The best thing is to tax 50-80% on their 1% elites. Because it doesn't make sense that while the 1% either in america or in britain constantly increasing their owning or rather looting 50% of total national wealth their gross national budget is becoming more and more messy hence ballooning public debt beyond any comprehension.

---

Mandtugai!

Oh dear, that sure is a position to warm the cockles of the hearts of some folks who post over here.

I'm a 'moderate' -- I see the current rates in the US for the top income folks as being too low (and with capital gains and dividends taxed at 15%, VERY too low), but I don't see bouncing the rates to 80& or even 50$ as the way to go. Then again, I also don't have problems reverting the inheritance taxes back to the 'Pre-Bush' days either.

Of course the thing is, there are a large group of folks who see the *current* US taxes on the mega-rich as already too high. We call them Republicans in the US.

The best thing is to tax 50-80% on their 1% elites. Because it doesn't make sense that while the 1% either in america or in britain constantly increasing their owning or rather looting 50% of total national wealth their gross national budget is becoming more and more messy hence ballooning public debt beyond any comprehension.

Oh dear, that sure is a position to warm the cockles of the hearts of some folks who post over here.

I'm a 'moderate' -- I see the current rates in the US for the top income folks as being too low (and with capital gains and dividends taxed at 15%, VERY too low), but I don't see bouncing the rates to 80& or even 50$ as the way to go. Then again, I also don't have problems reverting the inheritance taxes back to the 'Pre-Bush' days either.

Of course the thing is, there are a large group of folks who see the *current* US taxes on the mega-rich as already too high. We call them Republicans in the US.

The best thing is to tax 50-80% on their 1% elites. Because it doesn't make sense that while the 1% either in america or in britain constantly increasing their owning or rather looting 50% of total national wealth their gross national budget is becoming more and more messy hence ballooning public debt beyond any comprehension.

Because both germany and japan have 80% tax practices here in there in their taxing system so japan able to hold 900 billion dollars of american debt and germany able to pull many kinds of strings in eu brain right now.

---

Mandtugai!

Orgil, perhaps, but then again, there are those who might look at the economic 'growth' in Japan over the past 20 years and think there must be a better way.

Of course tax policy is but one of the variables.

Likely the budget killer variable if used by wrong brains.

---

Mandtugai!

Of course the thing is, there are a large group of folks who see the *current* US taxes on the mega-rich as already too high. We call them Republicans in the US.

Barry, why should the mega-rich be taxed at a level higher than anyone else?
Taxing big earners at a higher level has never proved it's worth and never
will do. It's purely applied as a penal tax to keep the lesser mortals happy.
America was never built on the money grabbed via taxation. No America was
built by people who had vast amounts of excess money readily available to
be put to work investing in and building those once great industries you had.
Governments do not build the countries wealth via the money coming from taxation,
all they manage to do is remove the wealth this way. When allowed to run-amock
the government finally destroys the countries wealth totally.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

According to this CIA fair income distribution metrics america is in worst position from top 25 countries which proves that 1% there own more than 50% of nations wealth. That is why top 500 american billionares plus 3 million millionares live happily along with 1.5 million homeless hungry american children. Perhaps the most sophisticated injustice example.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

And Barry this measure proves that tax is the key variable in case of america.

---

Mandtugai!

According to this CIA fair income distribution metrics america is in worst position from top 25 countries which proves that 1% there own more than 50% of nations wealth. That is why top 500 american billionares plus 3 million millionares live happily along with 1.5 million homeless hungry american children.

And this is bad WHY?

---

According to this CIA fair income distribution metrics america is in worst position from top 25 countries which proves that 1% there own more than 50% of nations wealth. That is why top 500 american billionares plus 3 million millionares live happily along with 1.5 million homeless hungry american children. Perhaps the most sophisticated injustice example.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

And Barry this measure proves that tax is the key variable in case of america.

And this is bad WHY?

Because you ask that question.

---

Mandtugai!

Orgil, tax policy is *a* key variable for sure. As to the statistical table you pointed to, interesting, I always wondered why Namibia was home to so many billionaires..

As to Gary suggesting that 1.5 million American homeless children might not be a bad thing -- perhaps there is a variable sense of social consciousness being expressed here.

We see tax policy in action later today whith the Chancellor's speech.

I wonder if the MOD will get further feathers shaved, as some tax give aways are paid by more Departmental cuts?

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Because you ask that question.

So we agree that you aren't able to articulate a reason.

