guys I know how to fix the ECONOMY : take the money from the rich people and distribute it to everyone while creating new jobs in the companies

File: 8 KB, 130x100, 269084_186263651429964_100001389907511_528434_2423556_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:41:20 2011 No.3447990 [Reply] [Original]

guys I know how to fix the ECONOMY : take the money from the rich people and distribute it to everyone while creating new jobs in the companies

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:44:20 2011 No.3447999 >>3447990 >2011 still trying to fix the economy

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:45:20 2011 No.3448000 But it wouldn't work. People wanting to get richer is what drives the economy, remove that then the economy crashes because its not worth working hard because everyone is equal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:47:20 2011 No.3448006 Nice thumbnail OP

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:50:20 2011 No.3448013 File: 9 KB, 195x274, marx-bio.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3447990 hasn't someone tried this before

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:51:20 2011 No.3448014 The rich already pay 70% of the taxes. notgoingtowerk.jpg

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:51:20 2011 No.3448015 OP = liberal science 101

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:54:20 2011 No.3448023 File: 56 KB, 400x493, Robin_Hood_standing_by_wall_w_sword.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3448013 Indeed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:55:20 2011 No.3448026 File: 10 KB, 201x201, 1309569983447.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3448014 >rich already pay 70% of the taxes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:56:20 2011 No.3448033 >>3448026 pleasegivemeyouraddresssoicancutoffyourballz.png

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:56:20 2011 No.3448034 >>3448026 i guess jon stewart and rachel maddow dont give you facts like these heres another good one: 50% of americans dont pay any taxes at all (the poor, who btw all have cable tv, internet, computers, xboxs, etc.)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:56:20 2011 No.3448035 >>3448014 HAHAHAHAHAH

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 12:57:20 2011 No.3448038 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe-7csVRo08

Anonynony Mon Jul 25 13:01:20 2011 No.3448051

A complete paradigm shift in the way we think must happen first if we are going to make everyone "equal," whatever that means.

Our economic system thrives on scarcity. You must have "have nots" in order to have "haves." If scarcity does not exist, due to advances in agriculture and industry, then it must be created by market barriers, national borders, taxes and so forth.

We need to eliminate greed and institute a universal work ethic. If we didn't have to provide profit for others, we'd work less and produce more, giving ourselves more leisure time instead of giving it to the boss. We need to think about investing in human society instead of companies. I know, I'm dreaming. Give it a few hundred years if we last that long.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:04:20 2011 No.3448059 >>3448034 and how much should they pay when they have 90% of the wealth? Fucking Dittohead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:05:20 2011 No.3448062 >>3448034 >i guess jon stewart and rachel maddow dont give you facts like these You mean fake ones?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:07:20 2011 No.3448069

Here's how it works:

1) Let big companies get away with paying next to no US taxes while opening factories overseas where they pay the workers in rice and fish heads.

2) CEOs make orders of magnitude more than they did
30 years ago

3) Bribes (campaign contributions) flow like never before.

4) Repeat until the plebes get fed up and start considering a revolution that can never happen because state-sponsored duopolies own everything including the media and the internets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:10:20 2011 No.3448077 >>3448059 How about the government can just fuckoff and do it's job and not spend money it doesn't have. Btw do you live in PA?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:16:20 2011 No.3448098
File: 101 KB, 896x812, 6a00d83454b17a69e20115711eec3b970b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3448000
The US taxed the top income margin of people who made 400,000 annually (in 2010 dollars that would be over 3.5 million) at 90% during the 50s and 60s. While the bottom tax rate was 17.4% for those making 4000. This period of domestic economic expansion after WW2 has since been known as the "Golden Age of American Capitalism."

Obviously if there is a developed economy people will still work hard to get richer even if there's a heavy tax rate once you're absolutely rolling in money.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:16:20 2011 No.3448099 >>3448034 not true at all. Once you factor in total tax burden, (withholding taxes, sales taxes, all state and local taxes) tax rates are not that different across income levels

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:17:20 2011 No.3448106 What a fabulous, fair, original idea OP, you've solved economics

>>	Hiker Ridley Mon Jul 25 13:19:20 2011 No.3448117 >>3448098 It also led to the rich living in tax shelters in the Caribbean over the USA. The poor today pay less percentage in taxes than back then. Think Saint Barts...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:20:20 2011 No.3448118 File: 224 KB, 1101x615, 1294856304639.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3448106 Considering the rich have consolidated the vast majority of wealth and income, I say it is indeed fair to tax them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:20:20 2011 No.3448121 >>3448098 HAHAHAhahahahAHAHAHAHA no. tax revenue has remained constant since then, which means the rich never actually paid taxes when they were that high. i wonder why!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:21:20 2011 No.3448122 >>3448117 Income generated in the US is still taxed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:21:20 2011 No.3448124 >>3448098 Yea and guess what? Many people in the 70's didn't even have toilets back then. THE POOR CAN MAKE SOME CUT BACKS.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:22:20 2011 No.3448128 >>3448121 Because the capital gains rate was much lower to encourage investment in companies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:23:20 2011 No.3448134 >>3448118 sorry i'm having trouble understanding why them being far richer than everyone else makes it suddenly "fair" to steal from them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:24:20 2011 No.3448137 File: 21 KB, 450x312, incomeChart-1979-2005.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3448124 Those damned decadent poor people need to make cut backs!!!1one

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:25:20 2011 No.3448143 File: 106 KB, 299x303, smirk3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3448134 >taxes >"stealing" >randroid detected

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:25:20 2011 No.3448144 the poor don't deserve the rich's money. to be honest, i'd rather they die in the streets than be able to use the state to take money from the rich.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:26:20 2011 No.3448146 STOP HAVING KIDS

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:27:20 2011 No.3448149 >>3448143 it's funny how much socialists need to believe that democracy is actually moral. >stay in this country and you consent to being stolen from! nope.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:27:20 2011 No.3448150 >>3448137 it might be down but atleast living standards have gone up since then. Plus I bet they all have access to toilets!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:29:20 2011 No.3448155 But hurr the poor have flat screen TVs and xboxes and solid gold ferraris, hurr durr, which they get from the government herp a durr

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:29:20 2011 No.3448156

>>3448134
The rich prospered due to the society America has built. They deserve to be taxed for operating in the economy.

