Should there be a wealth cap?

[Lineman]

Once a person reaches the point of having enough money that they will be comfortable for life, should they be disallowed from getting more?

[Cletus]

Of course not.

[Common Sense]

I don't think there should be a cap. But those making billions should be taxed at a high rate (like they used to be).

[Cigar]

No ... and most people are not asking for that.

http://comcept2012.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/strawman-small.png

[The Sage of Main Street]

Once a person reaches the point of having enough money that they will be comfortable for life, should they be disallowed from getting more? Far more important is outlawing the sons and daughters from getting any money from Daddy after age 18. The spoiled brats should be told what their Daddies mandate for real Americans, "Work your way through college, son. If you can't stand living like that, join the Army."

Our class-biased society is almost as depressing as letting the high-school baseball teams from the rich neighborhoods start every inning with the bases loaded. Real American boys would be told not to whine but to practice triple plays and striking out the side.

[Cletus]

I don't think there should be a cap. But those making billions should be taxed at a high rate (like they used to be).

Why?

[Crepitus]

No cap. But! Wealthy people should be paying at least the same rate as the working poor, and wealth ie. capital gains should be taxed like work.

[Common Sense]

Why?

Because they are able. They have also made their fortunes on the back of infrastructure paid for by tax payers.

It certainly hasn't stopped people from being very wealthy in the past. The top tier income tax rate of the 50's and 60's was 90%. The economy boomed.

[Common]

No, there should not be a wealth cap. People are entitled to make as much money as they can. Now having said that. There should be Strict rules on greed that destroys the county and the well being of others and thats exactly what todays unbridled greed has done and is further doing.

[Cletus]

Because they are able. They have also made their fortunes on the back of infrastructure paid for by tax payers.

It certainly hasn't stopped people from being very wealthy in the past. The top tier income tax rate of the 50's and 60's was 90%. The economy boomed.

Because they are able. It seems I have heard something very similar before. I think it was some guy named Marx who said it.

Why should any citizen have to bear a larger part of the burden of supporting the government than any other?

[donttread]

Once a person reaches the point of having enough money that they will be comfortable for life, should they be disallowed from getting more?


I have wrestled with this question but would probably support a Constitutional Amendment to do just that. Another option is higher taxes on super rick incomes , say 80 percent on anything over 5,000,000.00 with a one time exemption for lottery winners etc

[Common Sense]

Because they are able. It seems I have heard something very similar before. I think it was some guy named Marx who said it.

Why should any citizen have to bear a larger part of the burden of supporting the government than any other?

They bear a heaver burden, but they also reap great rewards from the infrastructure that is provided.

It has nothing to do with Marxism or any other hyperbolic bs....

[Cletus]

They bear a heaver burden, but they also reap great rewards from the infrastructure that is provided.

It has nothing to do with Marxism or any other hyperbolic bs....

It has everything to do with it.

You shouldn't be ashamed to admit it.

[donttread]

Here's the thing. How many professional atheletes , actors and signers would not produce under a cap. What is Johhny FB player supposed to do utilize his "basket weaving " degree ?

[Ransom]

Let me try a commonly used by the Leftist's tactic here on tpf......called a guess.

I'm gonna guess Lineman will tell us who is 'wealthy', Common Sense will explain to you if you make this much, you pay this %, if you make that much, you pay much much more. Donttread will explain what corporate tax rates will be, Marxists always seem to think there should be some greater intelligence(and they normally think it's them)dictating who will pay what, believing it's the government......not its' People who dictate government powers.

First they'll whine.....the rich are rich....and thus we are entitled to that money because you didn't build it, you relied on America. Second, you defame, mock, and criticize the rich for being....well.....rich. Successful. The thinking is everyone shouldn't pay 33% or some made up number.......because you're rich, 66% of your income must be taxed, where on earth do you get the idea it's your money? The higher tax is income discrimination, we are going to tax you more for simply...making more. Making money in America now today.....scorned. Auto means you ain't paying your 'fair share.'

You Commies have campfires on Friday nights or something? Discuss methods to bring your misery to more?

[The Xl]

No, their shouldn't. If you think they should, this is probably the wrong country for you.

[Chris]

No.

Flat tax.

[Ravens Fan]

Hell no.

[Peter1469]

I prefer the FAIR tax.

Also no caps on income- our government is going to manage that?

The long term capital gains rate is a big part of a lot of middle class retirement plans. Along with other tax deferred accounts.

[sachem]

No.

[Tahuyaman]

Once a person reaches the point of having enough money that they will be comfortable for life, should they be disallowed from getting more?


Who defines "enough" ?

[Tahuyaman]

Far more important is outlawing the sons and daughters from getting any money from Daddy after age 18. The spoiled brats should be told what their Daddies mandate for real Americans, "Work your way through college, son. If you can't stand living like that, join the Army."

Our class-biased society is almost as depressing as letting the high-school baseball teams from the rich neighborhoods start every inning with the bases loaded. Real American boys would be told not to whine but to practice triple plays and striking out the side.


