fatjohn
11-09-2011, 06:52 PM
So I'm having a discussion with an Australian that lives in Germany on Facebook.
I need help...
This is what I got so far...
the comments began after he posted following link http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers
Its not super relevant tl;dr it's saying that the wealthy do not provide the proportion of production nor have they the same proportion of skills as they have the proporition of wealth in a society. If you're wealthy your more often than not just lucky.
So then I started commenting:
There might be some thruth to it. Luck is an important factor in life, where you´re born and stuff. I see a lot of fingerpointing, sadly no answers. If you propose to tax the rich, i must disagree. The problem was spending like crazy going into debt, legitimizing bets on defaults of those debts with little to no financial backing by banks and finally socializing losses by the state. Too low taxation was never a problem. Spending was and is. Therefore the only way out is to let banks fail, stop spending like crazy and make fractional reserve banking illegal. Taxation, while a help regarding the debt, will put a further drain on the economy and will cause stagnation for another decade or more.
he replied
I don't think the point of this article was to provide solutions, but just to give some perspective. Why do you oppose taxing the rich? Fact is, government can't provide good services without funding it through taxes. Politicians might not be the best people to hand your money over to, but they're at least answerable to the public every few years. I'd rather they had the money than CEOs who are answerable only to shareholders (and that loyalty is often questionable at best). Giving the rich tax breaks supports a bigger gap between the haves and the havenots, which leads to bigger problems. Overspending definitely was and is a problem and led to the crisis, but it wasn't so much government overspending. It was people pursuing unnecessary wealth with money that didn't exist, taking massive risks in the process. To stop seeing banks get bailed out whenever they do this would certainly be nice. Taxation alone won't cure this of course but it'll help. And it won't stagnate or drain the economy, though it might slow down the haves getting richer, as the money can instead go where it's needed.
I replied
Politicians are practically the worst people to hand money to. I rather have the government provide only the essential services and keep out from others. So i can choose what company and product my money goes to rather than being forced to pony up to the service the government has a monopoly on to provide. Companies are answerable to the public by providing the goods they need for the money they want to give every day. Anyway the true rich people have the politicians and the media in the bag anyhow, how many politicians proposed to let banks and corporations fail and not take over their debts?The self made productive rich people that didn´t make it to the top by having friends in high places will be the only ones really hit by such a tax hike. Say a self made guy is 50 has a company of 50 people, has 5 million and needs another 5 million to retire on his own island on the bahama´s his lifelong dream. At current conditions it would take him 10 years. Say government decides to tax him and it would take him 15 years. Why would he not say pff that´s it I give up the dream I´ll retire right now and just live in Bavaria to the end of my days with the 5 mil i have now. This would cost the economy 100 jobs over 10 years. If tax hikes convince enough rich people to do that it might just drain the economy. I´m not against taxing the rich but I don´t know where´s the line of having a good effect. I know there´s a line somewhere, i mean you can tax them to much. And getting the economy going is the key for me, If I can choose between a scenario where I can hardly pay for food and the top 1 percent is only 10 times better off and a scenario where I can pay for an Ipod and the 1 percent is 50 times better off than I choose the latter. Maybe raising taxes on the rich with 5 percent would not give significant backlash but taxation does not adress the problem anyhow. It´s like taking heroin with a doktor nearby, you can take a bit more but you´re still taking heroin.
he replied
Taxation can hardly be likened to heroin though! Essential services the government provide include education, health, welfare, social and community care, public transport, cultural and recreational services, emergency services, law enforcement and regulation of the economy. All of which are better off in the hands of the state than in private enterprises and need considerable funding from taxes. Your scenario of the bloke with the (somewhat exorbitant) dream of retiring on his own island is a strange one. If he chooses to be happy with his 5 million (as he certainly should be) and stay in Bayern, someone else can take over the reins at his company or it leaves room for another company to enter the market and provide jobs. No jobs lost at all. Maybe higher taxes restrict his dream of attaining multimillions. But he's hardly in a position to complain. As for the 2 scenarios at the end, that's being unrealistic. You're not going to have a situation of a big wealth discrepancy and those at the lower end leading a comfortable life. The so-called boom times still had an underclass.