Plus, taxation on a rich man's 10 millionth dollar does far less fiscal harm to him than other people. Heavy income taxes will make a rich person reconsider a yacht purchase, while it will make a poor person reconsider saving for their child's education or paying the rent.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:29:20 2011 No.3448157

the problem with liberals and their stupid "HURR INCOME DISPARITY" is that they fail to acknowledge that although the poor have a smaller slice of the pie, the pie is a lot bigger.

the poor today live more comfortably than the rich a couple hundred years ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:30:20 2011 No.3448163 >>3448156 why should i value the poor person's child over the rich person's yacht?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:31:20 2011 No.3448165 >>3448157 what a bad excuse

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:32:20 2011 No.3448172 I know, lets make the poor pay for everything so the rich can afford yachts and mansions! Yeah, that'll teach them for being poor whilst I sit in my Lamborghini and drive past the slums

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:33:20 2011 No.3448176 >>3448157 Ah, yes. Be happy with your crumbs, peon. They're better than your great grandfather received, and better than you deserve. Now would somebody pass me the Grey Poupon?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:33:20 2011 No.3448180 >>3448172 exactly. the worthless end up dying while the intelligent thrive. social darwinism at its finest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:34:20 2011 No.3448186 >>3448157 Yes, I'm sure those living in huts are better off than the rich landowners of the 1700s, who had servants and were always clothed and fed

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:36:20 2011 No.3448192 >>3448186 poor people in western countries are not living in huts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:36:20 2011 No.3448193 >>3448180 Except I was born into a poor family and I have a masters degree in chemical engineering. Fuck you and your retarded logic

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:37:20 2011 No.3448203 >>3448193 you should be proud. you moved up from being a poor worthless sack of shit.

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 13:38:20 2011 No.3448208

>>3448013
Nope never been tried.
We've gotten close,
>the government taking the money and keeping it for themselves.
>The government taking the money and giving it to a small subset of society.
>The government taking the money and spending it on weapons of mass destruction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:39:20 2011 No.3448212 File: 75 KB, 600x600, 1271051319874.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Even Peter Schiff admits that Switzerland has the best economic model in the world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:42:20 2011 No.3448227 File: 109 KB, 238x318, free.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] peace and freedom

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:42:20 2011 No.3448229 >>3448203 So a drug dealer with a lot of money is better than a poor person with a minimum wage job laying roads?

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 13:44:20 2011 No.3448232 File: 56 KB, 757x541, andrew ryan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3448229 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:44:20 2011 No.3448241 >>3448163 This guy's question is the key one and its funny how nobody responded

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:46:20 2011 No.3448244 >>3448241 Because its a ridiculous point clearly made for comic effect

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 13:47:20 2011 No.3448248 >>3448163 A human life is irreplaceable unlike a yacht, which actually do not cost that much to build. They are just sold for 30x their initial price.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:49:20 2011 No.3448262 >>3448248 1 life out of 6,000,000,000 means nothing, population keeps increasing and the value of life keeps decreasing

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:50:20 2011 No.3448268 >>3448241 Why should I value the rich person's yacht? slipperyslopetonihilism.jpg

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:52:20 2011 No.3448286 >>3448262 >Implying the value of a single human life depends on overall population.

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 13:53:20 2011 No.3448290 >>3448262 Well first you'll have to prove that the value of life is inversely proportional to the total population.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:54:20 2011 No.3448300 >>3448244 nope. i was serious. i don't care about the poor person's kid enough to take money from a rich guy.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:55:20 2011 No.3448303

>>3448163

>why should i value the poor person's child over the rich person's yacht?

Because its far less evil and immoral to deny a child education than to deny rich person another yacht. So when you have to choose one evil (and you have to, since you need to distribute tax burden), its better to choose smaller evil (stealing rich mans yacht before stealing childs education).

If you disagree with the fact that its far less evil and immoral to deny a child education than to deny rich person another yacht, you are clearly a sociopath.

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 13:57:20 2011 No.3448311 >>3448300 Can you give us an argument as to why you value the rich guys spare wealth over the poor kids health?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:57:20 2011 No.3448313 >>3448286 What does it depend on? intelligence? education? keep in mind that whatever you answer is, it will qualify many many people as useless

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 13:59:20 2011 No.3448324

>>3448308
Like I said,
>>3448248
A human life is irreplacable.
We have no way of knowing who will be the next Einstein, just like we have no way of knowing who will be the next Hitler.
So a human life has no fixed value, its neither a low value nor a high.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:59:20 2011 No.3448326 >>3448300 Societal and financial damage caused by denying education to poor persons children is greater than societal damage of stealing a yacht. Education is an investment which increases productivity and decreases chances of being a criminal.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:02:20 2011 No.3448346