Now that is a perfect example of jealousy.

[Tahuyaman]

Because they are able. They have also made their fortunes on the back of infrastructure paid for by tax payers.

It certainly hasn't stopped people from being very wealthy in the past. The top tier income tax rate of the 50's and 60's was 90%. The economy boomed.

Didnt they also pay taxes? Didn't they pay more than everyone else in the first place? I know you'll say they didn't, but that's another story.

Why not make the top marginal rate 99 or 100%? If 90% would create a booming economy, why not go for even greater economic conditions?

[Tahuyaman]

I have wrestled with this question but would probably support a Constitutional Amendment to do just that. Another option is higher taxes on super rick incomes , say 80 percent on anything over 5,000,000.00 with a one time exemption for lottery winners etc


Why would you exempt lottery winners? They didn't earn that wealth through creating a business or capitalizing on an idea. It was a lucky windfall.

[Tahuyaman]

No, there should not be a wealth cap. People are entitled to make as much money as they can. Now having said that. There should be Strict rules on greed that destroys the county and the well being of others and thats exactly what todays unbridled greed has done and is further doing.

Who sets the threshold as to what "greed" is? Who develops these "strict rules"? Who enforces the rules?

[Tahuyaman]

There's a lot of plain old jealousy here.

[Redrose]

Once a person reaches the point of having enough money that they will be comfortable for life, should they be disallowed from getting more?




NO. That's the quickest way to stifle productivity, development, innovativeness.

[Chris]

Who sets the threshold as to what "greed" is? Who develops these "strict rules"? Who enforces the rules?

Nobody ever seems to have an answer for that. But it will be repeated ad nauseum because, I guess, it feels good to say it.

[Tahuyaman]

NO. That's the quickest way to stifle productivity, development, innovativeness.


They don't care. Their jealousy has simply become part of who they are. As long as the wealthy get cut down to size is all that matters.

[Tahuyaman]

Who sets the threshold as to what "greed" is? Who develops these "strict rules"? Who enforces the rules?


Nobody ever seems to have an answer for that. But it will be repeated ad nauseum because, I guess, it feels good to say it.


They have an answer, but expressing it honestly would expose their true motives.

[Common Sense]

It has everything to do with it.

You shouldn't be ashamed to admit it.

It has nothing to do with it. Were the presidents socialists when the income tax rate went as high as 90%? Was Eisenhower a commie to you?

I'm certainly not a communist, nor am I a fan of Marx. I own a business. I'm a capitalist. I have very wealthy friends. I'm also probably taxed at a higher rate than most people here.

So it has nothing to do with Marxism, jealousy or whatever other bullshit people like to throw around.

It has to do with doing what is right.

[Redrose]

I don't think there should be a cap. But those making billions should be taxed at a high rate (like they used to be).


Why? Why should very successful people be punished with excessively high tax rates? We punish success now in America? With that attitude, we would have never progressed past covered wagons.

The wealthy have the ability to go anywhere they choose. We would chase them away, and lose all tax revenue.

[Common Sense]

Why? Why should very successful people be punished with excessively high tax rates? We punish success now in America? With that attitude, we would have never progressed past cocvered wagons.

The wealthy have the ability to go anywhere they choose. We would chase them away, and lose all tax revenue.

LOL...the wealthy are not being punished.

I'm only talking about increasing the income tax rate on say those making 5 million plus (that includes capital gains).

The US used to have rates that high, so your fears are unfounded.

I would also argue that with that, the US could lower the corporate income tax rates (which are too high).

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2kYmBFu82DM/TX6jf3LKFMI/AAAAAAAABtc/GEvlQx8gJy0/s1600/US%2Bhistorical%2Btax%2Brates.png

[Peter1469]

LOL...the wealthy are not being punished.

I'm only talking about increasing the income tax rate on say those making 5 million plus (that includes capital gains).

The US used to have rates that high, so your fears are unfounded.

I would also argue that with that, the US could lower the corporate income tax rates (which are too high).

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2kYmBFu82DM/TX6jf3LKFMI/AAAAAAAABtc/GEvlQx8gJy0/s1600/US%2Bhistorical%2Btax%2Brates.png

List the available deductions.

[Common Sense]

List the available deductions.

Of course there were deductions, just as there are now.

In fact now that tax law has become so complicated, your average Joe pays actual tax at about the level they are taxed at. Where the very wealthy know how to manipulate the system to the point that they actually pay a lot less than the rate they are at....and that rate is much much lower than it has been in the past.

[Peter1469]

There use to be a lot more deductions.

[Common Sense]

There use to be a lot more deductions.

Sure, but the fact remains, the very wealthy used to pay a hell of a lot more in income tax than they do now.

The sky didn't fall then, but it would now?

[Peter1469]

Sure, but the fact remains, the very wealthy used to pay a hell of a lot more in income tax than they do now.

The sky didn't fall then, but it would now?