I replied
I disagree, cultural and recreational services are in no way essential and there is no moral basis to force everyone to provide for them, this should be taken care of by the tourism industry. Public transportation is constantly losing revenue and is a burden to society because the government subsudized king car so much that there was no way trains can ever compete with it anymore. Otherwise you could perfectly privatize that too. I also would like to see education privatized so that I can choose what version of history my kid learns, if he learns about evolution or creationism and if he learns keynsian or austrian economics. Rather than some bureaucrat. One size fits all kills all debate. So I dont agree about all those services you say government is essential to provide. As for the rich guy, He's at his position for a reason. Mostly, not always, because he is still better at what he does than any of the replacements available. When he steps down voluntarily, the company will provide less quality to society in return demand might sink to the point that jobs will be lost. And btw, I was likening spending to heroin. As it seems to be addictive.
And finally he replied back
You really need to rethink the taxation and heroin analogy. Heroin merely feeds an addiction. Governments (and countries) can't survive without taxes. Tourism isn't the same as cultural and recreational services- it's a different market. You might not see it as essential but without it, life's pretty crap for a lot of people who can't afford privately-run services. They provide opportunities (that otherwise wouldn't be there) for people, not to mention enhancing the quality of life. Without it, criminal activity becomes more appealling to many. Public transport often loses money, which is why it's an essential government service to its people. Privatisation ruins it. It's no burden on society, car-dependence is the burden. As for privatisation of schools like you suggested, are you serious? The logistical mess that'd create is unfathomable. Are you suggesting political parties set up their own schools too? You can have your child learn the world according to Geert Wilders? Sounds more like brainwashing than education. It's better for kids to learn facts that are facts, and to learn the different theories and make up their own mind which one they believe in. To limit it like you've suggested stifles thought rather than encourages it. Or as you put it, kills all debate. Not to mention those who can't afford to choose, so send their kids to the cheapest one available and hope that the curriculum wasn't set by some stark-raving lunatic. Or do their children simply not go to school? So those services are definitely essential, for mine. And the rich bloke is there for a reason (maybe more than one), but there are a few possible candidates for what that reason is. That he's the best and no one else around him can match him is only one of many distinct possibilities. You'll need a much stronger argument to convince me.
Any thoughts?
If you think its too long, just read his last reply and write what you're thinking and point out that your thoughts are only based on the last reply, thanks.
I need help...
This is what I got so far...
the comments began after he posted following link http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers
Its not super relevant tl;dr it's saying that the wealthy do not provide the proportion of production nor have they the same proportion of skills as they have the proporition of wealth in a society. If you're wealthy your more often than not just lucky.
So then I started commenting:
There might be some thruth to it. Luck is an important factor in life, where you´re born and stuff. I see a lot of fingerpointing, sadly no answers. If you propose to tax the rich, i must disagree. The problem was spending like crazy going into debt, legitimizing bets on defaults of those debts with little to no financial backing by banks and finally socializing losses by the state. Too low taxation was never a problem. Spending was and is. Therefore the only way out is to let banks fail, stop spending like crazy and make fractional reserve banking illegal. Taxation, while a help regarding the debt, will put a further drain on the economy and will cause stagnation for another decade or more.
he replied
I don't think the point of this article was to provide solutions, but just to give some perspective. Why do you oppose taxing the rich? Fact is, government can't provide good services without funding it through taxes. Politicians might not be the best people to hand your money over to, but they're at least answerable to the public every few years. I'd rather they had the money than CEOs who are answerable only to shareholders (and that loyalty is often questionable at best). Giving the rich tax breaks supports a bigger gap between the haves and the havenots, which leads to bigger problems. Overspending definitely was and is a problem and led to the crisis, but it wasn't so much government overspending. It was people pursuing unnecessary wealth with money that didn't exist, taking massive risks in the process. To stop seeing banks get bailed out whenever they do this would certainly be nice. Taxation alone won't cure this of course but it'll help. And it won't stagnate or drain the economy, though it might slow down the haves getting richer, as the money can instead go where it's needed.