>>3448290

The are several human rights right? one should have the right to obtain food, but when there are too many of us, keeping in mind that this planet is finite, there will be many people that will not obtain food, because I have my right to buy food by working my ass off, I also have the right to live a confortable life because I work hard, this ultimately deprives others of living as happy as I am, so even though everyone has rights,they are impossible for everyone to enjoy, human dignity is now dead, it doesnt matter if someone dies anymore

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 14:04:20 2011 No.3448353 >>3448346 Human rights aren't tangible. They were created by humans in a social contract between us and the government. That contract can be terminated by either party.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:09:20 2011 No.3448375 >>3448248 If that guy worked hard all of his life and is willing to buy a yatch instead of giving the cash to a poor family.. are you saying that would be immoral?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:11:20 2011 No.3448382 >implying hard work gets you rich HA HA HA. It's all your parents

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 14:12:20 2011 No.3448387 >>3448375 I don't usually take sides in moral debates. The rich guy need only ask himself this, is he willing to make the act of buying himself a luxury over donating to the poor a Universal Law that everyone should follow. - Kant

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:18:20 2011 No.3448405 >>3448387 I am not sure everyone would agree on 'hand out $ to the poor regardless of how they arrived in that situation' being universal law

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:20:20 2011 No.3448420

Excessive luxuries should be eliminated. Any rich people who hoard their money or spend it on yachts and other wasteful ventures should be executed. Their money will be taken and spent on scientific research, technological advancement, and education. Anyone who doesn't agree is holding humanity back.

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 14:22:10 2011 No.3448432 >>3448405 Then your Universal Law would not include such a maxim. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." - Kant

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:23:20 2011 No.3448441 UK has free NHS. Much better than f*ggot US system. We are happy to remove healthcare from the equation.

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 14:24:20 2011 No.3448448

>>3448405
Actually, that does not come into this view of morality at all.
It isn't about how other people act, its about how YOU act.
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." - Kant

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:26:20 2011 No.3448460

Fcuk Kant - maxim description problem invalidates all deontologist moral theories in my view.

Now according to utilitarianism, paying a poor child healthcare/education decreases suffering (increases wellbeing) far more than buying a yacht decreases suffering (increases wellbeing) for the rich (Maslows hierarchy of needs). Thus it is moral.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:26:20 2011 No.3448462 >inb4 evil is a jeeeewwwwwwdeo christian construct and you're just an unthinking automaton of your jeeeeeeeewish masters if you believe it exists ... >anon, if you care about other people... THEN WHY DON"T YOU CARE ABOUT THE RICH??!!DERRRP >derp.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:26:20 2011 No.3448467 >>3448420 I love this thought. Having a 100 bedrooms mansion for a 4 people family is just retarded and should be illegal. Fuck all those decades of ridiculous extreme liberalism.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:28:20 2011 No.3448481

>Can you give us an argument as to why you value the rich guys spare wealth over the poor kids health?
because scrabbling for the rich guy's crumbs is a better existance than subsisting on mud.
he who dares may win or lose but he who serves winners can only ever win.
the better you serve the rich, the more likely they'll reward you and the less likely they'll profit from your demise -unless you do physical labor, buy life insurance, use the rich guy's products, etc...

anon, if you hate civilization so much, why don't you go dig for roots in the mud? i'm sure you'll have a greater chance of success there than attempting to steal from the greatest thieves and gangsters this world has ever known.

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 14:28:20 2011 No.3448485

>>3448460
Utilitarianism is the most superstitious view of morality that there is.
How can you know what will make other people happy?
Who gets to decide what the "general good" is?
A utilitarian would support this statement, "If watching me rape a girl, will bring happiness to me and to my gang, then our combined happiness is more important than the girls temporary suffering."

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:30:38 2011 No.3448498 >>3448023 >yfw robin hood is a scary story rich kids tell each other at night

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 14:37:20 2011 No.3448521
File: 30 KB, 420x315, 1306071373-34.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3448481
What?
Why should I beg a rich person to give something if, like you claim, I believe that others deserve that something more than he does?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:38:20 2011 No.3448531 Why don't we get jobs from the rich people? Become a butler then hope your left with the money in the will.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:39:20 2011 No.3448533

>>3448485

>How can you know what will make other people happy?

Psychology, neurology, anthropology... Generally the same things make people happy / make them suffer. There are uncertainties in some unimportant cases, but that does not make the clear cases less clear. And why should not morality be uncertain sometimes?

>Who gets to decide what the "general good" is?

>Who gets to decide maxims in deontologic moral theories? People concerned with determining morality.

A utilitarian would support this statement, "If watching me rape a girl, will bring happiness to me and to my gang, then our combined happiness is more important than the girls temporary suffering."

Implying the hapiness caused is greater than the suffering caused. Implying rule utilitarianism does not deal with the cases which pure act utilitarianism would not be able to decide - it takes the combined effects of rape prohibition vs. rape legalisation rule.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:39:20 2011 No.3448535 >>3448531 the rich do create jobs! in other country's where the slaves don't complain so much

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:41:20 2011 No.3448544 >>3448382 keep telling yourself that. Your shitty life isn't your fault. You were born into it. What a fucking pathetic way to live your life. I have nothing but contempt for you you worthless sack of shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:45:20 2011 No.3448575 File: 40 KB, 604x499, 37-intredasting..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3448544 So wealth does not change accesible opportunities? Very intredasting. I suppose there is not point in having any money then.

