Arm's Length Understanding: Economic Structures

[Chase]

The cool thing to do if you're an American millennial these days is to eat, sleep, hang out with your friends, and figure out how to apply the ideas of Karl Marx to American economics in order to topple the bourgeoisie and make the ground level for everyone.

I may be a millennial - but I am certainly a capitalist.

Background:

I make just above minimum wage as a government employee. I work for my city as a recreation leader and essentially get payed to peg your children with dodgeballs, help them with their homework, and give you the opportunity to work way more hours a day then I get to. My entire household works - one who also works for the government as a special education teacher, while another works the drive-thru line at Taco Bell.

While the teacher only gets paid once a month, the rec leader and the fast-food employee benefit from being white individuals, with the rec leader being a male. Both of those workers have a father who "occasionally" shows up in their lives to provide financial support. He works as a defense attorney and owns his own law practice.

I am - on average - 54% privileged. A number that can be considered higher than most despite having lived through divorce and having spent a majority of my life living paycheck-to-paycheck.

What's the point of this thread?:

The title of the thread starts with "Arm's Length Understanding" - meaning I am going to pick a few talking points the young "Democratic Socialist" crowd clamors over and "understand" where they are coming from using my background - and follow up by providing why I feel capitalism either -can- or -can't- address those concerns.

---

#FightFor15 - Living Wages Need Only Apply

Understanding:

Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to state that the minimum wage should be one the individual can LIVE on. There are many people in this country who work low-end jobs and are doing so with the aspirations of "living" and even "raising a family" on the mediocre wages they earn. In the capitalism economic structure, everything is centered on the notion of competition. Higher quality foods tend to be more expensive than processed foods. Medicine is a thing prices fluctuate on. Clothing is at it's cheapest like cars are at their cheapest - when someone else has already worn them. Essentially - there definitely is an issue with unchecked capitalism on the side of the impoverished and lower middle classes.

How to attack the minimum wage WITHOUT government interference:

A golden rule in fiscal responsibility is to "pay YOURSELF first." For some, the key word may be "yourself" - as people are almost trained to throw their paycheck at their bills, their utilities, or in the case of many people my age - the things that you want because you don't worry about paying bills in the first place. For others, the key word may be "first" as they genuinely ARE one of those people that are having to live on the minimum wage. It is never impossible to save money when following that rule. Even if we're talking about pennies and nickels, I promise you, it will add up later.

Verdict:

The minimum wage CAN afford to be raised - but it doesn't need to be a living wage and it definitely doesn't need to come with an economic system overhaul. As someone who falls pretty close to making that much, I understand that it's pretty tight - but the government isn't responsible for paying "everyone" - and it doesn't even need to pay me more.

Later on I'll cover other topics - but I don't have all day to put them in one post.

[Neo]

Wait wait wait. So, your solution to employers not paying the American worker adequate wages is for those workers to save more???

[laggless01]

Minimum wage means how much an employer has to pay...well, at minimum, regardless what or who the employer is.
Basically, it states that someone's time (lending their sevice) is worth at least a certain amount of money.

This shouldn't be mixed up with unemployment pay, in which case the government is paying you. But that's a bit of a different story.

As for how much is needed to live, one could argue that this means 'to live healthy and productive'. So, you would have to include housing, sustenance (foods etc.), health, education, the needs to actually apply for work (like transport) and a small buffer for safety*/a small amount of comfort (and perhaps some other factors which I forgot while typing this). So a minimum wage would mean that with the projected income on such wage for a model work week is satisfactory to meet those needs, based on the definition I stated at the beginning of this paragraph.
It's not very easy to get a decent estimate, especially if conditions vary wildly in the area legislated. (healthcare, income distribution, land price...)
So if you can live on a minimum wage, that doesn't mean everyone can (while that's the goal).

Simply put, I fail to understand the cohesion in your argument.

If you want to understand where the people you're take a stab on might get their idea of raising taxes for upper class to get money to sustain lower classes, you might want to research the role and workings of productivity as well as purchasing power.



*you want to keep people productive instead of worrying about a possible accident ruining their lives.

[Chase]

First of all - this is very clearly not a "shut the f**k up socialism" thread - it's an arm's length understanding thread - where I agree that "yes" there are problems, but that there may be more than one way to fix them and that the government isn't the only avenue for solution at times.

I am a capitalist because I believe that:

• Money you earn or inherent through legal means is yours and I have no business claiming you are obligated to give more than others.
• Competition if done correctly lowers prices for goods and services.
• Capitalism better rewards innovation and encourages employees to be creative and inventive.
• Fiscal responsibility - in part, Erick - is a personal way to help making ends meet and even help you have money left over after doing so.
• Workers should strive for promotion and stake their claims by working their way up the ladder as opposed to taking money from others.

I -personally- don't agree with Teddy Roosevelt. Minimum wage should be figures that adequately match the time and type of work given by the employee - and in my job as a recreation leader - I should NOT be making house payments, paying for my own healthcare and insurance and food and whatnot based on the type of work I am in and the hours I get. I don't work enough hours nor do I have to really give much of an effort to justify being able to make that kind of wage.

This is further driven home by the fact that entry level jobs are jobs kids use to get spending money as opposed to highly trained competition in a specific field. At the bottom level, employers are looking for something that makes employees different from the standard "Hi, I want money so I can take my girl out to dinner and impress her twice a month." as opposed to someone that has all the accolades or a stellar attitude or a fantastic work experience record.

Yes, unfortunately, there ARE people having to make ends meet in those positions, but I don't feel like my job playing Hoop-and-stick with your kids for three hours a school day should make all of my ends meet.

"Living wages" are earned by holding multiple entry-level positions or by holding a full time job. Once you meet those requirements the goal is to move up the payroll -and- save money when you can. At the individual level, this is absolutely feasible and opens more opportunities.

---

My solution to workers not paying you adequate wages is case-by-case. If the difference is egregious, you should be looking for another employer. If it isn't, then you can save and eliminate the deficit by being smart with your money. If you're a woman or part of a minority and you know you're being shafted, look for a competing business in the same field and apply while still on the job that you know will care about fixing the wage gap.

Not all employers are opportunists.

[NickCrash]

"Living wages" are earned by holding multiple entry-level positions or by holding a full time job. Once you meet those requirements the goal is to move up the payroll -and- save money when you can. At the individual level, this is absolutely feasible and opens more opportunities.

This statement pretty much states the whole idea of capitalism and the reason it's a working system. Entry-level jobs are mostly aimed at students and bachelors who have just entered the market, thus the pay won't be high enough to cover a luxurious life, but should be high enough to make basic ends meet. Since most entry-level jobs have limited hours of work, they pay accordingly, and the person has the ability to search for other sources of income (no prostitution please).

The case this system fails, is during an economic crisis, because there are no jobs for people to start with. Bills pile up, and people either don't find something in their field to work in, or anything at all. That is where the socialist part should come in, in the form of already established work positions provided by the state, in which the student works for minimum wage, to get experience and get started. Otherwise, you are pretty much asked to endure, and grasp the first opportunity that appears, but usually that's more or less a form of exploitation as employers are well aware of the current state of the market. Thus people struggle to make ends meet. I believe that is where many people (and that's not restricted to the limited knowledge of 15-year-olds, mind you) tend to lean towards a more social approach to things, that works in parallel with wellfare, but provides a form of support for the beginning of your working life, or its continuation in case it was abruptly put to a halt for various reasons.

I may be going a bit off topic but I believe it's worth mentioning that in some countries students are given the opportunity to work alongside their professors during the semester or during summer, with a minimum payroll, and lots of work experience. For my future profession, that's also considered an entry-level job, which speeds up the process of climbing up that salary ladder. If we overlook that those positions are usually limited, that the pay is low since there is little competition, and that depending on who you work under you might be treated like trash (totally not from personal experience, dr. Vlachos you #@!#$), this is basically a socialistic approach in a neo-liberal fiscal system, which aparently does its job. Saving will be my only resource for the time being, but instead of being basically another student working part-time to make ends meet (and for the Americans to also pay their tuition or student loans), I get working faster, because the state makes tertiary actions and does not only look at what it has to gain short-term.