I replied
Politicians are practically the worst people to hand money to. I rather have the government provide only the essential services and keep out from others. So i can choose what company and product my money goes to rather than being forced to pony up to the service the government has a monopoly on to provide. Companies are answerable to the public by providing the goods they need for the money they want to give every day. Anyway the true rich people have the politicians and the media in the bag anyhow, how many politicians proposed to let banks and corporations fail and not take over their debts?The self made productive rich people that didn´t make it to the top by having friends in high places will be the only ones really hit by such a tax hike. Say a self made guy is 50 has a company of 50 people, has 5 million and needs another 5 million to retire on his own island on the bahama´s his lifelong dream. At current conditions it would take him 10 years. Say government decides to tax him and it would take him 15 years. Why would he not say pff that´s it I give up the dream I´ll retire right now and just live in Bavaria to the end of my days with the 5 mil i have now. This would cost the economy 100 jobs over 10 years. If tax hikes convince enough rich people to do that it might just drain the economy. I´m not against taxing the rich but I don´t know where´s the line of having a good effect. I know there´s a line somewhere, i mean you can tax them to much. And getting the economy going is the key for me, If I can choose between a scenario where I can hardly pay for food and the top 1 percent is only 10 times better off and a scenario where I can pay for an Ipod and the 1 percent is 50 times better off than I choose the latter. Maybe raising taxes on the rich with 5 percent would not give significant backlash but taxation does not adress the problem anyhow. It´s like taking heroin with a doktor nearby, you can take a bit more but you´re still taking heroin.
he replied
Taxation can hardly be likened to heroin though! Essential services the government provide include education, health, welfare, social and community care, public transport, cultural and recreational services, emergency services, law enforcement and regulation of the economy. All of which are better off in the hands of the state than in private enterprises and need considerable funding from taxes. Your scenario of the bloke with the (somewhat exorbitant) dream of retiring on his own island is a strange one. If he chooses to be happy with his 5 million (as he certainly should be) and stay in Bayern, someone else can take over the reins at his company or it leaves room for another company to enter the market and provide jobs. No jobs lost at all. Maybe higher taxes restrict his dream of attaining multimillions. But he's hardly in a position to complain. As for the 2 scenarios at the end, that's being unrealistic. You're not going to have a situation of a big wealth discrepancy and those at the lower end leading a comfortable life. The so-called boom times still had an underclass.
I replied
I disagree, cultural and recreational services are in no way essential and there is no moral basis to force everyone to provide for them, this should be taken care of by the tourism industry. Public transportation is constantly losing revenue and is a burden to society because the government subsudized king car so much that there was no way trains can ever compete with it anymore. Otherwise you could perfectly privatize that too. I also would like to see education privatized so that I can choose what version of history my kid learns, if he learns about evolution or creationism and if he learns keynsian or austrian economics. Rather than some bureaucrat. One size fits all kills all debate. So I dont agree about all those services you say government is essential to provide. As for the rich guy, He's at his position for a reason. Mostly, not always, because he is still better at what he does than any of the replacements available. When he steps down voluntarily, the company will provide less quality to society in return demand might sink to the point that jobs will be lost. And btw, I was likening spending to heroin. As it seems to be addictive.
And finally he replied back
You really need to rethink the taxation and heroin analogy. Heroin merely feeds an addiction. Governments (and countries) can't survive without taxes. Tourism isn't the same as cultural and recreational services- it's a different market. You might not see it as essential but without it, life's pretty crap for a lot of people who can't afford privately-run services. They provide opportunities (that otherwise wouldn't be there) for people, not to mention enhancing the quality of life. Without it, criminal activity becomes more appealling to many. Public transport often loses money, which is why it's an essential government service to its people. Privatisation ruins it. It's no burden on society, car-dependence is the burden. As for privatisation of schools like you suggested, are you serious? The logistical mess that'd create is unfathomable. Are you suggesting political parties set up their own schools too? You can have your child learn the world according to Geert Wilders? Sounds more like brainwashing than education. It's better for kids to learn facts that are facts, and to learn the different theories and make up their own mind which one they believe in. To limit it like you've suggested stifles thought rather than encourages it. Or as you put it, kills all debate. Not to mention those who can't afford to choose, so send their kids to the cheapest one available and hope that the curriculum wasn't set by some stark-raving lunatic. Or do their children simply not go to school? So those services are definitely essential, for mine. And the rich bloke is there for a reason (maybe more than one), but there are a few possible candidates for what that reason is. That he's the best and no one else around him can match him is only one of many distinct possibilities. You'll need a much stronger argument to convince me.
Any thoughts?
If you think its too long, just read his last reply and write what you're thinking and point out that your thoughts are only based on the last reply, thanks.