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 14:48:20 2011 No.3448589

>>3448533
First you will have to prove that "happiness" is what matters most, and that there are not things that are more important than happiness. (i.e. Power, Religion, greed.)
I would also like to ask you a question, if there was a machine that you could plug into, that would generate a world filled with nothing but happiness, would you plug in indefinitely?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

Next, after you provide an acceptable definition for happiness, something that people have been trying to define since Socrates and Aristotle, when you define this "Eudaimonia" you'll have to show how you would apply it. Are you going to look at all the factors behind each and every decision, and PREDICT what the end result will be. How can you hope to know what the consequences, because this is a consequentialist theory, of every act or law will be?

Lastly, you will have to explain then how you value happiness. If most people in Nazi Germany hated jews, and jews were only 5% of society, was it right to take their property and move them to concentration camps? if it had majority support and made the german majority happy?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:49:20 2011 No.3448599

OP is a special kind of retarded.

I know how to fix the economy without becoming a communist country.

Legalize weed, grow massive plantations, sell it like cigarettes, tax it. The economy would be better than ever in less than a year. Weed is already the #1 cash crop in the US. Why not use that money to fund something other than drug cartels?

>Inb4 retarded stoners claim this would somehow increase the price of weed.

Scarcity is the only reason weed is expensive, grown on a massive scale the price would be cut in half AT LEAST. Also if the governments weed was more expensive than the drug dealers weed you could just keep buying from your dealer like you always have, fucking tards.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:50:20 2011 No.3448604

>>3448575

what? In your original post you basically said that unless you are born into money, you cannot become rich. That is demonstrably false, but you have convinced yourself that the world is just stacked up against you and you can't succeed even if you try so its not your fault.

Being born into a wealthy family certainly helps secure a successful future, but it is not a prerequisite.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:53:20 2011 No.3448619 >>3448599 huuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:55:20 2011 No.3448627 >>3448619 >one of the retarded stoners I mentioned

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:56:20 2011 No.3448630 >>3448627 selling weed will give millios of people jobs isn't it retard?

>>	Hiker Ridley Mon Jul 25 14:57:20 2011 No.3448638 >>3448599 Mexico's economy enters recession after such plans happen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:57:20 2011 No.3448639 File: 4 KB, 144x120, 5f026ced3fef22efee1df9161b06b780.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3448599 >I like weed >I think I should be able to consume weed legally >Therefore weed will fix the world's problems 3 cheers for logic!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 14:58:20 2011 No.3448640 >>3448630 lrn2english plz I cant even figure out whos side you are on.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:01:20 2011 No.3448651 >>3448638 >thinks weed is legal in mexico I lold hard.

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 15:03:20 2011 No.3448658 File: 42 KB, 500x375, drugs-are-bad-420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3448639 >Weed is a drug >Drugs are bad. >People who do drugs are bad. Therefore potheads are bad people.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:04:20 2011 No.3448663

>>3448248
i'm not sure why that means i should care about the child more than the yacht.

and of course people are going to think i'm trolling or a sociopath, but oh well. i feel more anger imagining a poor family using money taken from the rich than the rich using money they earned (through exploitation!).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:05:20 2011 No.3448674 >>3448663 your just a douchebag, your not special enough to be a sociopath

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 15:05:20 2011 No.3448675 >>3448663 Read my other posts... >>3448387 >>3448448 >>3448521

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:06:20 2011 No.3448677 pothead would smoke in front of you like the tobacco buttheads, I don't want that do it in a close space and shut up

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:07:20 2011 No.3448684 >>3448675 are you saying that an action is an indication of a moral preference, and the principle should be applicable to everyone?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:09:20 2011 No.3448704

Imply it's not really like this.
the super rich own the 30% of the wealth.
the "rich" 50% of the wealth
The middle class 20% of the wealth.

Super rich-1000 ft yachts.

rich- Middle class business, who run family owned business that employ their family members and a few close friends.

Middle class,-have cellphones, cable tv,50$+ dollar pants, pairs of shoes that cost 50$, internet.

poor-wasted all their money,or did not grab the chance to become middle class when it was sucking their dicks..

But hey, go ahead and tax the "rich" 50%, who spend $100,000 minimally on construction equipment for their family run business...each year!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:10:20 2011 No.3448707 >>3448658 >doesnt realize alcohol, nicotine, and caffine are also drugs. Just because your government says its wrong, doesnt mean it is.

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 15:10:20 2011 No.3448709

>>3448684
What you think is the best decision to act on, should always be the right decision in that situation.
>"Treat others as you would like to be treated.
>Be the change you want to see in the world." - Gandhi

"In choosing myself, I choose man." - Jean-Paul Sartre
In other words, what he does builds on the view of man in general, so he is responsible for the image of mankind.
http://library.thinkquest.org/18775/sartre/pers.htm

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:11:20 2011 No.3448712 >>3448707 he doesn't realize there are tax in alcohol and nicotine and that doesnt prevent economy to be fucked up

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:13:20 2011 No.3448721

a majority of the people in this thread are retarded.
I'm no rich bastard but it's completely unfair that you want to tax them any differently or make them suffer just so someone else can get get an education.
Someone worked hard to earn that money, and what right do you have to tell them what to do with it? Hell, even if they inherited it, it's not YOUR money to mess with.

The poor honestly need to work harder to get where they want to be as opposed to trying to blame the rich an mooch off the system.

Now if you want to tax someone, you should tax everyone equally. If you have a job, you get taxed 15% of what you make. If you don't have a job, you don't reciever benefits from the state. You don't get college aid, you don't get shit. Welfare is gotten rid of in favor of government jobs. Kids/Minors are the only ones that should recieve benefits without having a job.
And you know what? All kids should get these benefits. Every kid should recieve a paycheck from the government tax dollars just for being under 18.