This brings me to a main point I'm a bit confused by your statements, since it seems that you mix socialism and communism a bit there. Hard as it may be to implement one system or another into an already semi-functional fiscal capitalistic frame, a system that works as a "pendulum" fixes the problems that capitalism creates by searching for the maximum profit at all times. Supporting the youth and assisting the less privileged is an investment for future economic progress, since its absense only hinders the individuals' progress in their respective career path, since they devote much of their time in working, which in turn may lead to a sacrifice of quality for quantity, since two jobs just mean twice the money, since both mean minimum wage. Usually such jobs don't have opportunities to rise up to higher positions, because they are either fully depended on their employer's mood, or state dependent which frequently has a lot of paperwork and wait before you manage to climb up the ladder. Instead, I believe that a system that supports those who begin their career improves the economy in general, without directly taking money from the upper echelons of power, even though they might be burdened with a minor tax for this system to work efficiently.

We could delve into ways to change the "pure" capitalistic system into something more socialistic or "poor-friendly" (as I've also seen it be called), but that would take the topic towards a very different path. If there is a single sentense I want to emphasize on is that "Minimum wage should be defined as the amount of money that provides the individual the ability to pay their bills, take care of their own expenses and have some recreation in their lives"

[Rot8er_ConeX]

I somewhat agree with you on the fact that, if you're working three hours a work day - approximately 15 hours a week - you shouldn't be making enough to make ends meet. That is a fully acceptable viewpoint. Most of the "teenagers looking for spending cash" that you describe, aren't working full time.

The problem is that without raising the minimum wage, people who work full time - and a lot of the time, work OVERTIME - at minimum wage jobs - not all of which are entry-level - have to struggle. I don't care about people who have families who are on minimum wage. I'm talking about people who live by themselves, work minimum wage, and still have to be on food stamps or other government assistance in order to feed themselves.

We look down on welfare recipients because they supposedly don't work jobs. The truth of the matter is that a lot of them do have jobs, the jobs just don't pay enough.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Rot8er_ConeX

[laggless01]

First of all - this is very clearly not a "shut the f**k up socialism" thread - it's an arm's length understanding thread - where I agree that "yes" there are problems, but that there may be more than one way to fix them and that the government isn't the only avenue for solution at times.

I am a capitalist because I believe that:

• Money you earn or inherent through legal means is yours and I have no business claiming you are obligated to give more than others.
• Competition if done correctly lowers prices for goods and services.
• Capitalism better rewards innovation and encourages employees to be creative and inventive.
• Fiscal responsibility - in part, Erick - is a personal way to help making ends meet and even help you have money left over after doing so.
• Workers should strive for promotion and stake their claims by working their way up the ladder as opposed to taking money from others.

I -personally- don't agree with Teddy Roosevelt. Minimum wage should be figures that adequately match the time and type of work given by the employee - and in my job as a recreation leader - I should NOT be making house payments, paying for my own healthcare and insurance and food and whatnot based on the type of work I am in and the hours I get. I don't work enough hours nor do I have to really give much of an effort to justify being able to make that kind of wage.

This is further driven home by the fact that entry level jobs are jobs kids use to get spending money as opposed to highly trained competition in a specific field. At the bottom level, employers are looking for something that makes employees different from the standard "Hi, I want money so I can take my girl out to dinner and impress her twice a month." as opposed to someone that has all the accolades or a stellar attitude or a fantastic work experience record.

Yes, unfortunately, there ARE people having to make ends meet in those positions, but I don't feel like my job playing Hoop-and-stick with your kids for three hours a school day should make all of my ends meet.

"Living wages" are earned by holding multiple entry-level positions or by holding a full time job. Once you meet those requirements the goal is to move up the payroll -and- save money when you can. At the individual level, this is absolutely feasible and opens more opportunities.

---

My solution to workers not paying you adequate wages is case-by-case. If the difference is egregious, you should be looking for another employer. If it isn't, then you can save and eliminate the deficit by being smart with your money. If you're a woman or part of a minority and you know you're being shafted, look for a competing business in the same field and apply while still on the job that you know will care about fixing the wage gap.

Not all employers are opportunists.

Point is understood, just be a bit more careful with word uses. You might accidentally sound a bit aggressive otherwise, even though your intentions are noble.

Well, taxes are percentage-based, so in absolute terms, you are demanded to pay more depending on your income (and capital, but idk if that's the same in the US). But indeed, if you earned that money fairly, you have the right to use it as you want (within legal boundaries).
The problem becomes twofold when it comes to inheritance and income. First, inheritance makes it possible for people to get massive arbitrary advantages to the point that some people hardly have to contribute anything to society, while sitting on an egregious amount of money. I don't say one should abolish it, but a close eye has to be held to it, so the difference doesn't become too unfair.
The second part is that an economy depends on the amount of money circulating in it. So technically it's bad for an economy if lots of money are being sat on, because it lowers the amount of money flowing around.
If you make/have so much money that you don't spend most of it, that's not very good for the economy, and those liquid assets could be better used elsewhere.

I do agree that competition lowers prices, no point in arguing over that

About innovation, in theory it could reward innovation, but with the current patent system, it mainly stagnates it. It's a topic on its own, with a central role for Disney

I give the average person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to fiscal responsibility. But when fallacies in the legal system screw you over, for some people it means a vicious cycle of misery just because they're poor. As an American, I think you are wel aware of the many people hefted by the housing market bubble, credit companies, or those who spend years in jail for crimes hardly worth that (especially those who got incarcerated in the 'tough on crime'-age, while sentences for their crimes have drastically lowered).

Even if people are ambitious, some people are hardly capable of 'climbing the ladder', for example those with handicaps. No-one is talking about taking money from others, we think that people should be properly compensated for their work. The only government interference is in making sure employers are held to that they pay at least minimum wage.

In our country, we have something called job students (age around 15-24, still in school/college), which are treated differently than actual employees (for example, they have a maximum hours of work in a year). It would be rather ridiculous to demand minimum wage for them, and that's not what we demand.

The thing about seeking jobs is that it's also based on supply-demand. Even if you have a bad job, the fear of not being able to get another job keeps a lot of people from seeking others, especially in crisis.

A lot of the socialistic propositions are to level the playing field in a fair manner, by providing people with the tools to build themselves a better future equitiously*. It is also to make sure wealth inequality doesn't get out of control, which in turn is bad for the economy.

On a side note, I think you will like the 'adam ruins everything'-episodes concerning work, those things also apply here in Europe.

*please tell me if that's a correctly spelled word...

[Chase]

All the Poor and Powerless: Tackling the Problem with Poverty and Living Difficulties

Some of you have brought up the positions of workers with disabilities and single residents working on the minimum wage line full or overtime. This is a good segue into another issue, and I appreciate you guys for taking initiative.

Understanding:

While I do believe this is cherry-picking from several socialists are clamoring for graduated percentage-based taxation of wealthier people to cover a completely separate group of people - I can definitely understand where it becomes hard for those who fall near or below the poverty line and are working at the very least some equivalent of full-time. If you have a disability it's very likely your job pool becomes limited and that you do get stuck at the bottom due to limited ability. If you're working on the thin-ice of an entry-level position 40 hours a week you are probably unable to take too much more hours.

Disconnect:

Over the last five years much progress has been made on fair wages for those with disabilities in the United States and it's one of the issues that is actually remarkably bi-partisan. Fair work deserves equal pay, disabled or otherwise. It's gotten to the point where it's somewhat made additional funding from the government arbitrary and where the recipient has to list goods and services needed to treat or maintain their health in order to receive it. I would think - then - that it's equally possible for a disabled person to be fiscally responsible and help themselves at that point. I don't disagree with helping out those that need help in order to do their jobs (an earlier workers with disabilities act states that discrimination due to disability is prohibited and that the employer is responsible for accommodating disabled workers - that same act provides protection from discrimination after the hiring process - including promotions, meaning it's possible for the disabled to be overachieving and ambitious.) - For those without disabilities - the same holds true. You have to pay yourself first and be disciplined or anything that you are fighting for is counter-intuitive and selfish with regards to making more and leveling the field.