I don't believe that many people paid anywhere near the highest marginal tax rates (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/10/concise-history-tax-changes.asp). Plus, the high taxes hurt the economy and led to stagflation.


Nixon and Stagflation
The Revenue Act of 1945 rolled back $6 billion in taxes, but the burden of social security and an expanded government kept them from going much lower. Well into the '50s, the highest tax rate was over 80% and the pay-as-you-go withholding system introduced as a wartime measure was never shut down. Progress in lowering taxes was sporadic and confusing. Rather than rolling back rates as such, the tax code was being rewritten to allow deductions in certain circumstances or to lower rates on, say, private foundations while raising rates on corporate profits. This explosion in loopholes and fine print is one reason most people today can master the theory of relativity before the tax code. (If tax rules and regulations are Greek to you, read on to learn how to decipher them. Read Making Sense Of The Tax Code (http://investopedia.com/articles/tax/09/tax-codes-rules-regulations.asp).)


Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/10/concise-history-tax-changes.asp#ixzz3e6g0OlIF
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=arwjQmCEqr4l6Cadbi-bnq&u=Investopedia)

[GrassrootsConservative]

Not at all. At least not here in America.

Cap =/= Freedom

[The Xl]

The elite never paid the rates you think they did. They got breaks, the rich but not tremendously wealthy were the ones who did, and still do, feel the brunt of that

[donttread]

Let me try a commonly used by the Leftist's tactic here on tpf......called a guess.

I'm gonna guess Lineman will tell us who is 'wealthy', Common Sense will explain to you if you make this much, you pay this %, if you make that much, you pay much much more. Donttread will explain what corporate tax rates will be, Marxists always seem to think there should be some greater intelligence(and they normally think it's them)dictating who will pay what, believing it's the government......not its' People who dictate government powers.

First they'll whine.....the rich are rich....and thus we are entitled to that money because you didn't build it, you relied on America. Second, you defame, mock, and criticize the rich for being....well.....rich. Successful. The thinking is everyone shouldn't pay 33% or some made up number.......because you're rich, 66% of your income must be taxed, where on earth do you get the idea it's your money? The higher tax is income discrimination, we are going to tax you more for simply...making more. Making money in America now today.....scorned. Auto means you ain't paying your 'fair share.'

You Commies have campfires on Friday nights or something? Discuss methods to bring your misery to more?

What is it about the gross failures of our system that you can't see

[hanger4]

I don't think there should be a cap. But those making billions should be taxed at a high rate (like they used to be).

Don't the top 20% pay around 80% of the income tax now ?? Is that not enough ??

[The Sage of Main Street]

NO. That's the quickest way to stifle productivity, development, innovativeness. First of all, these parasites don't produce anything. Steve Jobs couldn't even write code, yet the media trick everybody into thinking he invented Apple's products.

Second, they blow most of their loot on degenerate and bloated personal luxuries and trophy wives. They don't put much back into the business.

[donttread]

Don't the top 20% pay around 80% of the income tax now ?? Is that not enough ??

Not when most of those taxes are then used to make the 1% even more money. Think about it.

[zelmo1234]

No cap. But! Wealthy people should be paying at least the same rate as the working poor, and wealth ie. capital gains should be taxed like work.

I agree with this! The working poor actually pay NO federal income tax. Many actually receive an earned income tax credit so they get some nice free money from the government.

[zelmo1234]

Because they are able. They have also made their fortunes on the back of infrastructure paid for by tax payers.

It certainly hasn't stopped people from being very wealthy in the past. The top tier income tax rate of the 50's and 60's was 90%. The economy boomed.

If you give me the Same tax code, I will gladly take those tax rates.

They were feel good rates designed to make the poor feel that the rich were getting jacked by the government. Rich people did not pay taxes at all back then.

[zelmo1234]

They bear a heaver burden, but they also reap great rewards from the infrastructure that is provided.

It has nothing to do with Marxism or any other hyperbolic bs....

What about the 47% that pay NO income tax, they pay nothing for the infrastructure? Should they be forced to volunteer on projects so they are paying their fair share.

[zelmo1234]

I prefer the FAIR tax.

Also no caps on income- our government is going to manage that?

The long term capital gains rate is a big part of a lot of middle class retirement plans. Along with other tax deferred accounts.

The funny part is, that the people wanting to tax the rich, know this. And it is actually were the lions share of the new taxes would come from. People with a lot of money would move the money off shore, like they have now and go from paying an effective rate near 20% to paying nothing. But all the people that saved in a 401K for retirement they would take a 10 to 15% hit on there tax burden and that would produce billions of dollars.

[zelmo1234]

Why would you exempt lottery winners? They didn't earn that wealth through creating a business or capitalizing on an idea. It was a lucky windfall.

Because he might win the lottery someday and does not want to pay high taxes, but he darn sure is not going to work hard enough to become rich, so screw them.