---

Gary, from your position, one might suggest that you see absolutely nothing troublesome with homeless hungry children in the US - perhaps you see it as a demonstration of (for you) a healthy distribution of wealth.

Because you ask that question.

So we agree that you aren't able to articulate a reason.

Because you ask that question.

So we agree that you aren't able to articulate a reason.

Gary, from your position, one might suggest that you see absolutely nothing troublesome with homeless hungry children in the US - perhaps you see it as a demonstration of (for you) a healthy distribution of wealth.

The distribution of wealth isn't the problem. The refusal to take responsibility for your own actions is. After all if you can blame someone else it makes life so much easier.

Let's try another subject, the epidemic of diabetes. Who is responsible? McDonald's because of their burgers, fries and sugar drinks? Or, is it the individual who eats it? Once the individual gets the diagnosis, they have to change their diet. No one else can do it for them. Personal responsibility, not some corporate monster.

Same thing with bringing too many babies into the world. It isn't a wealth problem.

The real issue is the failure of education to teach personal responsibility. It teaches cradle to grave government takes care of you. Sorry, life isn't like that and perhaps the school of hard knocks will finally get a clue by four and you will learn.

---

Indeed, when will those hungry homeless children learn to take responsibility for themselves.

There is an inclination on the left to blame the system for all ills, there is a matching inclination on the right to blame suffering individuals for all their ills. Like many situations, I think it is far more complicated than that and that an 'either/or interpretation seems more than a tad stupid.

The distribution of wealth isn't the problem. The refusal to take responsibility for your own actions is. After all if you can blame someone else it makes life so much easier.

The distribution of wealth isn't the problem. The refusal to take responsibility for your own actions is. After all if you can blame someone else it makes life so much easier.

Let's try another subject, the epidemic of diabetes. Who is responsible? McDonald's because of their burgers, fries and sugar drinks? Or, is it the individual who eats it? Once the individual gets the diagnosis, they have to change their diet. No one else can do it for them. Personal responsibility, not some corporate monster.

Same thing with bringing too many babies into the world. It isn't a wealth problem.

The real issue is the failure of education to teach personal responsibility. It teaches cradle to grave government takes care of you. Sorry, life isn't like that and perhaps the school of hard knocks will finally get a clue by four and you will learn.

Fixing education will not cost the poor anything, right? Wealth is a factor, very (perhaps a tad overly) simplistically, the greater an individual's personal wealth the greater their chances of having an adequate education. Likewise access to good information on diet.

What class teaches cradle to grave care by government?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

What class teaches cradle to grave care by government?

It usually masquerades under the name of social studies ...

---

Indeed, when will those hungry homeless children learn to take responsibility for themselves.

I do so love straw

There is an inclination on the left to blame the system for all ills, there is a matching inclination on the right to blame suffering individuals for all their ills. Like many situations, I think it is far more complicated than that and that an 'either/or interpretation seems more than a tad stupid.

Please explain how a large number seem able to not make decisions that put themselves into the bad position? Is it because their IQ is higher? Is it because they are more "fit to survive"? Is it because their education is somehow different?

You can give a man a fish or teach him how to fish. The problem isn't wealth, the problem is education. It is the greatest failure in America.

---

I see that you do love straw.

But to answer the real piece in your reply. In many cases indeed it is a failure of education -- our education system (like out health care system) is VERY inefficient (I'm not an advocate of the way union teachers or school boards or politicians or parents for that matter) deal with the responsibility of educating our youth.

Regarding straw men, in this thread, well I'd suggest you started it with what I suspect was a deliberate gauntlet of 'and why is that bad' - regarding hungry homeless children. I actually believe you have the capacity for a compassionate response but suppressed it for the safe of the dialectic.

One could, I suppose make the argument that the reason people are unemployed is because they are not working. Just as the reason people are poor is they don't have enough money. And the reason Republicans don't care is because they are Republicans. (tossed that last one in, you might have noticed -- to play within the dialectic goad for the sake of argument instead of discussion).

I do so love straw

Please explain how a large number seem able to not make decisions that put themselves into the bad position?

By the way, while sometimes that failure of education is 'on the student' for a lack of effort, bad attitude, etc., often enough it is a system and/or cultural failure that the student is saddled with. While blaming the individual is a simple solution, I'd not much of an advocate for blaming the victim. That sort of thing has tended to lose credence (we no longer presume a rape victim deserved it as an example).