggest problem with fractional reserve lending is that only the original borrower gets the full value out of the newly created money out of thin air. Anyone using that money afterward has to deal with the increased money supply in the static market (relative to the instant creation of "money" out of thin air) which leads to inflation. The moment the banks try to curb credit creation, it causes a recession, as part of the so called "natural" business cycle. It's anything but natural, it's a consequence of fractional reserve lending. But there are always downsides to everything and every system. Nothing is perfect.

Then of course, there is the moral questions of is it right to charge a person interest on money you never actually had in the first place.

Fractional Reserve lending is at it's origins rooted in fraud. A technique developed in the 1600's by Goldsmiths of all people. Bankers have long since refined the process into what they like to think is a science. but it's still rooted in fraud.
If you tried to do what the banks are allowed to do, that's what would happen. You'd be arrested for fraud.

Heh heh.

[Frigidus]

Consider how much of what we make that goes into health care and college education. It wouldn't be too much of a tradeoff.

Are you implying that the involuntary exchanges are legitimate if these revenues produce government planned health care and college education?

I am implying that "involuntary exchanges" are necessary for the existence of a government, and that were government to be thrown out all together we would before long be pining for the days in which one of our biggest complaints was that we had to pay taxes. What model would you suggest as superior to one in which "involuntary exchanges" occur?

There is a universe of difference between spending $5,000 on something frivolous and hoarding half of the country's wealth.

This is a false comparison. "Hoarding" is a term that describes "savings," but in a distorted and normative manner, which is intellectually dishonest. Money, which isn't consumed by one's self or by the government, would be saved. Savings signal to producers the approach of future consumption. What's wrong with that? Nothing.

Eventually, even the savings are consumed or the profit earned from saving is consumed. Furthermore, one's savings allows another to borrow and consume (thus increasing production/consumption), so there's nothing wrong with hoarding--as Frigidus presented it.

He is correct that there is a difference, but the presence of savings doesn't justify stealing* other people's wealth--*or if you prefer, "the involuntary extraction of the citizens' wealth." It also ruins the future incomes for the production of future goods. How can the government know what the optimal savings rate is for everyone? It doesn't, so trusting such an organization to make these decisions is based on faith.


Taxation of savings has negative consequences. So, does the manipulation of the interest rate by the Federal Reserve. If you force people to consume more, you'll end up having less in the future--than you would have had. It can also lead to inflation as you have more money chasing goods in the very short-run. This is becoming a business cycle theory argument, but I'm not sure if Frigidus has the demand to take it there.

The problem is that the wealth that was plundered by the elites was shuffled offshore to the tune of $21 trillion. This extraction of resources is not getting back into our economy. The part of it that isn't literally hoarded is likely being spent outside of the country. Considering very little is actually produced in this country any more any true investments would likely occur overseas.

Increasing the supply of college undergrads puts downward pressure on the wages that require undergrad degrees. It also depreciates the value of having an undergrad degree. These are outcomes which aren't worth the consequences of such extensive subsidies. Besides, if the government pays for it all, then colleges have an incentive to increase their tuitions. This would create problems which would call for more government intervention to fix problems that it created in the first place. Price controls and other inefficient policies would lead to additional problems that tend to be neglected by the government and/or shouldered by the people.

Paying for college tuition wouldn't create more openings for students. People would still have to meet certain academic standards to get into a good school. All that removing the monetary requirement would do is 1) make a step in the right direction of this country actually being a meritocracy and 2) give banks one less way in which they can leech the population at large.

(3) "Reasonable" being the key word here. I'm sure if politicians and bureaucrats were Angels, then #3 would work as Frigidus intended.

The inadequacy of our current government does not take away the need for some sort of protection for the unemployed and extremely poor. Besides, I'd rather have excess in the safety net than having none at all. Either way, having a safety net at all necessitates the use of "involuntary exchanges".

(1) The government is in the business of doing what's best for the people. (2) This level of wealth disparity is not in the people's best interest.

(1) We've heard this one before. If it was true, then politicians and bureaucrats would be doing what's best for people. That's why crony capitalism, regulatory capture, deficit spending don't exist. It's also why politicians are sensitive to long-term problems which to them are worth more than short-term benefits. It's also why concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, which lead to rent-seeking, hardly exist.

