B
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Guest
Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 3:24 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>
> > I can't support taking from those who earned their money to give it to
> > those who didn't. That makes wealth pointless because what's the point
> > of earning something if it's just taken away?
> >
> Okay. I think I see what the problem you have is here, Bill. It's a
> common one in the U.S. The assumption is that somehow, if someone has
> something, they must have "earned it".
>
They might have inherited it which means it was more the "luck of the
draw". That's not important.
> And if the government says
> that they might have a better idea of what to do with anything you
> "have" than you do, then that is bad.
>
Generally the government isn't very good at allocating resources.
> Suppose you inherited 100 million dollars. Did you earn that?
>
You are attempting a classic strawman. If we walk down this path, you've
also got CEOs who make millions while their companies are tanking,
athletes who use drugs but still get paid piles of cash, movie stars who
blame the Jews for all the wars but are still rich. If we are going to
set up a commission to make sure everyone with money earned it, it is
going to be a big job. Why not just assume they all didn't and take all
the money away?
> The
> people who willed it to you got it somehow or other. Did they get it
> honestly? How can you tell? Drug dealers make a lot of money. The
> Kennedy family made all their money in bootleg liquor. You are
> familiar with Joseph Kennedy's observation "all businessmen are sons
> of bitches!". He wasn't just talking about himself. Lawyers make
> money lying in court to manipulate judges and juries. Is that a good
> thing?
>
Probably not a good thing but then I didn't advocate that either. I'm
sure that there are lawyers who make their money doing the right things.
Do you suggest higher taxes on those who aren't doing what you think is
the right thing?
> The fact that someone has money doesn't mean that they got it in a way
> that is good for people, or for society. Maybe, maybe not.
>
People got money by some market means, unless they just stole it by
robbing a bank. Even that inheritance is part of the wider market. And
it's important that some people have so much that they invest . Rich
people matter even if some happen to be personally worthless.
> In any case, if someone has NO money, as is the case with most people
> in the US these days,
>
Most Americans have money, that is income of some sort. I think you are
confused. If you mean by "having money", having lots of money, that's
going to depend on what "lots" means.
> their options are severely limited. They can't
> train to become useful things like nurses and doctors. They may end
> up on the streets and get hurt or have to steal to survive. What
>
They can't go to the uni on government credits? Show me some Americans
who want to go to college but can't because they can't fund it in any
way, even by getting a job and earning some money to do it.
> social advantage is there to allowing a very small group of people to
> have all the money?
>
You mean the rich? But the rich are vital to the economy because they
don't spend their wealth, by definition. If the poor had it, they would
spend it and there would be no investment. YOu need the rich, they
matter, even if they are fundamentally unlikeable to you.
> Your answer is government involvement is "communism". Only in extreme
> cases. And communist governments like Cuba probably do a better job
> for their people than corrupt commuist ones like Mexico. You don't
> hear about Cubans wanting to "flee to Mexico" do you?
>
I think it's a way point on their way to fleeing to the United States.
Why do they want to come to the US if Cuba is so cool?
> They come to
> the U.S. not for the system, but for the money. They'd probably
> prefer Finland or Denmark, if they were closer!
>
You mean for the handout? So the US does have handouts?
> People can still keep their money, if they invest in job creating
> programs, technololgy, culture and the arts etc. Otherwise, they are
> hurting people.
>
What do you think they do with money but invest it? If you are rich, you
put the money under your sofa? No, you invest it. You might invest it
stupidly, sure, but you invest it, you have to, you've got so damn much
of it. That's the key, the rich can't spend their money. The only
examples you can find are rich people like Mike Tyson (whom I think much
of his wealth was likely stolen) and Elton John (whom I think spent most
of his wealth on crap like flowers, "Because I like flowers!", he said.)
> In any case, it is just the very richest who will
> have to pay the highest income tax rates. And they'll still have
> plenty of money!
>
Plenty of money for what? To live? Of course. But the point of the rich
isn't that they can live well, it's that they invest. Someone has to own
a company. It's a burden more than you think. Better to just have plenty
of money but not be rich, then you can watch World Wrestling and drink
Buds.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
>
> On Dec 22, 3:24 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>
> > I can't support taking from those who earned their money to give it to
> > those who didn't. That makes wealth pointless because what's the point
> > of earning something if it's just taken away?