Here's why - if you're getting help from SNAPS or Stamps or TANF or what-have-you, there's a high likelihood your burden is much lower than that of someone who doesn't receive government assistance and therefore instead of being irresponsible with the money you have from the job that is being held for recreational use - you can save and eventually wean yourself off of those programs - even if you don't get promoted or rewarded a raise. You can't argue for yourself if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck but are not having to actually pay your mortgage or your utilities or for your groceries.

I'm not saying that being on welfare is a bad thing. It's being on welfare and not pulling yourself out of it to the point where you become dependent on it for extended amounts of time that it gets out of control.

Verdict:

This is where socialist ideas can be implemented into the model - and have been already. Providing medical assistance or aid for those who truly are unable to work is fine. Providing assistance to those who hold jobs or who are looking for jobs momentarily until living situations improve is fine. Living on welfare comfortably - in any case other than complete inability to work - is not fine. If it was, that's what I would want to do when I grow up - assuming the government learns how to be fiscally responsible on my behalf. As you can all probably see - that's not reality. There's not a need to increase spending in many of those areas wide-scale in my opinion - but that doesn't make a wish to do so misguided.

---

• Nick, I disagree with you on what the minimum wage should be, because the cost of living and covering expenses varies from person-to-person and family-to-family. There's too many variables in play for the minimum wage to be consistently the minimum required to live and therefore the minimum wage would depend on the financial aspects of the working person's portfolio. That is a back-breaker for small business owners and people that are trying to pay people for hours worked and quality of said work already. If I can't ask the government to do that for me, my friend who works at a family owned donut shop in town can't ask that family for that kind of wage.
• I don't think that's a word, Laggless, but I only confided with Google to verify.
• I don't look down on welfare recipients unless they are living quite well without having to even try to obtain a job and are able to work one. Especially if they are being fiscally negligent.
• I'll check out Adam Ruins Everything.

[laggless01]

All the Poor and Powerless: Tackling the Problem with Poverty and Living Difficulties

Some of you have brought up the positions of workers with disabilities and single residents working on the minimum wage line full or overtime. This is a good segue into another issue, and I appreciate you guys for taking initiative.

Understanding:

While I do believe this is cherry-picking from several socialists are clamoring for graduated percentage-based taxation of wealthier people to cover a completely separate group of people - I can definitely understand where it becomes hard for those who fall near or below the poverty line and are working at the very least some equivalent of full-time. If you have a disability it's very likely your job pool becomes limited and that you do get stuck at the bottom due to limited ability. If you're working on the thin-ice of an entry-level position 40 hours a week you are probably unable to take too much more hours.

Disconnect:

Over the last five years much progress has been made on fair wages for those with disabilities in the United States and it's one of the issues that is actually remarkably bi-partisan. Fair work deserves equal pay, disabled or otherwise. It's gotten to the point where it's somewhat made additional funding from the government arbitrary and where the recipient has to list goods and services needed to treat or maintain their health in order to receive it. I would think - then - that it's equally possible for a disabled person to be fiscally responsible and help themselves at that point. I don't disagree with helping out those that need help in order to do their jobs (an earlier workers with disabilities act states that discrimination due to disability is prohibited and that the employer is responsible for accommodating disabled workers - that same act provides protection from discrimination after the hiring process - including promotions, meaning it's possible for the disabled to be overachieving and ambitious.) - For those without disabilities - the same holds true. You have to pay yourself first and be disciplined or anything that you are fighting for is counter-intuitive and selfish with regards to making more and leveling the field.

Here's why - if you're getting help from SNAPS or Stamps or TANF or what-have-you, there's a high likelihood your burden is much lower than that of someone who doesn't receive government assistance and therefore instead of being irresponsible with the money you have from the job that is being held for recreational use - you can save and eventually wean yourself off of those programs - even if you don't get promoted or rewarded a raise. You can't argue for yourself if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck but are not having to actually pay your mortgage or your utilities or for your groceries.

I'm not saying that being on welfare is a bad thing. It's being on welfare and not pulling yourself out of it to the point where you become dependent on it for extended amounts of time that it gets out of control.

Verdict:

This is where socialist ideas can be implemented into the model - and have been already. Providing medical assistance or aid for those who truly are unable to work is fine. Providing assistance to those who hold jobs or who are looking for jobs momentarily until living situations improve is fine. Living on welfare comfortably - in any case other than complete inability to work - is not fine. If it was, that's what I would want to do when I grow up - assuming the government learns how to be fiscally responsible on my behalf. As you can all probably see - that's not reality. There's not a need to increase spending in many of those areas wide-scale in my opinion - but that doesn't make a wish to do so misguided.

---

• Nick, I disagree with you on what the minimum wage should be, because the cost of living and covering expenses varies from person-to-person and family-to-family. There's too many variables in play for the minimum wage to be consistently the minimum required to live and therefore the minimum wage would depend on the financial aspects of the working person's portfolio. That is a back-breaker for small business owners and people that are trying to pay people for hours worked and quality of said work already. If I can't ask the government to do that for me, my friend who works at a family owned donut shop in town can't ask that family for that kind of wage.
• I don't think that's a word, Laggless, but I only confided with Google to verify.
• I don't look down on welfare recipients unless they are living quite well without having to even try to obtain a job and are able to work one. Especially if they are being fiscally negligent.
• I'll check out Adam Ruins Everything.

Well, I guess 'by equity' is called otherwise. Damn.

I didn't cover inequal payment of disabled workers, so it's good you brought that up. What I did try to convey is that some people can't hold better jobs than those entry-level ones due to that very disability. It's hard for someone with Down Syndrome to climb the ladder (if said person can function on its own), for example. (I know that such people are rare, but it's only one possibility out of many.)
Hammering on that people need to be fiscally responsable misses the point, since most people are. People can be systematically, continuously screwed over just by bad luck in the current system, regardless of how responsible they are.
If you have to pay thousands of dollars for cancer treatment (because healthcare in the US is pretty messed up), your car gets stolen, hell you could be screwed over by a cop abusing Civil Forfeiture...it is discomforting how few people can actually recover from such a fiscal setback.
For elaboration, You might want to check out John Oliver's episodes on bail and predatory lending (payday loans). I understand he probably has different views on how to handle things, but he brings up good points regarding how poor people get screwed over just for being poor. (And a special mention to army veterans...)

(bail)

(predatory lending)

(civil forfeiture)

By mentioning that people with access to stamps etc. probably have less burden than those who don't, you merely move the issue to those who don't get such assistance. It only suggests those services aren't distributed properly, possibly due to systemic failures.
Also, for such services to work properly, they have to be gradually withdrawn by increasing income, so people actually are incentivised to work better paying jobs (otherwise it is possibly worse for them to do so). I might be wrong, but I think the system in your country is gradual.

Whether people can live on welfare simply depends on how well the system is constructed. In my country, it is a bit bogged as well due to flaws in the system. (we used to have family members living on it, fyi. We didn't really get along well.) To properly design it, you have to make sure the incentive lies on seeking employment and holding a job. For example, often most/all welfare benefits drop if you do get a job, making remaining unemployed more favourable.
If you keep in mind that some of such people will remain anyway, the question is what you dislike the least: some people living on the backs on society, or some people living in inhumane conditions, possibly also dooming their offspring to such lives (because (extreme) poverty has some serious physical and mental effects). I live in Europe, and even here we have an (in my eyes) serious amount of people living in such conditions, I can't imagine how many would be affected if there was less access to welfare.

Now, I like to give some of the fiscal advantages of distributing welfare.
By insuring a basic income on which people can properly live on, said people will live healthier and be more educated (assuming a decently working system). By that, not only will people actually be more capable to acquire higher-paying jobs or start businesses on their own (which is good for the economy), said healthier lifestyle also reduces costs in the medical department on the scale of the government.
Added to that, not having to worry about being screwed over by chance increases productivity (and happiness), which is also a boon for the economy (and their salary).