Make everything fair for everyone.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:14:20 2011 No.3448726 >>3448721 >he thinks rich deserve their money HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:15:20 2011 No.3448727 >>3448709 Theres a big difference between helping others and sacrificing yourself for others. You are an altruist

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 15:15:20 2011 No.3448729 >>3448684 It is a pretty simple Idea, Act how you think everyone SHOULD act in that situation. If you think lying is a bad thing, then don't EVER lie. Unlike "Act Utilitarianism" this doesn't allow for excuses.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:16:20 2011 No.3448736 >>3448726 Does bill gates. He earned it, he deserve it! Hes giving all his money away when he dies practically!

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Mon Jul 25 15:16:20 2011 No.3448740

>>3448727
Why do people assume I have said anything about my position on the subject? All I have done is lay out how YOU would go about deciding for yourself what is right and wrong.
Like I said before, I try not to take sides in moral debates, for I think moral laws are human made.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:16:20 2011 No.3448742

>>3448726

I am not that guy, but stop making yourself look like a retard, if you are still willing to state that ALL the people with big $$ (there are unknown rich people, I hope you arent thinking of celebrities) dont deserve it i'd like you to post proof

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:17:20 2011 No.3448744

Our societies wealth is increased by increased productivity, productivity is increased through increased capital. This can take the form of R&D knowledge capital or physical capital goods that produce products. The money spent on capital is called an investment. Rich people have a documented tendency to invest more (a lot more actually) of their marginal earnings. This makes sense considering that they have all of their base needs taken care of with a small portion of their income. However, the people saying that "hurr the rich needs more mansions and yachts" are incorrect. If you take money from rich people and give it to poor people, you lower the marginal propensity to invest of society and reduce the rate at which we all become wealthier (the only proven means of raising people from poverty is increased societal wealth, redistribution has never worked). Also, the more you tax people with high incomes (meaning high productivity), the less these people are willing to work hard and take risks, especially considering that almost all could retire right now and enjoy a high standard of living.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:18:20 2011 No.3448749 >>3448736 bill gates is 0.00000000001 % of the rich people

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:19:20 2011 No.3448753 Money is bad distributed, it is not created or destroyed, it just should flow from the richer to the more poor to balance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:20:20 2011 No.3448757 Also rich people are NOTHING without the poor and middle class people

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:20:20 2011 No.3448759 Oh boy it's like I'm in /new/. Reported. If you guys keep fucking replying /sci/ will be axed next.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:20:20 2011 No.3448761

>So wealth does not change accesible opportunities?
much as i disagree with the notion of 'ACHHH, der poor are DER UNTERMEN, DERP' you can absolutely climb your way to success if you live in the first world. you just have to devote yourself to spotting and CHASING after realistic opportunities and working hard to make yourself valuable.

no, you probably won't become the next sultan of qabbos and rich people definitely have a leg up on you but that does not mean it is impossible for the child of a poor family to become a rich man in the first world. thousands -if not millions- of immigrants attain this goal every year. you just have to be more dedicated, more focused, more intelligent and be eager to eat more shit.

if you're under the age of 30 and you're still complaining while living in the first world, get off your fucking ass.

-actually, fuck that. if you're not intelligent enough to realize that there are massive opportunities for young people living here, i don't want you competing for jobs with me. just go live off your welfare check and leave the rest of us in peace.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:21:20 2011 No.3448764 Or we could just stop having kids like we have beers and everyone remaining would be a little more rich

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:21:20 2011 No.3448765 >>3448749 Don't worry, once I become rich ill besure to hire you to be my whore and to suck my dick off while I write large checks to science institutes and not the poor.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:21:20 2011 No.3448766

>>3448721
>make them suffer
THE HORROR! THE HUMANITY! How could anyone be morally supportive of such a tortuous and draconian policy of claiming another 20% of $10 million income?! The poor man will never be able to afford that small Caribbean island now, and it's been his dream all his life! To make him suffer so horribly simply because he makes a thousand times as much as some of his workers is unjustifiable!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:22:20 2011 No.3448769 Wow looks like americans are discovering socialism Welcome to Europe son of bitches , oppressors of the world

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:25:20 2011 No.3448779

>>3448769
>socialism
Not really.

Social democracy (basically welfare capitalism) would be the best we're aware of, IMO. Mainly capitalistic economy, but with universal healthcare and education and a good social safety net paid for by progressive taxes. Makes the system more robust and equitable without the retardation that is central planning.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:26:20 2011 No.3448781
File: 47 KB, 400x276, nimby_color_web.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3448766
Ok fine tax the rich 90 percent of the wealth.

Then what?

That won't fix the economy in a long shot, now what?

What are you going to cut?

Military? cut it by 90 percent?

If so, where are you going to send all that extra money?

To the "poor"?

If so,son you did not fix our spending issues

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:26:20 2011 No.3448783 >>3448721 >And you know what? All kids should get these benefits. Every kid should recieve a paycheck from the government tax dollars just for being under 18. inb4 welfare queens.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:27:20 2011 No.3448785

>>3448766
so you're saying if you worked hard your whole life and you made 10 million dollars you'd be perfectly fine if random ass people you don't know came knocking on your front door expecting a cut of your money?
And they refuse to share anythig with you?

May I ask what you thought of the childrens story about the little red hen that baked bread?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:28:20 2011 No.3448789 Becoming rich is the greatest motivation a man can have. why so socialist /sci/?

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:29:20 2011 No.3448797

>>3447990
>And you know what? All kids should get these benefits. Every kid should recieve a paycheck from the government tax dollars just for being under 18.