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=Common Sense;1150822]It has nothing to do with it. Were the presidents socialists when the income tax rate went as high as 90%? Was Eisenhower a commie to you?

I'm certainly not a communist, nor am I a fan of Marx. I own a business. I'm a capitalist. I have very wealthy friends. I'm also probably taxed at a higher rate than most people here.

So it has nothing to do with Marxism, jealousy or whatever other bull$#@! people like to throw around.

It has to do with doing what is right.[/QUOTE

What is your effective tax rate in Canada?

[zelmo1234]

Don't the top 20% pay around 80% of the income tax now ?? Is that not enough ??

http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384

84% and you are down to people making about 300K per year. So what is the actual fair share that the rich should pay?

That is the question I would like to know and nobody will answer. And of course at that percentage, should I continue to work, or would it be better to off shore my profits and pay for everything that I want with a Visa drawn of a foreign bank that refuses to report tot he IRS

Just shut down the business and live the good life, In my case sending 78 people now to the unemployment line

[zelmo1234]

First of all, these parasites don't produce anything. Steve Jobs couldn't even write code, yet the media trick everybody into thinking he invented Apple's products.

Second, they blow most of their loot on degenerate and bloated personal luxuries and trophy wives. They don't put much back into the business.

Yes, nobody likes Apple products and nobody works for Apple, and all those luxuries, who do you think produces those?

You just want the government to take from those that worked for a living and give it to you. You have already told us that you refuse to work because that is bowing down to rich folks.

The real problem is government spending, and that could be corrected by ending the support of people such as yourself.

Stop blaming the rich for your failure. If I could not pass my wealth on to my children. I would burn it. The government sure the hell would not get it.

[zelmo1234]

It has nothing to do with it. Were the presidents socialists when the income tax rate went as high as 90%? Was Eisenhower a commie to you?

I'm certainly not a communist, nor am I a fan of Marx. I own a business. I'm a capitalist. I have very wealthy friends. I'm also probably taxed at a higher rate than most people here.

So it has nothing to do with Marxism, jealousy or whatever other bull$#@! people like to throw around.

It has to do with doing what is right.

You may not think so but your ideas are based in the theory of Marx. And you still will not admit that rich people paid very little or NO taxes back in the 50's

That is why when Reagan cut the tax rate to 28% that the revenue went so high. The rich were actually paying more in taxes.

[Tahuyaman]

Because he might win the lottery someday and does not want to pay high taxes, but he darn sure is not going to work hard enough to become rich, so screw them.

I kind of figured it was something along those lines. It just seemed odd to me that he would propose a tax system which ignores luck and punishes success.

But, this thread was filled with proof that many people are envious and jealous of the wealthy.

[Newpublius]

Far more important is outlawing the sons and daughters from getting any money from Daddy after age 18.

Its the ONLY thing I want to spend my money on. I have a specific interest in them as my children and in time, hopefully of course, THEIR children. I invest in my family. That's what 'pursuit of happiness' is all about.

[Tahuyaman]

You may not think so but your ideas are based in the theory of Marx. And you still will not admit that rich people paid very little or NO taxes back in the 50's

That is why when Reagan cut the tax rate to 28% that the revenue went so high. The rich were actually paying more in taxes.


When the top tax rate was at that confiscatory level, the people with the capital did not invest it as the reward was not worth the risk. Lower tax rates and the people with the means start investing and the economy grows.

one would think that liberals would be all over that because they can get more money for their free lunch programs. But then that also gives them less control over people. They crave power and control over people more than money. If they have control, they can always get the money.

[Tahuyaman]

Its the ONLY thing I want to spend my money on. I have a specific interest in them as my children and in time, hopefully of course, THEIR children. I invest in my family. That's what 'pursuit of happiness' is all about.

They don't get it......

[Chris]

A wealth cap I can agree with...

http://i.snag.gy/BX7M0.jpg

[The Sage of Main Street]

I don't think there should be a cap. But those making billions should be taxed at a high rate (like they used to be).


Why? Different standards for different situations. The rich have so much surplus money that the same rate affects them a lot less than it affects us. They might have to give up a second million-dollar vacation home, while we would have to fall short on our mortgage and move into an apartment. Defining taxes as equality of rates rather than equality of sacrifice hides the true meaning of giving back what you owe to your country.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Here's the thing. How many professional athletes , actors and signers would not produce under a cap? What is Johhny FB player supposed to do utilize his "basket weaving " degree ? Again you're misdefining the proposal. It's not like he'd play one year at some $20 million dollar limit and then quit. So the cap would probably instead be a million a year and he could play for twenty years. Besides, players already are subject to the owners' cap on how much the teams' total salaries can be. That's not making the whole team quit because they can't make as much money as they want.

As for the guy owning a restaurant, you're right; he really would be forced to close it for the rest of the year after reaching the limit, depriving his community in quality of life. So instead the limit would be on what percentage of the revenue he should arbitrarily keep for himself rather than let his employees have. Then he could make as much as he wanted based on that percentage, but not by raising the percentage he takes. That is how the rich claim to earn money when they really extort it.