[Chase]

In America, welfare ranges from supplementary and encourages work to being something that is comfortably reliable for a single mother to add on top of her paycheck. For example, I know someone who is a real estate agent by day, stripper by night, and somehow still qualifies for stamps - and takes advantage of them freely.

They use the stamps religiously - but for complete junk food. Late night sweet-tooth instances and dessert are 90 percent of the resources that family uses government assistance for.

Money on the other hand is used on going out to eat to luxury items. The woman spends every weekend in Austin at the spa and drives an Escalade and always has the newest cell phone model.

If you ask me - that's living on government assistance comfortably. There are people who are JUST a real estate agent that struggle to get by and support their families alone without making extra at night or even having assistance in the first place - but they manage.

---

There are some states in America where welfare is distributed to families in the equivalency of someone holding a full time job - not counting the benefits of being a recipient (such as no mortgage or food figures) - so I would argue that the system is very inconsistent in the States and that while yes - the 1 percent at the top probably theoretically and probably literally "could" pay more - people probably literally "could" afford to borrow less at the same time.

I don't get this idea of how the rich needs to pay more taxes than I do simply because they have the money to do so. If I'm paying taxes, and they are paying taxes, then it should be satisfactory enough.

On the topic of sitting on money, the onus is on businesses to provide something worth spending the money on - not the one who doesn't want to waste their money.

[laggless01]

In America, welfare ranges from supplementary and encourages work to being something that is comfortably reliable for a single mother to add on top of her paycheck. For example, I know someone who is a real estate agent by day, stripper by night, and somehow still qualifies for stamps - and takes advantage of them freely.

They use the stamps religiously - but for complete junk food. Late night sweet-tooth instances and dessert are 90 percent of the resources that family uses government assistance for.

Money on the other hand is used on going out to eat to luxury items. The woman spends every weekend in Austin at the spa and drives an Escalade and always has the newest cell phone model.

If you ask me - that's living on government assistance comfortably. There are people who are JUST a real estate agent that struggle to get by and support their families alone without making extra at night or even having assistance in the first place - but they manage.

---

There are some states in America where welfare is distributed to families in the equivalency of someone holding a full time job - not counting the benefits of being a recipient (such as no mortgage or food figures) - so I would argue that the system is very inconsistent in the States and that while yes - the 1 percent at the top probably theoretically and probably literally "could" pay more - people probably literally "could" afford to borrow less at the same time.

I don't get this idea of how the rich needs to pay more taxes than I do simply because they have the money to do so. If I'm paying taxes, and they are paying taxes, then it should be satisfactory enough.

On the topic of sitting on money, the onus is on businesses to provide something worth spending the money on - not the one who doesn't want to waste their money.

That is indeed unfair, I'm not arguing that. You'll always have some people being able to abuse any system (without becoming a complete police state), while on the other hand many don't manage at all (hence for example that so many people are affected by predatory lending), though. Bringing up one example isn't satisfactory to state a point.
That example in particular could be solved by minor tweaks in the system of food stamps, I believe, too.

Consistency is quite important to have an effective service, indeed, so that more people are reached who actually need it.

If you don't understand why richer people have to pay more taxes, try to think the other way around, and ask why poorer people have to pay less. I think that'll make it easier to understand.
For one, you can argue that it comes down to the Matthew-effect (that's how it's called in our country): money generates money. If you have a lot of money, it's much easier to make even more of it than when you have less of it to begin with. (thinking about underlying reasons might give you a better understanding of it)
As consequence, this generates an increasing wealth disparity, lowering the mean wealth over time.
This is bad because richer people spend less of their money than poorer people percentage-wise (one reason is because they simply don't have to, someties they hardly can). By that, less money is spent in the economy over time, which makes it smaller (if given a static amount of money in the economy. If you take increasing total money into account, you can state that economic growth gets stunted by wealth disparity.)
Setting up a business requires investments, so a certain capital is always required (by lending or possession) to create one. The costlier the goods/services distributed, the more investment is required (most of the time). You can't reasonably demand from a lower-class-inhabitant to be able to set up a service that attracts millions of dollars from high-class citizens, we aren't all Andrew Carnegie (or often even a middle-class, for that matter).
Surely, you need a certain amount of wealth disparity to encourage productivity. If I'm correct, though, this decrease in growth has been found in studies (although global economy is very complex, so it's hard to find such trends, and I can't recall the source, sadly). I found an article, though, but one has to go through the original sources to assure it as fact.. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-wealth-gap-is-damaging-the-u-s-economy/

[Chase]

I don't believe the opposite either. Poor people are still citizens and are thus required to pay taxes as rich people are. Especially if the government isn't going to hold itself fiscally responsible, then everyone needs to have skin in the game.

I -personally- am a supporter of a fixed - or flat - income tax that is doable by most families around the poverty line but doesn't punish other Americans who happen to be better off with regards to the family coffers.

• government gets paid
• the poor are able to afford the loss
• the rich aren't expected to overcompensate simply because they have the resources to do so.

Everyone survives.

I'm no economist - but it would seem that poor people spend more than rich people because the amount of wealth is vastly different in either case, causing an illusion of inequity when it comes to spending specifically. The lower the figures, the larger the expenditure numbers seem to be and the less left over at the end of the day. The higher the figures, the smaller the expenditure numbers seem (even if the rich are paying the exact same amount!) and the bigger the safety net.

On the contrary, YOU can't assume that lower class citizens are incapable of investing just because more time and assistance from others would be required. Why would anyone start with "millions of dollars" as a goal if they've never seen that kind of money in their lives? Hundreds of dollars on the other hand, is totally possible with a little hard work, budgeting and fiscal discipline. Then you start talking to investors that are partial to your network and think thousands.

Millions is a lofty first goal for most people, yes. However, milestones under that are completely feasible and are probably more likely to be earned if you tried to do so instead of waste time picketing the government to give everyone the same wages despite having different jobs or provide free services and goods for you.

Starting a business is a process for anyone - rich or poor.

You know what would help rich people pay more for things? Taxes on consumption that apply to everyone. This idea hurts those that can't afford to be a consumer, but at least the rich are paying money and they aren't being unfairly expected to do so.

Edit: if this comes off as hostile, Laggless - it's in reaction to being accused of only using one example (when I also included another one) and trying to use one example as to why the welfare system doesn't need increased funding. I talked about my real estate agent friend -and- states where people are being given essentially the same amount as minimum wage workers - for no effort - with extra benefits that those who make minimum wage and live completely off of it don't have.

I've done a little more homework than you'd think, friend.

[laggless01]

I don't believe the opposite either. Poor people are still citizens and are thus required to pay taxes as rich people are. Especially if the government isn't going to hold itself fiscally responsible, then everyone needs to have skin in the game.

I -personally- am a supporter of a fixed - or flat - income tax that is doable by most families around the poverty line but doesn't punish other Americans who happen to be better off with regards to the family coffers.

• government gets paid
• the poor are able to afford the loss
• the rich aren't expected to overcompensate simply because they have the resources to do so.

Everyone survives.

I'm no economist - but it would seem that poor people spend more than rich people because the amount of wealth is vastly different in either case, causing an illusion of inequity when it comes to spending specifically. The lower the figures, the larger the expenditure numbers seem to be and the less left over at the end of the day. The higher the figures, the smaller the expenditure numbers seem (even if the rich are paying the exact same amount!) and the bigger the safety net.

On the contrary, YOU can't assume that lower class citizens are incapable of investing just because more time and assistance from others would be required. Why would anyone start with "millions of dollars" as a goal if they've never seen that kind of money in their lives? Hundreds of dollars on the other hand, is totally possible with a little hard work, budgeting and fiscal discipline. Then you start talking to investors that are partial to your network and think thousands.

Millions is a lofty first goal for most people, yes. However, milestones under that are completely feasible and are probably more likely to be earned if you tried to do so instead of waste time picketing the government to give everyone the same wages despite having different jobs or provide free services and goods for you.

Starting a business is a process for anyone - rich or poor.