>Every kid should recieve a paycheck from the government tax dollars just for being under 18.

>just for being under 18.

Are you going to put a bullet in your grand parents head, or perhaps send them to the gulag for hard labor for not wanting to be a Communist?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:29:20 2011 No.3448799 >>3448789 we are scientists, out motivations are to know about the universe and at least my case to improve humanity wellbeing , I don't want to be rich but to change the world

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:30:20 2011 No.3448803

>>3448781
>That won't fix the economy in a long shot, now what?
We'll live within our means, that's what.

As for progressive taxes, the optimum has a large middle class, not lots of poor people and a few ultra-rich. Progressive taxes keep large wealth imbalances from forming. The last time we had it this bad was just before the Great Depression.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:30:20 2011 No.3448804 >>3448789 PEOPLE LIKE YOU is the problem of our species

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Jul 25 15:31:20 2011 No.3448809 File: 1.85 MB, 215x165, 1303330189726.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I got a few ideas...!!!

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:34:20 2011 No.3448818

>>3448766
why not claim another 20% of the poors income as well?
if we are going to give people free educations, the poor don't need that money they were saving. They have nothing to spend it on and they'd waste it on a luxury item like a cellphone or an xbox. OH THE HUMANITY, LITTLE JOHNNY CANT GET AN XBOX BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT TOOK THE LAST $200 OUT OF HIS PARENTS PAYCHECK SO NOW ALL THEY CAN AFFORD IS PAYING THEIR ELECTRIC BILLS.
Because food stamps cover the food.

Like I said, If it's going to affect one group of people it should affect them all.

Also the rich kids should get a free education from those same tax dollars.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:35:20 2011 No.3448829 >>3448799 Your idea to change the world will be put on practice by the people you hate. Forget about that actually, by the time you are in your 30-40's altruism will fade off and all you will be thinking of is your monthly bank balance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:37:20 2011 No.3448836 >>3448829 nope

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:38:20 2011 No.3448846

>>3448785
No one is saying I can't collect social security, send my children to public school, collect unemployment if I lose my job, or anything like that. If I have a large amount of wealth, it is more vulnerable to seizure or destruction than an average family's wealth, which is likely just a house, a few cars, a little savings and random shit, and so I'm gaining proportionately more benefit from the protection of the military and legal system. I hate medicare but I'm willing to contribute to it rather than see those who can't afford medical treatment simply die of treatable illnesses. I'm nowhere near selfish enough to seriously begrudge contributing a bit of my income to help those in need. Yes, the system has its flaws like welfare leeches and healthcare but that doesn't mean it's worthless, and there's an obvious line between wealth redistribution and higher taxation for social welfare programs.
>>3448781
i personally feel any taxation above 60% of total income is unjust

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:39:20 2011 No.3448849

>Waaa why cant rich people pay for my shit

>Goddamn rich people, how dare they save up to buy expensive stuff.

If your really so concerned about poor kids not getting an education, make people having kids on welfare child-abuse and restrict the right to birth kids to the middle and upper classes.

Problem solved.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:45:20 2011 No.3448875

>>3448818
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there was some sort of law about public education disqualifying people from eligibility because they have too much money, I guess those kids in my public high school who drove porsches must have just worked really hard to be able to afford them.

But, seriously, if you don't understand the basic concept of a tax burden and why taking 10% of the $15k an unskilled laborer has to support a family of 4 on causes vastly more hardship to his life than taking 90% of the $10 million a wealthy executive earns you really are too immature or just stupid to have opinions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:46:20 2011 No.3448882 >anything provided by the state COMMUNISM >anything to that frees up poor people's money XBOX, WELFARE QUEENS God damn, you fuckwits are retarded.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:47:20 2011 No.3448887

wait what if we took the poor kids from their parents at age 5, and put them in year round schools where the governmention takes over as their parent? The kids also recieve spending money for luxuries once a week. They can learn to save up and get what they want or waste it on things like candy every week and come out poor like they deserve to be at 18.

No more welfare leeches and kids actually see the benefit of the tax dollars, and they make of it what they can.
Rich peoples kids are also allowed into this system.

Breaks to see your parents occur once every 3 months for a week.
Everyone is taxed equally to make this happen. 40% out of everyone.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:49:38 2011 No.3448897 >mfw I can now drop out of college, never get a job, and the rich will pay my way through life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 15:57:20 2011 No.3448939 >>3448887 No families, huh? I'm sure that will work well.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Jul 25 15:59:20 2011 No.3448946 >>3448887 I dont think so tim.avi I think parents have a right to their children. Also giving parents a few hundred bucks a month is a lot cheaper than founding and running a facility to raise the children at.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:05:20 2011 No.3448978 >>3448946 >is a lot cheaper than founding and running a facility to raise the children at. But they will raise their children to be just as stupid as they are.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Jul 25 16:17:20 2011 No.3449032 >>3448978 Thats their right.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:21:20 2011 No.3449044

>>3449032
>>3448978
Exactly.

The fundamental problem is the situation where you say "I know better than you do what is good for you and your children".

You may even be *right*. But adopting a system where some people in authority can override your freedom to choose does NOT have a good history. It is immediately and thoroughly abused, and ends in tragedy.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:23:20 2011 No.3449050

>>3449032
>>3448946
What if we only allowed one child per poor family.
Around middle class, people can have two, top 15% could have three.