[The Sage of Main Street]

NO. That's the quickest way to stifle productivity, development, innovativeness. No, working without pay in college has discouraged the real producers from developing their unique talents.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Why? Why should very successful people be punished with excessively high tax rates? We punish success now in America? With that attitude, we would have never progressed past covered wagons.

The wealthy have the ability to go anywhere they choose. We would chase them away, and lose all tax revenue. It is significant that we have a word like "wannabe," but not a word like "shouldn'tabeen." Most of the rich are parasites freeloading off the wealth their employees produce.

Heirs, of course, didn't work for their money at all. So those who so self-righteously insist that they have a dynastic right to set up their brats above those with more talent also must have gotten their wealth through luck or cheating.

[kilgram]

Of course. Wealth gap is a proof that things work. A way to separate the successful from the lazy trash, that dirty poors that smell bad.

Success must be rewarded and is clear that how much more successful is a person wealthier he is, and it is well deserved. Everyone gets what they deserve and they have looked for.

The poors foe being lazy beings deserve that and struggle to live.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Of course. Wealth gap is a proof that things work. A way to separate the successful from the lazy trash, that dirty poors that smell bad.

Success must be rewarded and is clear that how much more successful is a person wealthier he is, and it is well deserved. Everyone gets what they deserve and they have looked for.

The poors foe being lazy beings deserve that and struggle to live.

Wealth cap is the question. Not gap.

The rest of this is indecipherable, but I'm sure it's wrong.

[zelmo1234]

Different standards for different situations. The rich have so much surplus money that the same rate affects them a lot less than it affects us. They might have to give up a second million-dollar vacation home, while we would have to fall short on our mortgage and move into an apartment. Defining taxes as equality of rates rather than equality of sacrifice hides the true meaning of giving back what you owe to your country.

And of course the people that take care of that home would also be effected. You don't understand just wht that spending does to create jobs and the opportunity for wealth for ohters

[zelmo1234]

It is significant that we have a word like "wannabe," but not a word like "shouldn'tabeen." Most of the rich are parasites freeloading off the wealth their employees produce.

Heirs, of course, didn't work for their money at all. So those who so self-righteously insist that they have a dynastic right to set up their brats above those with more talent also must have gotten their wealth through luck or cheating.

Employee's don't produce wealth for anyone. The provide labor at a price agreed upon by the employer and the worker.

Imagine my workers trying to build a home without the plans, tool, and materials that I provide. What about the liability insurance , Capital is part of the equation without it the employees would have nothing to do

[zelmo1234]

It is significant that we have a word like "wannabe," but not a word like "shouldn'tabeen." Most of the rich are parasites freeloading off the wealth their employees produce.

Heirs, of course, didn't work for their money at all. So those who so self-righteously insist that they have a dynastic right to set up their brats above those with more talent also must have gotten their wealth through luck or cheating.

If you have soooooooooo! much talent what is it that has prevent you from becoming wealthy?

[PolWatch]

If you have soooooooooo! much talent what is it that has prevent you from becoming wealthy?

He wasted his time when he could have been becoming wealthy by fighting for his country in a little place called Vietnam.

[Chris]

Of course. Wealth gap is a proof that things work. A way to separate the successful from the lazy trash, that dirty poors that smell bad.

Success must be rewarded and is clear that how much more successful is a person wealthier he is, and it is well deserved. Everyone gets what they deserve and they have looked for.

The poors foe being lazy beings deserve that and struggle to live.


Why so hateful of the poor?

[kilgram]

Employee's don't produce wealth for anyone. The provide labor at a price agreed upon by the employer and the worker.

Imagine my workers trying to build a home without the plans, tool, and materials that I provide. What about the liability insurance , Capital is part of the equation without it the employees would have nothing to do
Sorry, employees don't produce wealth? It is incredible. The ignorance of the right never stops to amuse me.

[zelmo1234]

He wasted his time when he could have been becoming wealthy by fighting for his country in a little place called Vietnam.

I did not realize the war was still going on? I must apologize, I thought that he had about 56 years to recover from that?

PS I was in my 30's when I changed direction. Now what is his excuse again?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Sorry, employees don't produce wealth? It is incredible. The ignorance of the right never stops to amuse me.

They don't produce wealth. They produce a product in exchange for wealth from an employer with wealth.

If they produced wealth they would not need to be employed. They would simply produce wealth.

You seem to be confusing wealth with work.

[zelmo1234]

Sorry, employees don't produce wealth? It is incredible. The ignorance of the right never stops to amuse me.

I did not say that they don't have value. I said they don't produce wealth! There is a difference.

Say you want to make base ball bats for a living. You need capital to make that happen. you will need equipment.
supplies. to purchase the hickory to make it out of. Finishing rooms. And order department, trained employee's

Phones, computers and other office supplies Now you are ready to start. you still have to pay everyone and the bills until that happens.