You know what would help rich people pay more for things? Taxes on consumption that apply to everyone. This idea hurts those that can't afford to be a consumer, but at least the rich are paying money and they aren't being unfairly expected to do so.

Edit: if this comes off as hostile, Laggless - it's in reaction to being accused of only using one example (when I also included another one) and trying to use one example as to why the welfare system doesn't need increased funding. I talked about my real estate agent friend -and- states where people are being given essentially the same amount as minimum wage workers - for no effort - with extra benefits that those who make minimum wage and live completely off of it don't have.

I've done a little more homework than you'd think, friend.

I might not have stated clearly what I meant with 'one argument'. It was meant to apply only on your argument of 'living comfortably on government assistance', not on the one about inefficiet workings of those services. My apologies for that.

It seems logical at first that differences would be proportional to the money acquired. That's not what happens in practice, however.
Having more money increases your gains even in relative terms, that's why most of the economic growth happens in the upper class, while lower- and middle-classes grow less (or even stagnate/shrink when the economy falters). You can verify that.
You can save up all you want, but after paying debts etc, you'll have less money to spend on goods that produce wealth, rather than consumable goods that don't create wealth, than someone with a bigger capital. As of that, taxing on consumption disproportionally hurts lower-class citizens while hardly affecting upper-class ones.

Add to that that capital accumulates over generations through inheritance. If I'm correct, if you compare inherited money to the income over all citizens (a relative term), it shows a clear (and enormous) shift towards the upper class, even when taxation on it is applied.

My fingers couldn't follow my head, so something went missing in my previous post. The millions there have to been in context of providing a service that serves upper-class citizens primarily, since you stated it is on businesses to create services that people consume. So, only those who can afford such investments can create a service that provides specifically to said class. It's not that poor people can't invest, but that they are less (likely) able to, and their investments net lower relative returns.

[Chase]

All the same, there are many more businesses and business owners than their are people living among the top of the food chain - if numbers of active economic people matter, why are we focusing on the 1% other than "gee, because they happen to have money so they should be a doll and cover the rest of us."

Upper-class citizens are people too. They will still need to spend money - and because they have money they -should- have more opportunities to spend it. Because they have money, they will have to spend a lot more to make it look like they are actually contributing as much as lower class citizens are - however, a lot more DOESN'T equal as much in actuality. You can't look at a rich person and say "okay, you spend 10,000 dollars and my poor friend here will spend 10 dollars and that means you both contributed the same amount to the country's economic machine."

I can understand the facts behind bigger businesses being able to contribute more. That also is sensible because it then becomes a NYSE level of investing and buying and selling and market predicting that generates a considerably large amount of the country's wealth. That being said, a majority of the businesses in the United States are indeed "small businesses" and they too have a role to play in economic growth - requiring a lot more people to put in the work and buy and sell and be active in the process. Small businesses are also the leading providers of job creation and end up crippled by liberal economic policies due to regulations such as mandatory healthcare provision or having to hire based on affirmative action and representation as opposed to work ability - then having to pay someone equally evenly, again having to disregard work effort and ethic.

of course the mega-rich have higher inheritance rates than everyone else - that is literally generations of hard work and sound fiscal responsibility at work!

...better tax the hell out of those guys - they're too smart for everyone else.

[laggless01]

All the same, there are many more businesses and business owners than their are people living among the top of the food chain - if numbers of active economic people matter, why are we focusing on the 1% other than "gee, because they happen to have money so they should be a doll and cover the rest of us."

Upper-class citizens are people too. They will still need to spend money - and because they have money they -should- have more opportunities to spend it. Because they have money, they will have to spend a lot more to make it look like they are actually contributing as much as lower class citizens are - however, a lot more DOESN'T equal as much in actuality. You can't look at a rich person and say "okay, you spend 10,000 dollars and my poor friend here will spend 10 dollars and that means you both contributed the same amount to the country's economic machine."

I can understand the facts behind bigger businesses being able to contribute more. That also is sensible because it then becomes a NYSE level of investing and buying and selling and market predicting that generates a considerably large amount of the country's wealth. That being said, a majority of the businesses in the United States are indeed "small businesses" and they too have a role to play in economic growth - requiring a lot more people to put in the work and buy and sell and be active in the process. Small businesses are also the leading providers of job creation and end up crippled by liberal economic policies due to regulations such as mandatory healthcare provision or having to hire based on affirmative action and representation as opposed to work ability - then having to pay someone equally evenly, again having to disregard work effort and ethic.

of course the mega-rich have higher inheritance rates than everyone else - that is literally generations of hard work and sound fiscal responsibility at work!

...better tax the hell out of those guys - they're too smart for everyone else.

That one percent owns over a third of the total wealth in your country, and it's increasing even further. And as I said earlier, upper-class people relatively need to spend less money on consumable goods, so they have more money left to spend in goods that actually make money. You could compare it to a game of Monopoly, if you're familiar playing it. The things that make it so frustrating and unpleasant to play are the things that are the foundation to some of my most critical arguments.

Yes, the middle and lower class possess the most businesses in quantity, that's the point. They scoop up much less of the economic growth than the upper class, that's what's the problem. Part of the legislation proposed by us it that the former gets better support while withdrawing more from the latter, so growth gets spread more equally. I live in West-Europe, and we have a much stronger middle class thanks to our social policies (even though it is shrinking like everywhere else).

Additionally, most revenue richer people receive goes into their wealth, which stifles economic growth. Just because you have more money, that doesn't mean you'll spend relatively as much of it than when you had less.
To your argument about the 10-10000 dollars: It does indeed seem weird if you put it like that. Although, if the poor person only makes eleven dollars, and spends ten, they are contributing more of their income to the economy than a person that spends 10k while making 20k. That is a more complete example of what happens in reality (just multiply with 1000 and voila).
A more detailed example you can find here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/04/better-economic-growth-when-wealth-distributed-to-poor-instead-of-rich

Although it does happen that somethimes harder/better work nets better results, often aquiring more wealth is done simply by holding on to aquired/inherited goods. Having a decent amount of stock in EA, for example, will net you millions no matter how big of an idiot/sloth you are.
Not to mention the effect of monopolies, patent (abuse) and lobbying, which are near impossible to get (at least with patents, one that nets you a decent profit) when you're middle-class or lower. Having a big capital advantage gives you agency to bypass competition and legislation, which I think you agree on is vital for keeping an economy working.

If you want one of the most blatant examples of this, I can direct you to something that directly affects you: your internet connection. Tell me, which company provides you service? (Assuming you can't have Google Fiber,) Aren't you dissatisfied that you have no other options? Well, there's a reason for that. (see spoiler)

skip to 7:18, although the stuff before is also quite interesting.

It requires none to little 'hard work' or 'fiscal responsibility' to maintain such a cash cow, just holding on to it and pushing some money in Washington is pretty much enough to fix that increasing income revenue for a very, very long time (that is, you have to be really, stupendously unlucky to lose it).


P.S. Idk what NYSE means. If you use such abbreviations, it would be very helpful and kind to clarify them.

[Chase]

NYSE - New York Stock Exchange.

---

I would have to disagree with Monopoly being a frustrating game at all in my experience, so I'm afraid I can't say I am seeing eye-to-eye with you on this one. Help me out here - what's unnerving about Monopoly?

---

Starting from the bottom, you mention "pushing money to Washington".

Unless you're talking about some unknown business exchange center in D.C. - I can safely say that you intend to mean the federal government interceding on behalf of the rich person to eliminate competition in the internet provision industry. (I'm again, not sure what you mean by this completely though, so forgive me if my assumptions are off base.)

There are two "big ugly monsters" in United States politics. "Big Business" and "Big Government."

Your arguments about "Big Business" are valid - as they hold a significantly disproportionate amount of capital than it's younger and more active brother nation-wide in "Small Business" - despite the smaller business holding more Americans. The alarming thing about Big Biz is that it holds a significant amount of sway with Big Gov due to having said capital.

A good example of this was the value of Donald Trump's endorsement to Mitt Romney as well as his contributions (ironically today) to the Clintons. One thing these Big Biz guys go for is political influence despite not going through the political process and it produces corruption in it's most basic form - even government officials will do anything for a buck.