That way poor people are breed out of existence the majority will always be getting a good education, and people will be improving with every generation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:27:20 2011 No.3449067 The solution is capitalism. Darwinism. Why remove a honed process which brought about the diversity of life?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:28:20 2011 No.3449070 guys I know how to fix the ECONOMY : chemically castrate all americans, 90% of all asians, 70% of all africans and south americans, and 60% of all europeans

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:29:20 2011 No.3449076 >>3449050 >Implying that will work. Just like in Iran back then,(before the revolution) the educated will get a higher unemployment rate than the non educated

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:36:20 2011 No.3449106

A lot of people think giving the poor rich mans money will work.
No it won't.Not in a market economy.
The stuff mainly the poor buy (relative) will just increase in price until it's stable again.
In the end it won't have any merit.

If you're going to use the rich mans money you should spend it on stuff like police,roads,and healthcare(for everybody or it will lose some of its merit)
Everybody should get the same benefit from it or it won't work/ partly work.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:38:20 2011 No.3449121 >>3449106 the point is not allow rich to increase prices idiot, rich MUST BE ALTRUIST

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:40:20 2011 No.3449126 >>3449121 And how will you force them to be? Also scarcity still exists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:42:20 2011 No.3449132 >>3449126 revolution ever heard of french revolution? it always end like this, cutting the wealth bastards' head

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:43:20 2011 No.3449141 >>3449132 So it's good to murder people simply because they have more brains/luck/success than the poor?

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Jul 25 16:44:20 2011 No.3449150

>>3449050

I know I pointed out the cost issue. But the real problem is morality. Its not right. If you could take these children and successfully make them all better people which result in betterness for the whole society, then it would be morally acceptable. But I have no confidence such a program could do that, and I dont believe any amount of civil engineering, or good intentions while be able to compensate that. Violating a family like that is supremely bad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:45:20 2011 No.3449154 File: 114 KB, 1263x1912, What Gasoline Really Costs Us.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Cut the gas subsidies, by even 10%, & the US economy would look rosy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:45:20 2011 No.3449159 >>3449067 this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:47:20 2011 No.3449167 >>3449141 at least arrest them

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:49:20 2011 No.3449184 >>3449167 You sound a bit jealous, it's bad when it reaches forms like this. Idiot.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:08:20 2011 No.3449309

>>3449150
>>3449150
It wouldn't really be taking anyones children, its just a one child per family policy, only it would make exceptions for richer people, educated people, people who's family members tend to live a long time, and high ranking government employes.
If someone did have a kid, they would be faced with fines.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:20:20 2011 No.3449379 Another inconclusive economics thread. Stay classy /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:25:20 2011 No.3449399 >>3449184 I would arrest all the greedy people if I could you must be a daddy kid

>>	Generic Mon Jul 25 17:44:20 2011 No.3449505 >>3449309 This is called "eugenics".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 17:48:20 2011 No.3449525 >>3449070 You don't need to castrate Europeans. They've consciously decided they want to go extinct

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:47:20 2011 No.3449862 >>3449141 So it's good taking advantage of your position at born and use it to create wage slaves that earn astronomically less than you but they also do all the work? God capitalism makes no sense.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Jul 25 18:48:20 2011 No.3449871

>>3449309

>It wouldn't really be taking anyones children, its just a one child per family policy

How can you say that in the same sentence? You are taking one child, per family, away from that family. Totally immoral and illegal.

>If someone did have a kid, they would be faced with fines.

Fines make sense when you need to discourage a bad behavior. I just dont think, having your children is something we should be discouraging.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:49:20 2011 No.3449873

>If you have a job, you get taxed 15% of what you make.
the middle class pays a lot more than that. we pay at least twice as much. 15% is how much capital gains get taxed. the rich and wealthy pay even less by dint of subsidies and loopholes.

astonishingly, 100% of the debt and social programs in the uk would be paid for IN FULL if the rich paid their fair share, without raising one penny of new taxes. in the us, taxes need to be raised back to clinton era levels and we need to eliminate tax loopholes. don't like that? move to uganda.

>If you don't have a job, you don't reciever benefits from the state. You don't get college aid, you don't get shit.
enjoy your growing pool of what we civilized folk call 'scum.' we provide opportunities so wayward souls don't end up destabilizing society or causing trouble. otherwise, the scum would still be taking from the rich but in the form of stealing and thuggery.

>Welfare is gotten rid of in favor of government jobs.
we don't have enough govt jobs to cover all the unemployed. also, what about those people who are useless or don't qualify? i'd much rather pay more people less money in the form of welfare than to have these shits clogging up our govt or private industries. i have enough respect for human dignity not to let these people die but i don't want them causing trouble or hindering progress.

>Kids/Minors are the only ones that should recieve benefits without having a job.
i guess you enjoy seeing old people die in the streets. then again, those probably wouldn't be streets you would ever dare to walk in.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:51:20 2011 No.3449882

>>3449379
>inconclusive
We've come to the conclusion that while marxism and it's offshoots have noble objectives they failed to properly define the causes in an unpredictable chaotic world where many different factors construe and rise and decrease in importance to affect the final outcome.

We have concluded that the faults of capitalism are actually the result of corruption and statism and the use of capitalism is merely a reflection of this.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:52:20 2011 No.3449888

>Then what?
spend it on restoring our infrastructure. fuck nafta. fuck globalism. if i don't get a vote in china or mexico, i damn well don't want them having a monopoly on resource harvesting or manufacturing.

>That won't fix the economy in a long shot, now what?
it'll be a step in the right direction. tax cuts are by and far on record the poorest performing economic stimulator. in fact, the benefit is so negligible that many economists contend that it doesn't exist. where we are on the laffer curve, raising taxes to build infrastructure would grow more wealth.

cutting funding to public programs in many states actually caused the PRIVATE market to shrink, because it turns out that people employed by the public sector have more money to spend than the same people without money or jobs.