Now lets say that you are hired to be my shipping manager. You and I settled on a wage of 12.00 dollars and hour + 3% of the value of the produces shipped.

I am working to create wealth. You are working for 12 dollars an hour + 3%

[kilgram]

They don't produce wealth. They produce a product in exchange for wealth from an employer with wealth.

If they produced wealth they would not need to be employed. They would simply produce wealth.

You seem to be confusing wealth with work.
Great arguments. Ok,then create wealth without workers, start.

I don't confuse. Wealth is nit generated magically.

[Chris]

Great arguments. Ok,then create wealth without workers, start.

I don't confuse. Wealth is nit generated magically.

Automation.

[Chris]

I did not say that they don't have value. I said they don't produce wealth! There is a difference.

Say you want to make base ball bats for a living. You need capital to make that happen. you will need equipment.
supplies. to purchase the hickory to make it out of. Finishing rooms. And order department, trained employee's

Phones, computers and other office supplies Now you are ready to start. you still have to pay everyone and the bills until that happens.

Now lets say that you are hired to be my shipping manager. You and I settled on a wage of 12.00 dollars and hour + 3% of the value of the produces shipped.

I am working to create wealth. You are working for 12 dollars an hour + 3%



That is an interesting way to put it, employees have value but don't produce wealth. I think they participate in producing wealth along with all the other things you mention. Interesting. I'll have to think about it!!

[zelmo1234]

Great arguments. Ok,then create wealth without workers, start.

I don't confuse. Wealth is nit generated magically.

I bought 10,00 shares Ford Stock and 3.10 a share and am think of selling now?

That will create a lot of wealth.

Try and build a car with out capital Go

[Common Sense]

I bought 10,00 shares Ford Stock and 3.10 a share and am think of selling now?

That will create a lot of wealth.

Try and build a car with out capital Go

...about as difficult to build one without employees.

[Private Pickle]

Once a person reaches the point of having enough money that they will be comfortable for life, should they be disallowed from getting more?

No

[zelmo1234]

That is an interesting way to put it, employees have value but don't produce wealth. I think they participate in producing wealth along with all the other things you mention. Interesting. I'll have to think about it!!

It is not the exact meaning that I was going for, but to me a job is a contract to provide a service. investment is producing wealth.

So what if the worker would have saved a bunch of money and invested in 10,000 shares of ford stock and sold them for a profit that would be wealth production If he hired someone to mow his grass that would be creating a job.

Still not great but you get the idea. both are very important.

[zelmo1234]

...about as difficult to build one without employees.

But not impossible All cars were build by one person before Henry Ford created the assembly line.

And that is why both sides have value. but without capital, there is nothing for the worker to do.

[Chris]

It is not the exact meaning that I was going for, but to me a job is a contract to provide a service. investment is producing wealth.

So what if the worker would have saved a bunch of money and invested in 10,000 shares of ford stock and sold them for a profit that would be wealth production If he hired someone to mow his grass that would be creating a job.

Still not great but you get the idea. both are very important.


If the worker saved and invested he'd become a produced. Otherwise, I agree, he provides a service in production. And as GRC says, the wealth is generated when those products are exchanged, traded.

[Common Sense]

But not impossible All cars were build by one person before Henry Ford created the assembly line.

And that is why both sides have value. but without capital, there is nothing for the worker to do.

That's not true. One person wasn't mining the steel and other materials to build it. One person wasn't designing the cars. One person wasn't forming the glass for windows. One person wasn't building the engine and other components. One person wasn't forming the body and one person wasn't doing the assembly, inspections, sales etc...

Sure, without capital there isn't money to build. Without people, there is no one to build it. Both are equally important elements.

[kilgram]

I did not say that they don't have value. I said they don't produce wealth! There is a difference.

Say you want to make base ball bats for a living. You need capital to make that happen. you will need equipment.
supplies. to purchase the hickory to make it out of. Finishing rooms. And order department, trained employee's

Phones, computers and other office supplies Now you are ready to start. you still have to pay everyone and the bills until that happens.

Now lets say that you are hired to be my shipping manager. You and I settled on a wage of 12.00 dollars and hour + 3% of the value of the produces shipped.

I am working to create wealth. You are working for 12 dollars an hour + 3%
All those resources are made by workers. That capitalism gives the capital produced by workers to the owners does nit eliminate the fact that the producers, aka the workers are the generators of wealth.

[GrassrootsConservative]

All those resources are made by workers. That capitalism gives the capital produced by workers to the owners does nit eliminate the fact that the producers, aka the workers are the generators of wealth.

What do they do that generates wealth? And where does that wealth come from?

[zelmo1234]

That's not true. One person wasn't mining the steel and other materials to build it. One person wasn't designing the cars. One person wasn't forming the glass for windows. One person wasn't building the engine and other components. One person wasn't forming the body and one person wasn't doing the assembly, inspections, sales etc...

Sure, without capital there isn't money to build. Without people, there is no one to build it. Both are equally important elements.