---

The problem I have with more liberal ideas of economic structure is that it solves one problem while making the other problem worse. Sure, you may get a - as you said momentarily - stronger middle class with socialist implementation of power to the State in regulating the economy and it's operators. The problem lies with a "Bigger Government" who regulates things even harsher.

Instead of getting rid of the class system, it benefits the poor to become average, while pushing the ceiling on the small business owners so that they stay average. The only thing the middle class has done is largely avoid asking the government for assistance for things outside of education opportunities and more so as of late healthcare (due to that being socialized and competition in that field being viewed as "detestable" because humans are somehow "entitled" enough to get fixed rates on goods all of a sudden) and actually pay the State back in taxes so the government can conduct business as usual.

You may see it as class system abolishment through wealth distribution, but the reality is that it only makes it harder for the middle class to make it to the 1% while doing most of it's good around the poverty line.

The economy isn't an "us vs. them" issue - and the left is very guilty of making it one.

---

Finally, I can get that the rich happen to sit on wealth - as you've mentioned that more than once. That doesn't automatically make the onus fall on them to generate economic growth more-so than the country at large. While I'm still not an economist the way I understand it is that economies run better when more people in GENERAL are participating.

It's for this reason that I can't objectively say it's the fault of the wealthy that the economy fails and that poor people stay poor - and therefore I can't objectively say they need to pay more in taxes than anyone else. Yes, they do need to spend more money on things, but they should be able to spend their capital as they see fit, not just cough up more of it because Big Gov. asks them too.

What the rich can do:

• buy more things
• donate freely to food pantries and respectable charitable organizations (this one even helps in fighting poverty, so it's a win-win!)
• hire more workers (thus putting more people to work while again participating freely in the economic process, another win-win.)

[Shamitako]

So, IDK exactly how things should be, but I do know the current welfare system, at least here in Ohio is broken AF

My neighbor does no work whatsoever, she doesn't even look for jobs anymore. And she never struggles with food and actually sometimes has people over to help empty her cupboards because she has too much

Meanwhile my dad works 40 hours a week+overtime, he literally worked 12 days straight a few weeks back (and I think he worked more than 8 hours most of those days). And my mom tutors in the evenings as often as she can (that's around ten hours a week during the school year) and gardens so we don't have to buy vegetables as often. Yet I spend my evenings desperately searching for anything to cook that won't have the rest of my family going without dinner on Wednesday

Now, the situations are a bit different of course. But it from where I'm standing it certainly doesn't seem like it's working properly

[Chase]

If you can't make Americans want to work, of course America won't work. Both sides of the coin even. If you marginalize and offend people by being a horrible employer and being unethical, you lose your employee base and your business falls apart. If you are completely able to sustain yourself on government assistance and time and resources are not an issue - then there would be literally no reason to try in the first place.

Taxing the wealthy and offering goods and services under the notion that they are entitlements of humanity doesn't address the real issue with broken economies - that people aren't participating and thus making the economy work - in general.

[Imperial]

I'm reading this thread with a headache (surely not my best idea) so I may have missed a some points. But I think my own experience can bring some interesting things

First of all, I'm French. France is a country with a lot of social help. Minimum wage, income when you're jobless (for a few months if you're actively seraching a new one), nearly free healthcare and education. Second thing: I'm clever. 130 IQ if I recall correctly, which I just looked is the minimum value defining giftedness, the 2% most clever people. And in one month, I'll be engineer, a graduate from a French high rank engineering school (these are equivalent to universities but much smaller, around 100 students per year, and with a much higher level. They are usually said to create the elite of France). For my school, the average income for the first job is around 40000€/year, while the average income in France is around 35000 €.

Now the presentations are done, I'd like to come back on some of your points

First, Chase, you seem to mean that to earn money you need to work hard. The harder you work, the more you earn. This is wrong, or at least oversimplified. And I'm a good example of that. As I said I'm in an engineering school. Most of the students from these schools come from undergraduate classes called preparatory classes. These are 2-3 years of high level courses in maths, physics, with some philosophy, english, etc. Their only goal is to prepare us for a competition at the end of the second year, a full month of exams, very long and very hard, in order to sort the students. Then you make a list of the schools you want, and the schools take the best that applied to their school. This basically means the better the student, the better the school. Prépa are said to be years of very hard work and pain, students being nicknamed "moles" like they are so much on their work they can hardly go outside and see the sun. This is right of many people. Not for me.

I was in a low rank prépa, where I was better than anyone else without working. I still worked a minimum to get a good school, but I had a far better school than the others of my prépa while working much less. The funniest part is when I started in my engineering school. The first day, I learned I had the best results among the students of that school. Almost without working in my low rank prépa, I had better results than moles that worked really hard in high to top rank prépa.

This has been the same for all my schooling. And now, with the minimum of work, I'm going to be an engineer, have the job of my dreams, earn a lot of money. While people working much harder than me, cumulating several jobs they hate can hardly earn enough to eat. The only difference is that I was more lucky than them at the genetical lottery. This is unfair. But live's unfair.

Some people will struggle because they are not born with the good skills, or in the good environment. Some will do rather well until a crisis or something else makes them lose their jobs. They could have been working really hard, it would change nothing. This is the reason social policies exist, to compensate these lacks of luck, help people that can hardly be more than cashier to earn enough to live, help a man those job was moved abroad to live until he can find something else.

In fact, all this discussion reminds me of a quote from Frank Fontaine in Bioshock: "They come to Rapture thinking they're gonna be captains of industry, but they all forget that somebody's gotta scrub the toilets". It's exactly that. Capitalism is the best base for a society, but it also implies there will always be people above the others, no matter how hard they can work. Social policies are made to ensure those under are not crushed by those above. For my philosophy courses in prépa I had to read The Grapes of Wrath, which is a good example of what happens when you have capitalism without some limits/social policies. In the 30s in the middle of the US, most farmers (so the main part of the population) lost their jobs to tractors and other new machines. Jobless, they all answered to the call of western landowners looking for people to harvest their crops. They easily had 10 people for one jobs, so thanks to the principle of supply and demand, the wages for those jobs dropped, so much than one could hardly feed himself, even less feeding a family of finding a home. This is why a minimum wage is necessary. Though you wouldn't have such an extreme situation today, things like that could easily happen in a crisis without a minimum wage.

You all say that people are going to abuse the system, and you're right. There will always be people to abuse the system. But for one that abuse the system, how many will use it genuinely and keep working hard? You can't punish a hundred people for the crimes of one. And saying that people in general won't want to work anymore is a huge cliché. Minimum wage won't make people stop working. And incomes for the jobless aren't big. In France (which as I said as a lot of social helps), I'm rather sure these incomes are something based on your previous wage. So less than what you used to earn. And even if it was fixed, it would be just a small income to allow you to eat for sometime without having to sell your house. Surely not something you can comfortably live with. And it's temporary, depending on how long you worked previously (so no 10 months income for one month of work). Except for a few people that found the flaws of the system and like to abuse it, you clearly want to find a new job.

Then there the question of finding the money for that, usually by taking it from the wealthiest. As someone that's probably going to be among the wealthy ones, I can't say I like that. But it's necessary to compensate the flaws of capitalism. The problem is more a question of balance of taxes. As (I think, thanks headache) you said Chase, the middle class are usually hurt by those, while the very rich that alone could bring more money than the entire middle class often find ways to escape taxes. This is the problem that needs to be solved

The problem is not the theory, it's the practice. Such systems are usually poorly done.