> >
> Okay. I think I see what the problem you have is here, Bill. It's a
> common one in the U.S. The assumption is that somehow, if someone has
> something, they must have "earned it".
>
They might have inherited it which means it was more the "luck of the
draw". That's not important.
> And if the government says
> that they might have a better idea of what to do with anything you
> "have" than you do, then that is bad.
>
Generally the government isn't very good at allocating resources.
> Suppose you inherited 100 million dollars. Did you earn that?
>
You are attempting a classic strawman. If we walk down this path, you've
also got CEOs who make millions while their companies are tanking,
athletes who use drugs but still get paid piles of cash, movie stars who
blame the Jews for all the wars but are still rich. If we are going to
set up a commission to make sure everyone with money earned it, it is
going to be a big job. Why not just assume they all didn't and take all
the money away?
> The
> people who willed it to you got it somehow or other. Did they get it
> honestly? How can you tell? Drug dealers make a lot of money. The
> Kennedy family made all their money in bootleg liquor. You are
> familiar with Joseph Kennedy's observation "all businessmen are sons
> of bitches!". He wasn't just talking about himself. Lawyers make
> money lying in court to manipulate judges and juries. Is that a good
> thing?
>
Probably not a good thing but then I didn't advocate that either. I'm
sure that there are lawyers who make their money doing the right things.
Do you suggest higher taxes on those who aren't doing what you think is
the right thing?
> The fact that someone has money doesn't mean that they got it in a way
> that is good for people, or for society. Maybe, maybe not.
>
People got money by some market means, unless they just stole it by
robbing a bank. Even that inheritance is part of the wider market. And
it's important that some people have so much that they invest . Rich
people matter even if some happen to be personally worthless.
> In any case, if someone has NO money, as is the case with most people
> in the US these days,
>
Most Americans have money, that is income of some sort. I think you are
confused. If you mean by "having money", having lots of money, that's
going to depend on what "lots" means.
> their options are severely limited. They can't
> train to become useful things like nurses and doctors. They may end
> up on the streets and get hurt or have to steal to survive. What
>
They can't go to the uni on government credits? Show me some Americans
who want to go to college but can't because they can't fund it in any
way, even by getting a job and earning some money to do it.
> social advantage is there to allowing a very small group of people to
> have all the money?
>
You mean the rich? But the rich are vital to the economy because they
don't spend their wealth, by definition. If the poor had it, they would
spend it and there would be no investment. YOu need the rich, they
matter, even if they are fundamentally unlikeable to you.
> Your answer is government involvement is "communism". Only in extreme
> cases. And communist governments like Cuba probably do a better job
> for their people than corrupt commuist ones like Mexico. You don't
> hear about Cubans wanting to "flee to Mexico" do you?
>
I think it's a way point on their way to fleeing to the United States.
Why do they want to come to the US if Cuba is so cool?
> They come to
> the U.S. not for the system, but for the money. They'd probably
> prefer Finland or Denmark, if they were closer!
>
You mean for the handout? So the US does have handouts?
> People can still keep their money, if they invest in job creating
> programs, technololgy, culture and the arts etc. Otherwise, they are
> hurting people.
>
What do you think they do with money but invest it? If you are rich, you
put the money under your sofa? No, you invest it. You might invest it
stupidly, sure, but you invest it, you have to, you've got so damn much
of it. That's the key, the rich can't spend their money. The only
examples you can find are rich people like Mike Tyson (whom I think much
of his wealth was likely stolen) and Elton John (whom I think spent most
of his wealth on crap like flowers, "Because I like flowers!", he said.)
> In any case, it is just the very richest who will
> have to pay the highest income tax rates. And they'll still have
> plenty of money!
>
Plenty of money for what? To live? Of course. But the point of the rich
isn't that they can live well, it's that they invest. Someone has to own
a company. It's a burden more than you think. Better to just have plenty
of money but not be rich, then you can watch World Wrestling and drink
Buds.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