Correct! Now you are getting it. Those were products needed in the production of parts. Which required Capital and labor. In each step one person could actually provide the labor for himself and sell the products. It is just more efficient to contract others to preform a job.

The wealth is the return on investment. Wages are exchanged for labor.

[Common Sense]

Correct! Now you are getting it. Those were products needed in the production of parts. Which required Capital and labor. In each step one person could actually provide the labor for himself and sell the products. It is just more efficient to contract others to preform a job.

The wealth is the return on investment. Wages are exchanged for labor.

Maybe if they were producing door stops.


The fact is, both labor and capital play roles in creating wealth.

[zelmo1234]

All those resources are made by workers. That capitalism gives the capital produced by workers to the owners does nit eliminate the fact that the producers, aka the workers are the generators of wealth.

YES! now you are understanding. The Iron Ore was mined. a person had to invest in the land, the equiptment and of course the employees. He sold the ore and the profits become wealth.

The worker showed up for work and exchanged labor for money in which he paid his bills. But lets say that he thought of a way to mine ore more effectively. He then drew up the plans for his invention. Invested in a patient. found a small building and bought it. bought some equipment and materials and produced his new magic shovel. And sold that to the mining company and made a million dollars profit. That is building wealth.

[zelmo1234]

Maybe if they were producing door stops.


The fact is, both labor and capital play roles in creating wealth.

NO they don't Wealth is the return on investment.

Wages are exchanged for labor or services. There is no investment. No wages can be turned into wealth because they can be invested.

[kilgram]

YES! now you are understanding. The Iron Ore was mined. a person had to invest in the land, the equiptment and of course the employees. He sold the ore and the profits become wealth.

The worker showed up for work and exchanged labor for money in which he paid his bills. But lets say that he thought of a way to mine ore more effectively. He then drew up the plans for his invention. Invested in a patient. found a small building and bought it. bought some equipment and materials and produced his new magic shovel. And sold that to the mining company and made a million dollars profit. That is building wealth.
Nothing possible without workers. New equipment was made by workers,...

All that wealth was produced by workers that man exploited and took all the wealth generation of the workers for himself, in other words, stole them.

Good you are only making arguments to favour my position about the robbery that is the capitalism.

Workers do all the job and a guy that has money took all the fruits of that job for himself, and he gave to them a little because in other way would be hard slavery.

[Common Sense]

NO they don't Wealth is the return on investment.

Wages are exchanged for labor or services. There is no investment. No wages can be turned into wealth because they can be invested.

The investment is in labor.

In my business (we make and sell furniture), we would not be able to create wealth without my employees. I invest money in buying their time and in return they work and create my products.

Anyways...

[zelmo1234]

Nothing possible without workers. New equipment was made by workers,...

All that wealth was produced by workers that man exploited and took all the wealth generation of the workers for himself, in other words, stole them.

Good you are only making arguments to favour my position about the robbery that is the capitalism.

Workers do all the job and a guy that has money took all the fruits of that job for himself, and he gave to them a little because in other way would be hard slavery.

That is not true. You are totally off on stolen.

If you agree to work for 10 dollars and hour. the boss does not owe you twenty. he owes you 10

Now if you do not feel that 10 dollars and hour is good enough then you say NO to the job.

But let us assume that you take the job and you are to work 8 hours a day with 2 15 min breaks and 30 mins for lunch. Which you do. And that the week you get 380 dollars instead of the 400 that you are owed.

THAT IS STEALING. But if you get the 400 dollars that you agreed to work for then you go home happy and the employer owes you nothing. Now he have 100 dollars invested in the materials that you needed to do your job and you build the widgets. So at the end of the week he has 500 dollars invested into 100 widgets that you built for him.

He sells those widgets for 1000 dollars and keeps 500 of it. That is not your money! he did not steal that from you. you were paid what was agreed.

So you say Mr Boss I want more money because I am a good widget producer. So the boss says why yes you are.. Do you think that you could produce 11 widgets a week You say yes and he pays you 450, but at the end of the week he makes 550 from you.

So you still want more money and you go to the boss and say I want 1000 dollars a week because you make too much money and he says you are fired.

Hires your neighbor for 400 dollars a week and your neighbor produces 10 widgets.

That is how it works it is not stealing.

[zelmo1234]

The investment is in labor.

In my business (we make and sell furniture), we would not be able to create wealth without my employees. I invest money in buying their time and in return they work and create my products.

Anyways...


YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You invest in there wages. they earn their wages and you sell the furniture and build wealth with the profits!

But you could make a lot of money in furniture without employee's Lets say that you are a very good cabinet maker and can carve and do special finishes and your furniture is a work of art that takes a long time but is very valuable.

You take your time and only make 5 pieces a year but each one sells for 30K and you only have 50 K into all of the materials.

See the difference. One is possible without the other. but labor without capital is not possible.

[Chris]

Nothing possible without workers. New equipment was made by workers,...