There's also the issue of healthcare and education. Here again I think I'm an example of the interest of free education. My mother was single. She works for the SNCF (French trains), so with irregular hours like during the night. Without my grand mother to keep me I don't know how she would have done, but I'm sure she couldn't afford a baby-sitter. We're from middle class. We never struggled to eat or anything, and I could usually have the last video game station for christmas with my family. But if the French education system was similar to the US one, I wouldn't have been able to afford studies, unless sparing money and struggling my entire life. Compared to the US, school in France in nearly free. The only tuition fees I've ever paid were for the engineering school, less than 1000€ per year. Plus around 400€/month for a studio (since the school was far from where I lived) in the school residence. I had something like 20000€ spare money at the beginning, just enough for the three years before graduation. I don't remember the fees in US universities, but I'm rather sure these 20000€ couldn't even pay the fees for a year. Either would I have to find a job next to my studies (something I clearly had no time for with the amount of work we have in engineering school), or give up on studies and wasting my potential in small jobs someone without diploma can do. But thanks to the free education, I'm going to be engineer, advancing research, developping new technologies, maybe someday creating my own company. The money lost on tuition fees is going to be repaid by what I will produce during my life. Free education isn't just some help for the poor, it's a real investment.

However, I agree with you on something Chase, the taxes it creates for small businesses is bad. For a year I've been treasurer of a Junior-Entreprise, a special kind of association in engineering or business schools (mainly in France but also in some countries abroad) doing the job of a consulting company in a lower scale. We had to find customers needing a website, a translation of technical documents, a mechanical study, this kind of thing, then recruit a student from the schooll to do it. Then the customer paid us and we paid the student. I was in charge of that part. Despite the Junior-Entreprise having a special status with less taxes, the amount we had to pay seemed huge. Then I had courses on French company laws. We were said that for let's say a gross salary of 1000€, the company had to pay a total of around 2000€, the double. I don't remember many things from these courses, but there's at least one I remember: if one day I want to create my own business, I better not create it in France.

France is very far from perfect, our social system has a lot of flaws (and our politicians are shit, but I guess it's universal), but even in this state I feel like it's much better than in the US and other very liberal countries

Edited August 29, 2016 by Imperial

[laggless01]

First, thanks for clarifying that abbreviation.

If you can't make Americans want to work, of course America won't work. Both sides of the coin even. If you marginalize and offend people by being a horrible employer and being unethical, you lose your employee base and your business falls apart. If you are completely able to sustain yourself on government assistance and time and resources are not an issue - then there would be literally no reason to try in the first place.

Taxing the wealthy and offering goods and services under the notion that they are entitlements of humanity doesn't address the real issue with broken economies - that people aren't participating and thus making the economy work - in general.

That is a reasonable train of thought, however most people holding shitty jobs under a horrible employer don't quit. That is because they're too frightened to become jobless, because they fear not getting a job again (quick enough), due to lack of demand or skills (because they couldn't afford getting those). So said businesses don't fall apart. An example in gaming industry:

Of course if more people are participating, it's better for the economy, that is obvious.
But don't assume people don't want to work, people are participating. Illustrating that: wasn't the unemployment rate in the US below 5%? (that's 7,8 million of around 159 million) Of that small fraction, only a small fraction hasn't held a job for at least 27 weeks (26%), of which a part can't get a job because they lack qualifications and the ability to aquire such things (or, you know, they are in jail). The amount of people abusing your system is, by those accounts, tiny, and some do so because they have little option left.
Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

So the economy isn't broken because of participation rate, the cause lies elsewhere. (Sweden has a good-functioning economy, and they have a 6,3% unemployment rate, for example.)

NYSE - New York Stock Exchange.

---

I would have to disagree with Monopoly being a frustrating game at all in my experience, so I'm afraid I can't say I am seeing eye-to-eye with you on this one. Help me out here - what's unnerving about Monopoly?

---

Starting from the bottom, you mention "pushing money to Washington".

Unless you're talking about some unknown business exchange center in D.C. - I can safely say that you intend to mean the federal government interceding on behalf of the rich person to eliminate competition in the internet provision industry. (I'm again, not sure what you mean by this completely though, so forgive me if my assumptions are off base.)

There are two "big ugly monsters" in United States politics. "Big Business" and "Big Government."

Your arguments about "Big Business" are valid - as they hold a significantly disproportionate amount of capital than it's younger and more active brother nation-wide in "Small Business" - despite the smaller business holding more Americans. The alarming thing about Big Biz is that it holds a significant amount of sway with Big Gov due to having said capital.

A good example of this was the value of Donald Trump's endorsement to Mitt Romney as well as his contributions (ironically today) to the Clintons. One thing these Big Biz guys go for is political influence despite not going through the political process and it produces corruption in it's most basic form - even government officials will do anything for a buck.

---

The problem I have with more liberal ideas of economic structure is that it solves one problem while making the other problem worse. Sure, you may get a - as you said momentarily - stronger middle class with socialist implementation of power to the State in regulating the economy and it's operators. The problem lies with a "Bigger Government" who regulates things even harsher.

Instead of getting rid of the class system, it benefits the poor to become average, while pushing the ceiling on the small business owners so that they stay average. The only thing the middle class has done is largely avoid asking the government for assistance for things outside of education opportunities and more so as of late healthcare (due to that being socialized and competition in that field being viewed as "detestable" because humans are somehow "entitled" enough to get fixed rates on goods all of a sudden) and actually pay the State back in taxes so the government can conduct business as usual.

You may see it as class system abolishment through wealth distribution, but the reality is that it only makes it harder for the middle class to make it to the 1% while doing most of it's good around the poverty line.

The economy isn't an "us vs. them" issue - and the left is very guilty of making it one.

---

Finally, I can get that the rich happen to sit on wealth - as you've mentioned that more than once. That doesn't automatically make the onus fall on them to generate economic growth more-so than the country at large. While I'm still not an economist the way I understand it is that economies run better when more people in GENERAL are participating.

It's for this reason that I can't objectively say it's the fault of the wealthy that the economy fails and that poor people stay poor - and therefore I can't objectively say they need to pay more in taxes than anyone else. Yes, they do need to spend more money on things, but they should be able to spend their capital as they see fit, not just cough up more of it because Big Gov. asks them too.

What the rich can do:

• buy more things
• donate freely to food pantries and respectable charitable organizations (this one even helps in fighting poverty, so it's a win-win!)
• hire more workers (thus putting more people to work while again participating freely in the economic process, another win-win.)

Have you ever found it difficult to find people who whan to play Monopoly? I do, nobody at home wanted to play along. One of the reasons is because once a player starts to get a decent monopoly, it becomes more of an endurance test for the others of how long they can keep in the game, reliant on lady luck.That there are no rules to to keep it enjoyable and further-game-breaking ones is the original point of the game.

Let's be honest, your government is tiny compared to Western European countries. The point also is that due to bigger companies being free of regulations, the market becomes less competitive because it destroys smaller businesses. That taxes are killing the latter is actually incentive to lower them there (directly, or indirectly by means of support) and raising them for higher classes.
The rising wealth inequality actually creates said 'us vs them'-system, where one can get away with much more if they have larger affluence. Try to explain me otherwise why a rich person committing the same crime as a poor person is punished much less, if at all, or that they can get away with tax evasion while we can't.

What I'm saying about the rich sitting on wealth is not that they have to generate economic growth more, it's that they are generating it less of it compared to lower incomes. That means that they have to spend more in absolute terms, but not in relative ones. If that was unclear, re-reading the article of the guardian in my previous post might help.
It's not because the rich can do something that they will. As I stated, the richer someone is, the more of their income gets absorbed into their wealth, rather than actually generating economic output. (and that output is less of consumable goods as I explained, meaning you can't cover it with a consumption tax)
Donating to charities is done by most in said class for money laundring and tax evasion, since that money spent has tax benefits/exemptions, making governments miss out on hundreds of millions, if not billions. So it's not a win-win, the average person, who relies in any way on government services gets hurt (like public education, health care, road maintenance...). That's something that happens in my country, too. If you really want to study that, you can read this document: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/42232037.pdf (it's really long, though.)
Even if the money is donated without any ulterior motives, charities' actions can actually inflict more harm if not careful. (even the very first episode of Adam ruins Everything handled that, 'Adam ruins Giving'.)
And why would you have to hire more people if you already make an exuberant profit that can't be endangered? Why would Time Warner Cable for example hire more staff if they have a climate without competition to demand investment?

[Chase]

Starting from the bottom again, so I'll get to you Imperial. Thank you for sharing!