At this point, most of our fellow ConquerClubbers can see that the statement, "The government is in the business of doing what's best for the people," is incorrect and is merely wishful thinking, which are used to justify stealing other people's property.

Once again, the failures of individual governments/politicians does not suggest that all government action is flawed. I haven't claimed to have the solution to the problem of corrupt politicians.

(2) What's in the people's best interest? Let's go ask everyone and find out. Wait, Frigidus didn't do this, so he's presuming to know what's in the people's interest; therefore, #2 is based on his presumption of knowledge--which is a false presumption. Not only that, but wealth disparity is not the only relevant factor. This one-dimensional view is lacking, so #1 is again shown to be false.

Increasing levels of wealth/income disparity are bad for the general population because the general population has less and less average wealth and influence as time goes on. For instance, in 1980 the average executive pay was 42 times the average worker's pay, and now it's 380 times. That is bad for workers. This seems fairly straight forward to me, although I'd be open to hearing opposing arguments.

Edit: I'm aware there have been a lot of other responses to my posts, I'll eventually get to them. For now I'm getting off my computer.

[Maugena]

patrickaa317 - You bring up good points. I really am uneducated in the subject of government and economics, but there are a few ideologies that I seem to subscribe to. Just putting that out there.

So if you have 50% that is using whatever you may desire; and I have 50% left for whatever I may desire; but you want the other 50% of myself to benefit everyman such as you; wouldn't it make more sense to let you keep say 80% so then you wouldn't need to utilize my 50%?

I'll be honest - Particular percentages are meaningless without complete information. Such a scenario (complete information) no one can give because everything depends on everything else.
I'd put it in the perspective of I get a 50% choice of what I want to do with my money. The other 50% going towards everyone.
I'd be perfectly at peace with this as long as the other conditions are met as I had previously stated.

Truly, this all just boils down to philosophical questions.
What should a man have and how much is too much? - The first part is somewhat easily defined, the second less so. ("To each his own.")
Should there be a balance of power? - I personally believe there should be. Wealth, in this time and age, is power. Should a man have access to all of the wealth? No. The truth deduced from that question is this: There must be a limit.

So you feel that I really don't need that much money but does anyone really need anything say over 30k a year? I mean that'll get you an apartment, food on your table, and some entertainment, if we are talking about what someone needs. Should we all strive for just what we need and be good with that? I mean does anyone really need anything over 75k a year? Those typically are just the people that drive around in Lexus or BMW's; they could definitely get by with a Focus or Cavalier, right? That's if we are talking about what someone needs.

And by a 50% tax rate, do you really mean that 4-5 hours every day at my job, Uncle Sam is getting paid, not me?

You forget that Uncle Sam pays for your roads, your schools, your mail, etc. etc. Would you get by without it? You partake in the system, are you taking it for granted and then some?
I agree that one should be able to spend his wealth on things he/she desires but to a certain extent.

On the flipside, does the government really need to take over 450,000 from a person that makes a million per year? Does the government really need that kind of money?

This is a really good point. Obviously, there needs to be some sort of balance. None of us can really say what's appropriate, we can only speculate.

And do you feel it is the governments responsibility to make sure that more than 1% have a share of 40% of the wealth? What is an acceptable number there? What if 3% owned 40% of the wealth? Would that be better? 5%? 10%? 25%? What is a non-obscene number in your view?

I'm not really sure just what would be appropriate, but again, there should most definitely be a wealth ceiling.

Banks should be required to keep 100% of depositors money on hand.

Economy is dead if this were enacted. There would be no money to make personal and business loans, no person would gain interest on their accounts, and it would be impossible for banks to be open since they couldn't make money (unless they charge a large fee per account).

No. Banks should use their own money to make money? *GASP* HOW UTTERLY BLASPHEMOUS!

The government is in the business of doing what's best for the people. This level of wealth disparity is not in the people's best interest.

The government does NOT know what is best for me. I'd rather keep most of my money and make my own decisions as to what is best for me.

Now I wouldn't necessarily say what Frigidus said, however, the government is by the people for the people. It's intention is supposed to be what is best for you. Of course it doesn't know what's best. But then again, neither do you.

Free college tuition? If they are taking my money and allowing everyone under the sun to go to college, is it actually free?

Shouldn't everyone be given the chance to strive for greater education regardless of your upbringing?