Redistribution schemes allow for the transfer of capital from those who don't really need it to those who do thus increasing the productivity of erstwhile less productive members of society. It increases the marginal utility derived. Excess wealth leads to decreasing marginal utility. There is less motivation on balance for 2nd generation wealthy individual to be as driven as the 1st generation wealth creators and more temptation to adopt an easy decadent lifestyle. On the other hand, without the opportunities provided by basic economic inputs, those on the poorer end of the social spectrum are provided less avenues of improving their situation leading to less motivated individuals. It can therefore be argued that contrary to your assertion it is by not redistributing that society promotes sloth. For some reason conservatives cannot seem to appreciate this. Even if it was completely true what you wrote you still don't need government to do any "redistribution scheme". One of the functions of free market is removing money from weak hands (stupid) to strong hands(smart). If you think political entity such as government can be more efficient at this you are nuts. Wanna see it in practice? Too late to go to Eastern Europe, Cuba or Venezuela will do though! Excess wealth leads to decreasing marginal utility. That might be but do you really believe bureaucratic messing with economy increases marginal utility??
Steal from the rich-meaning anyone that is productive- and give to the poor. Robin Hood was a thief....also. We are teaching poor families to expect handouts, and we are having multiple generations of the same families remain just as poor and Unproductive...forever. Those that are Productive resent supporting those that are Unproductive and have no reason to be Unproductive other than being rewarded for being that way. It's nothing more than class warfare imposed upon the people by the socialists. They obviously must be aware of this. Tax revenue and economic activity and opportunity are always higher when taxes are lower. Socialists must be aware of this, but they cannot tolerate the fact that someone is much more willingly productive and making much more than someone else. They seem to think that an extreme progressive income tax rate will somehow make the poor and those of lower income feel better although it suppresses their own opportunity. It's all about feelings, not opportunity and self-sufficiency. Taxes are taxing on the economy. The higher taxes are, the lower productivity and economic activity will be and of all things it results in Lower Tax Revenue. How will that help the poor? Or should they not have the opportunity to be productive and remain on government assistance for life? Increased economic activity benefits everyone. OPINIONJOURNAL FEDERATION from The Wall Street Journal 'Live Free or Move' BY LAWRENCE J. MCQUILLAN AND HOVANNES ABRAMYAN Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT Economic Freedom Index The top 15 states: Personal income grew 31% faster Employment growth 216% higher Taxpayers paid 14% less in tax State tax revenues 6% higher http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008350
Are you familiar with the issue of land reform in many developing countries? Maybe you should look it up. It is seen as one of the key reforms that successful developing economies have implemented that other less successful cases haven't. Basically land redistribution from the hands of colonial oligarchs to farmers. Government must play a role for this to happen. Scandinavia and Canada weren't doing so bad last I looked. The market economy is a fine thing. Doesn't mean that government doesn't have a role to play. Try living in a country with a weak government sometime and you might start to appreciate its presence more. How did you determine that these rich people are productive? As for whether it's stealing or not, tell that to the judge. We're living in a consumer society yes? Keeping up with the Joneses is the national pasttime. There is strong societal pressure to go beyond just accepting handouts. Those who settle for this are likely in really dire circumstances or are always going to be parasites no matter what system of government you have. Are the Unproductive going to end up as well off as the Productive? No. That's powerful incentive right there. Moreover, by supporting the Unproductive to a minimal degree they are given more opportunity to mend their ways and avoid falling into the ranks of the Desperate. Desperate people are dangerous. Somewhere along the way it seems we've veered into a discussion outlining the differences between a more socialist oriented tax policy on one hand and a conservative tax policy on the other. Both have their strong and weak points. It's actually off topic from the Buffett comments this thread is based on which seems to be about equitable taxation and not so much less or more taxation. By the way I'd like to point out several observations on that article you shared. It seems most of the lowest scoring states are amongst the most developed e.g. California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, etc. With their more complex infrastructure it's hardly surprising they tax more. Furthermore with their relatively mature economies their lower growth rates can be expected in the same way large companies display slower growth than small companies or how suburbs develop at a faster rate than downtown. I presume states with higher scores were starting from a lower base. Alaska I hear has great tax rates, still I don't expect it to overtake New York as a financial center any time soon.
I'll just answer the first question you posed and let that suffice for all the rest. Answer: Zimbabwe. Now that they've done what you proposed, they can't even feed themselves.