I don't know how it is around the world - but here you can look for another job while still being hired on at the previous one. If that fear exists - it's a little irrational and the best I can do is say "I understand being afraid of making a personal decision and what you're afraid of consequence-wise - but you're not going to get out of a bad situation by cowering and you don't even have to take a loss of pay while doing something about it."

I've never made a claim as to say that I absolutely think our welfare system should be "removed" ... (or at least I hope I didn't, you guys can point that out for me if I did.)... so much as that in our country it's horribly unbalanced in many cases (Lexi gave you a second personal example of this just in this thread.) Welfare if used correctly is a good thing that ultimately results in a more competitive employee pool at the bottom and thus pushes the economy along from the lower end while taking care of citizens that absolutely do need help.

The problem though - is that the United States is also dealing with a massive spending issue at the government level, yet the government feels it's able to regulate businesses as if they have clean hands and thus the accountability to do so. Simply untrue. As a member of a Democratic-Republic, I have a right to voice my displeasure at the government because they rely on voters like me to keep their jobs.

As much as we can all agree big businesses could be held accountable by their consumers, I don't see as big of a frustration because at the end of the day, the government is supposed to by default represent people like me as opposed to the big business representing the business of others where I'm less involved.

Ergo - I too hold one big ugly monster to the coals when it comes to a flailing economy. This monster however seems to be the other one than you liberal minded economists out there seem to go after. The biggest issues I see with the economy is more of it being printed, more of it being spent irresponsibly, and on a "fairness" level, people who make more bearing unnecessary burdens because of the government's money issues. Yeah, there are poor people with difficulties in climbing up the class structure. Yeah, there are people that need the government to help them get their diploma or their liver transplant or their house and groceries even.

I am by no means indicating that the rich are spotless - but that there is no reason to assume they are the ones who can fix all of our issues when they aren't even the cause of most of them. It's for this reason that I can't be anything other than a capitalist.

On the topic of giving - you do need to be careful with who you give to. Many charities are very crooked organizations (at least as much as the government is!) and one should always research charities before doing business with them. Or you could give directly to the people in need and cut out the middle man there - then you know where your money is going because you were there to see the transaction happen.

TWC gets a LOT of competition from bigger businesses down here (especially because it's services are often second rate) so I'm not really following here.

---

Alright Imperial - hopefully I do your post justice.

Starting with the most obvious thing we actually agree on (and boy is it relevant to my life) - Education.

The government BETTER be at least offering student aid in any "civilized" country in my opinion because the knowledge acquired should be able to pay the government back in taxes years to come. As you said, it's an investment. That one's not up for debate. The issue with free education down here - is that we don't seem to know how to implement it without hurting -ALL- people in tax increases or what have you. It's a noble idea, with no execution plan people can at least somewhat unanimously agree on.

Healthcare on the other hand - to me (and mind you all, I've lost people to cancer and what not so I'm not above you guys in having this opinion) is a different story. People don't -all- join the medical field because they have hearts of gold and many in America do because they have hearts for gold. Being a doctor is one of the most lucrative things you can become - and the educators know it because they have students going to school for at least a completely full decade after high school in order to hold some credentials.

Yeah, it saves lives and people should hold the right to live as much as they want - except the workings of life itself don't match up with that liberty because it comes with an expiration date in 100% of all cases. This means that there isn't some groundbreaking moral compass behind being a doctor. There's a personal ambition for being well off and being able to live life to the fullest though.

Due to the field's nature - even though we're literally dealing with the lives of other people - I can't objectively say that healthcare should be a social service that everyone has without having obtained it personally. That may sound appalling, but this shouldn't be taken to mean that I oppose ALL measure of medical aid. Just the notion that everyone is entitled to have it.

I understand the wealth accumulation at the top not being balanced and it becoming dead currency more than actually going back into the market, that's a logical concession I can make for the idea of wealth distribution being needed.

However, it seems really impersonal to say to someone "Hi, you have too much money, and we're gonna need you to spend more of it, and because you happen to have so much we're just going to take it from you." - when again - the option of encouraging businesses to do things to entice the wealthy to spend their money as they wish is on the table. Even if it's less effective in the short term, it isn't invasive and doesn't require a system overhaul to accomplish. That's my hang up. I don't think people are "entitled" to having a good economy, especially if they are equally or even more involved that their neighbors in the process. It's something humanity seemingly doesn't have it's grasp on yet.

There are some things I see in your post that indicate that your results were better than others. That's your measure of "hard work" to me. Maybe you have a nice face, some noteworthy blood in your veins, or what have you - but I don't think your body of work is ignored in your case.

France isn't WORSE than America, but I don't see where it's head-and-shoulders better either. I don't think it's as common in France to live of the state as it is here for example (which - when it does occur is probably pretty nice -)

It's also probably easier to provide social services to countries with fewer people - but that's just a stray thought. There's probably just as many french people as there are Americans.

[Imperial]

I don't exactly know how university/engineering school courses are funded, but I don't think it's only by the government. First I know some researchers in them have an obligation to teach in their contract. I'm also sure some teachers give their courses freely. A researcher because he likes to teach or to give some help to the school, people from outside companies because a friend in the school asked them and/or because the company helps the school. In my school at least, a lot of companies try to recruit us even early in our studies, so they can often send some people for teaching. Maybe directly giving money. Schools also have a lot of fundings for research, maybe some of it is used for teaching. I don't know, but there are surely ways to at least decrease the tuition fees. And if you worry about hurting research by taking its resources, do not. I think France is among the best on a research plan (the problem is more about turning our findings into businesses, but that's another issue)

About healthcare, I can't say France is the best example. Doctors, hospital staff, practitioner, almost all think they are underpaid are that hospitals lack resources, yet the healthcare system has a huge budget deficit (12 billions, they plan to get rid of it around 2021). But if you're ill, if you need surgery or heavy treatments, you and your family won't have to pay dozens of thousands bucks to save you. Both French and American system have huge flaws, but I prefer by far the French one. The good thing with the US is since you start from almost nothing (compared to France at least), you can still try to build something that works while in France, if you dare try to remove or decrease a "social advance", you'll soon have hundred of thousands people in the streets. That's something I hate in France. Most of the time it's "Yell first, think later. Or never". But it's off topic

As for the wealth accumulation, I disagree with the fact it's dead currency. Many wealthy people, and surely the wealthiest, won't just just store their money. They will invest. Stock exchange, creation of start-up, etc. They will contribute to the economy, contribute to the creation of new businesses, and make more money in return. While non-wealthy people will usually just spend their money in food and other consumables and probably spare what remains. This is even more true in France where we tend to spend more. First we rarely use consumer credits which I think are common in the US, we don't buy stuff we can't pay now (cars and houses excepted of course), and what we spare in our bank account is on low interest investments, barely more than a storage for us. While wealthy people, even if they don't care about investment, won't just store their money like that (at least because you can store only a limited amount of this type of account), so that their money would still contribute more.

So the issue with taxes is not to make money move, it's more to make it move where it's the most needed. Investing in Google's stock won't pay the education or healthcare system. It's the same as the taxes paid by lower classes, the amount is just bigger since they have much more money. I don't say it's the best solution, that is very fair or anything. Just that is seems to be the less bad solution we found. We want to keep our education system, our healthcare system, our social advantages in general, so we need to take the money for it where we can. Wealthy people may complain that they pay to many taxes, but if for whatever reason they lose everything, they will be happy that rich people pay whose taxes so that they can have the minimum to live. Same for the poor that ask to increase the taxes on the wealthiest. The day they get rich, they will complain about taxes. It's human nature. You can't please everyone so you just try to find the less bad balance.

And France is small (actually smaller than many of your states) but dense, 67 million people for 320 in the US. I guess it's more your division into states that makes such systems harder to create.

And indeed I feel like France, though very far from perfect, is better than the US. As I guess many Americans feel the US are better than France. It's in a good part due to different ways of thinking. And what works rather well for us may not be suited to you. But since many Americans seem to want a better social system, it can only be good to look at how things are done abroad to see what would work in your country.