All that wealth was produced by workers that man exploited and took all the wealth generation of the workers for himself, in other words, stole them.

Good you are only making arguments to favour my position about the robbery that is the capitalism.

Workers do all the job and a guy that has money took all the fruits of that job for himself, and he gave to them a little because in other way would be hard slavery.



Here's where your argument fails: While it's true, in some abstract sense, nothing is possible without workers, it is equally true nothing is possible without investment in capital with which workers are enabled to produce.

Once you factor in time preference you should see there investment earns more than work. Work is high time preference, iow, you work and expect pretty much immediate return on that work in your next paycheck. Investment involves low time preference, iow, you invest but risk putting off immediate reward for greater return long term.

[Dr. Who]

What do they do that generates wealth? And where does that wealth come from?
Take a restaurant for instance GRC - if the chef, line cooks and prep staff produce very tasty food and the servers are efficient, the restaurant makes money. If the chef cuts corners, uses old produce, saves left overs and serves them the next day etc, the quality of the food declines and if the servers are slow or rude, people hate the food and or hate the service. In either case people don't come to the restaurant, thus no profits and no wealth generated.

[zelmo1234]

Take a restaurant for instance GRC - if the chef, line cooks and prep staff produce very tasty food and the servers are efficient, the restaurant makes money. If the chef cuts corners, uses old produce, saves left overs and serves them the next day etc, the quality of the food declines and if the servers are slow or rude, people hate the food and or hate the service. In either case people don't come to the restaurant, thus no profits and no wealth generated.

Or the owner fires the chef and hires a new one that will follow his rules.

Now take the best chef in the world and stand him in the middle of the street with on food or place to cook it, now plates silverware, just him.

What do you think he can sell the meal for?

[Chris]

Right, no one is saying work and workers are not valuable, just that that's not all there is to generating wealth.

[Dr. Who]

Or the owner fires the chef and hires a new one that will follow his rules.

Now take the best chef in the world and stand him in the middle of the street with on food or place to cook it, now plates silverware, just him.

What do you think he can sell the meal for?
Nor can you run a restaurant without people who cook and people who serve, both of which have a great deal to do with the success or lack thereof, of any restaurant. You can't discount the people who work for you in the wealth generation process.

[Chris]

Nor can you run a restaurant without people who cook and people who serve, both of which have a great deal to do with the success or lack thereof, of any restaurant. You can't discount the people who work for you in the wealth generation process.

I don't think anyone, except Kilgram, is saying anything different, that work and capital are required.

[Chris]

The problem is some, following Marx, follow a labor theory of value and discount capital as having any value.

[zelmo1234]

Nor can you run a restaurant without people who cook and people who serve, both of which have a great deal to do with the success or lack thereof, of any restaurant. You can't discount the people who work for you in the wealth generation process.

Nor have I been trying to.

But we have a Guy that comes to the small towns one day a week in the summer and he has an old oil tank converted into a smoker he does pulled pork and chicken and Ribs. He has potato salad and baked beans as a side. he is a one man show and people stand in like to give him 9 dollars.

He can create wealth on his own. It is just very hard. With no building. no food not equipment, it is impossible for the best restaurant workers in the world to make even one dollar.

Labor is part of the investment in creating wealth. Wages are what is exchanged for labor. but it is not wealth.

[donttread]

Because he might win the lottery someday and does not want to pay high taxes, but he darn sure is not going to work hard enough to become rich, so screw them.

Actually lottery winners get fucked, no 20% Capital Gains

[zelmo1234]

Actually lottery winners get $#@!ed, no 20% Capital Gains

But after the get fucked, and invest the money they only pay 20% on the capital gains.

See how that works. The people that are not paying 20% on the capital gains got Fucked when they first earned the money too

[The Sage of Main Street]

All those resources are made by workers. That capitalism gives the capital produced by workers to the owners does not eliminate the fact that the producers, aka the workers are the generators of wealth. Saying that the rich create wealth is like saying that vampires create blood.

[Chris]

Saying that the rich create wealth is like saying that vampires create blood.

But who's the vampire, the rich, or the worker sucking off the blood of the capital investment needed to do any work?

[zelmo1234]

Saying that the rich create wealth is like saying that vampires create blood.

Great, but lets look at what you just said and instead of Vampires lets say the body.

So I go into a blood drive and donate a pint of blood??? does my body remain a pint low forever? Or does the body create more blood?

Now you are starting to see the picture. I could make a trillion dollars an hour 24 hours a day, and you would still be able to get rich if you are of average intelligence and willing to put forth the effort.

Now on the same tone if I cut one of my major arteries and don't get it fixed I will run out of blood and die.

If you refuse to put forth the time and effort to become wealthy, you will never get there.

See how that works.

[Peter1469]

Take capital out of a road construction contract and you will end up with a lot of guys with shovels and old fashioned road laying techniques. When I was in the Sinai the Egyptians were happy to be able to pave a couple hundred meters of road per day.