I believe the essence of Buffett's argument has to do with fairness. Who stands to benefit most as a result of national defense, on a purely economic basis...who has the most to gain or lose, the poor or the wealthy? Who benefits the most by health insurance for all? The corporations, as if people get better care quickly, they will have less sick days. The bottom line is that a more productive work force is one who is properly taken care of, so the load should be shouldered more by those who can afford it, as it really is in their best interests to do so. Do the wealthy really want a level of poverty that drives the "serfs" to a life of crime? Who would they try to mug, steal from, etc? Public health care would reduce expenses for business, better education produced better workers, better family life produces less drug addicts and criminals. Buffett may be completely self absorbed, but his absorption is in the form of enlightened self interest, knowing that what keeps the masses happy, healthy and working is best for business. As much as the right wing klannish would like to return to slavery, serfdom, debtor's prison, child labor, and abuses seen at the beginning of the industrial revolution, we are not likely to regress back to that time frame, the people will revolt... It was shown in a recent study that the wealthy of the world donate less than 1% of their worth to charities...which is pathetic, especially in a country that prides itself as Christian and charitable. You Pal Michael Moore was asked about his health insurance for his employees...his answer was zero deductible, full dental, no 90 day waiting. Is that because he cares, or because he wants healthy happy workers? At some point it really would help if the klannish would understand the value of productivity, how much of their present tax dollars are wasted on health related issues, crime, etc. quite a bit of which would be less of a factor if we had an electorate who were not worrying about what happens if they get sick or can't work or can't afford to retire due to real inflationary pressures. The boomers are going to be retiring soon, and they will want to take advantage of the promises of social security and health care. Where is that promised money coming from if not increased taxes? I don't see the right wingers complaining about VA benefits, which is essentially socialized medicine for a select group. The wingers believe they earned it, I agree, but I also believe the Constitution is clear that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a human right, and in a society in which the wealthy benefit most from our system of government, should be taking on a greater share of the responsibility for what they get. If citizenship really meant something, perhaps we would be doing more to protect it, and not sacrifice the real cost of illegals to help the bottom line of business owners. How can business owners call themselves patriotic by hiring illegals? Yet, my guess is the klannish ones wear an American flag lapel pin, voted for Bush, and say the pledge of allegiance and sing the National Anthem regularly...all the while they are profiting and paying less taxes because they are cheating the system and all Americans by hiring and employing illegals. Taxes are not a curse, they are the blood we all pay for the quality of life in America, which is on the decline for most. Most of us don't have to spill real blood to have the benefits of the greatest nation on earth, so the least we can do is pay our fair share in the form of taxes. It really is ludicrous if the klannish and Liberidiots would just step back from their American fantasy. There position now would be analogous to a bunch of serfs in the feudal system who were against taxing the ruling class. Somewhere along the line the American dream brainwashed away all common sense from the klannish and Liberidiots when it comes to taxing the upper 1%. They have the same delusion working as a kid in the hood who thinks he is one day going to play hoops in the NBA. Get real, most of yall are never going to get into the wealthy club, you are just chasing the carrot of the American way dreamed up by the ruling class to manipulate your dreams into their profitability. This is not to say that we can't have a more efficient government, a flat tax, or other factors that will eliminate pork and waste, the defense department alone wastes trillions of dollars. The tax revenue lost via illegals is also a huge loss to revenues that could benefit the shrinking middle class. Wages are artificially low due to illegals and exporting jobs to slave style labor overseas. Oil and insurance company profits are through the roof, yet 46 million Americans are unable to afford health care. We used to have a middle class where the wife could afford to stay home and take care of the kids, be there when the kids got home....now we don't have that situation with regularity. Women have to work, it is an economic necessity just to survive with reduced wages, or wages that are not growing as fast as real costs of living. Something is terrible wrong with this picture, for a society that claims to be leading civilization into the next millennium. The wealthy are getting wealthier thanks to tax cuts, and their increased wealth is not going back into a system that helps all the people to improve the quality of their own lives. The middle class is being squeezed like nobody's business, and the middle class are not the ones who are in control, because they continue to vote in frauds who lower taxes for those who don't need taxes lowered. Still under the spell of the American dream and the right wing propaganda, which is a complete delusion. Where is the real nationalism in this country? Have we really be reduced to just waving flags after 911, but not really caring about the quality of lives of the American people? How can people claim to love their country, and allow such economic disparity, people having no health care, a shrinking middle class, corporate profits sheltered from taxation by keeping the money off shore? I don't know what it will take for real Americans to wake up and take care of our own, but my guess is that it won't be pretty.
If Buffet's so concerned about uninsured American's why doesn't Gieco offer affordable health insurance for the masses? Hmm..perhaps that would place parasitic businessman Buffet at odds with public policy liberal Buffet. How tidy. Also, how does Buffet address the reasons behind cap gains being typically 20% cheap to earned income rates? Isn't it proper that long term investment gains be taxed at a lower rate than short term speculations. Isn't Buffet aware that the small 3k limit in capital losses is the tradeoff for cap gains being taxed low? Is Buffet so out of touch with working America that he fails to perceive how many American's have seen their property tax bills jump 400% in the past decade? At what point does Buffet think American's should just freakin' serf for the government?
Buffett should lose money in order to satisfy his shareholders...I don't think the shareholders would settle for that. What a klownish klannish ad hominem post by waaaaay past his prime...par for the course. Buffett stood in oposition to Prop 13, which would have increased his own property tax, because he knew how it would harm California in the long run...which it has. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/16/MN263845.DTL
Klown? Go fuck yourself LoZZZeR. I have days in 2007 dollars where I make or lose what you do in a year. Know why? Because I'm smarter than you. Buffet's worth ten's of billions. If affordable health insurance is his goal then he shouldn't need "shareholders" to help fund it. If offering health coverage is too risky for Buffet then why isn't it too risky for the American tax payer? Buffet should stay within his expertise. Keep selling freakin' automobile insurance instead of taking risk like Blue Cross. He's a parasite. He's the devil. You're a sheep. How has California been harmed? Is it because the state is choking on it's ridiculous budgets? Too bad. I find it ironic that while neither you nor Buffet are California natives you both think it's appropriate to move there and then tell long time homeowners to pony up outrageous sums in order to fund social programs benefiting illegal immigrants and other folks who didn't know California even existed a generation ago. One assumes Buffet can afford to see his property tax bill triple. Can the average homeowner in Chula Vista? The decade long rise in assessed values is causing homeowners throughout the U.S. to face selling their homes because of unaffordable tax bills.
So predictable, and funny seeing you have to climb into the gutter and show us your dick...showing the world how much "smarter" you are. You are a real piece of work...waaaaay past your prime. Real kick watching you defend the control of the free market in California via Prop 13. As usual, you are talking out of both sides of your butt cheeks... You are such a bloody phony...