It isn't fair that innocent children catch deadly diseases and die, yet that's reality.
Not all inequalities are equal . Some can be avoided.
If the topic is the fair distribution of wealth then that is a question of morality and morality occurs at the level of the individual. So if you want to live in a fair world then you have to be a fair person regardless of what is legal or accepted behaviour.
If the topic is the fair distribution of wealth then that is a question of morality...
Well, one could argue all day about subjective issues of fairness and morality, but granting the point for the sake of discussion, where lies the immorality? Does it lie in the hands of business management for merely carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities? The strength of a democratic capitalist society lies in each person freely pursuing their own desires and interests. The result is a wealthy society where most people live better lives than kings a couple hundred years ago.
Or should the immorality be placed in the hands of government for allowing a legal and regulatory framework that causes vast inequities in the distribution of wealth?
Most people prefer to demonize business leaders to a much greater degree than government leaders. After all, people can vote for their government, but they have no control over who runs businesses for which they're not stockholders. But the history of democratic government tells us that skill in garnering votes doesn't confer any great morality. Most who enter the American congress leave it rich if they serve multiple terms, and the money ultimately derives from big business lobbying. Congress may even be a more sure route to wealth than entering into business.
But who is the greater moral transgressor, the businessman whose responsibility is to his stockholders and whose interests he advances by (in essence) bribing government officials, or the elected official whose responsibility is to the people who elected him and who he is screwing over royally.
The parts relevant to this thread were trickle down economics, taxes on corporations, and taxes on the rich.
I guess the only comment I have is about trickle down economics, which we've discussed before. It always bothers me when someone claims that trickle down doesn't happen. Of course it happens. It's just that it doesn't work as an economic program.
People are rich because they keep money as profit instead of spending it on employee wages.
So you're against profit? Why don't you just leave and find a place where you're going to be happier? Might I suggest North Korea? I suspect the populace there has no benefit from profit at any level.
If you cut government spending then government workers will be sent home without a job.
And might have to find some productive line of work that would actually benefit the economy?
Aren't you aware that for every government employee there are several taxpayers supporting their salaries and benefits--and that by definition government is a drain on the economy rather than a benefit?
These are two unavoidable facts. How it affects the overall economy is not so clear.
I'll make it very clear for you: more productive workers will benefit everyone, while more government parasites are a drain on the economy.
If this were not the case the communist countries (workers' paradises) would have had flourishing economies rather than going bust.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
Aren't you aware that for every government employee there are several taxpayers supporting their salaries and benefits--and that by definition government is a drain on the economy rather than a benefit?
That is not actually the definition of government.
Aren't you aware that for every government employee there are several taxpayers supporting their salaries and benefits--and that by definition government is a drain on the economy rather than a benefit?
No, I am not aware of that nor have I ever seen any evidence that that was fact.
I'll make it very clear for you: more productive workers will benefit everyone, while more government parasites are a drain on the economy.
Again, who are the parasites?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I'm sure there are alternatives to most everything.
BUT, TSA in particular seems to be just another way for private companies to divert funds from the government to private industry.
If we are going to ever save the US we need to stop the influence of business into government. We need to stop lobbying, make sure business cannot fund political campaigns, do what I posted way back in Message 49.
Fire politicians that oppose increasing taxes in a progressive manor.
Fire politicians that oppose revising the inheritance taxes to avoid the creation of a wealthied class.
Fire politicians that oppose limiting corporate activities in elections, legislation or tax expenditures.
Fire politicians that oppose banning corporate advocacy.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
. Some can be avoided.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