>What are you going to cut?
tax cuts to the rich. tax loopholes for the rich. subsidies for the rich. if you believe in fair taxes then there is ZERO justification for this kind of pork. also, by this action alone you will generate an incredible amount of wealth for the state and in 10 years can completely eliminate the deficit and begin generating a surplus.
i'm more of a tax and spend liberal -which is still better than a spend and spend neocon.

>Military? cut it by 90 percent?
the military equals jobs and infrastructure. i would actually grow the military and combine it with welfare, employment assistance and child services. soldiers = cheap, commoditized, centralized labor.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:54:36 2011 No.3449897

>If so, where are you going to send all that extra money?
i want greater and better high tech, i want it to be ubiquitous and i want independence from other nations. this means subsidies for developing, selling and buying alternative energy and infrastructure.
society by and large doesn't benefit much from subsidies for yachts. however, we will benefit a lot from subsidies for valuable, reasonable tech that harvests a free resource and makes energy cheaper and more efficient.

>To the "poor"?
welfare consumes something like 3% of the total budget. that is 10% of the total 30% that is spent domestically. the budget is big so that's actually a big number but that's still not the 70-90% that neocons think it is. as a percentage of spending, welfare is very low.
also, social security has a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus and can keep making payments for over 30 additional years even if we do not add another penny to the program.
finally, i don't think any of us is suggesting that we take from the rich to help niggers get crunked up.

>why not claim another 20% of the poors income as well?
welfare pays less than you would imagine. those xboxes you speak of are 'hot' -that is, stolen. welfare is, however, sufficient to help people survive to the next day in hopes of better opportunities and not be delerious from hunger.

-also, poor people by definition cannot save money. they have no money to save. they have to spend every penny we give them and it actually ends up in the hands of manufacturers. ironically, welfare is actually a form of economic stimulus.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:57:20 2011 No.3449916

>And they refuse to share anythig with you?
refusing to share is different from having nothing to share.
i have no problem with giving to the elderly -especially not those who worked hard, tried their best and failed.
if the rich get a safety net for failure then so should the working class who also contribute to the economy.
it becomes even more defensible when the cost of that safety net is quite low as a percentage of generated wealth.

those who participate in the economy deserve some measure of common human dignity. otherwise there is disloyalty, dissent and social instability. the people will be champing at the bit for a chance to revolt. the slightest spark is all they need for the powderkeg to blow. and there you go, the poor destroying the rich and creating another dark ages, AGAIN.

there will always be scum. they are and always have been in the minority. you cannot logically presume that the majority is the minority unless you are trying to manipulate us -which it is now patently clear you most certainly are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:58:20 2011 No.3449920 itt; people don't understand that taxes are the costs that pay for you to live the way you live; if you are able to live lavishly, you (ethically) should pay more to maintain that lifestyle.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 18:59:20 2011 No.3449926

>Every kid should recieve a paycheck from the government tax dollars just for being under 18.

let me correct this.

>Every kid should recieve a paycheck from the govt FOR POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETY

feeding, clothing and educating the young is an investment. historically, it is also one of the most powerful instruments to grow the economy -as opposed to tax cuts which have such a negligible effect that it is debatable whether or not they have an effect beyond making the rich richer.

it turns out that if you're wealthy, you don't like to spend your money or risk your wealth. it turns out that's how a lot of wealthy people become rich, by saving money and spending PUBLIC money or using PUBLIC resources. go figure. they deserve to be rich to be so cunning but they deserve to pay their fair share back into the society that made them and supports them. if they don't like it, they can move.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:27:20 2011 No.3450067

>Becoming rich is the greatest motivation a man can have.
i never cease to be amazed by the limitations of the conservative mind.

if you truly believe this then you have no place being on sci. we are discoverers and creators. we provide for the world. even if we are not now discoverers and creators, that is what we hope to be. your imagination cannot match our own. what you can hope to create cannot match our dreams and wishes. you are inferior to us.

we serve the rich only when there is no alternative (oh look, the alternatives are being destroyed). we discover and plot and create for the good that it will do.

scum. no wonder you hate the poor. you think everyone is equally as useless and limited in imagination and ability as you! no wonder you care so much about acquiring wealth. it's the only thing your stupid little mind can perceive.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING ON SCI.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:30:20 2011 No.3450077

>Your idea to change the world will be put into practice by the people you hate.
DOUBTFUL. it was not the rich who innovated instruments of higher technology.

>Forget about that actually, by the time you are in your 30-40's altruism will fade off and all you will be thinking of is your monthly bank balance.
but of course. this is a result of eliminating the social safety net. suddenly, people stop spending money and save every dime they can. charity and speculative gambling plummet into nothingness. if there is no one to take care of the people, they will have to save to take care of themselves -even if a spend and spend neocon will simply steal the money or else deflate the value of these saved dollars until it takes 10,000 dollars to buy a loaf of bread.
and so opportunities vanish. progress diminishes. civilization stagnates and the rich congratulate themselves until the working people get so fed up that they smash this broken civilization.

captcha: rybrali regulatory

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 19:30:20 2011 No.3450078 >>3449897 Does it count if your retirement fund has $5M worth of IOUs written to yourself in it? You're going to have to keep working.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 23:43:20 2011 No.3451491 >>3450067 If you think think that /sci/posters must gollow the same political doctorine as you, you don't deserve to be on sci

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math