Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.





On 14 Apr 2009 at 14:47, kyle forinash wrote:

Hi

1) It does not appear to me that you can support the conclusion (as
several people on this list have) that everyone who is rich earned that
money or that the people who are fabulously rich are essential to
furthering capitalism. Take a look at Wikipedia's list of the most
wealthy people in the world. Some DID earn their position but many
inherited it. Some are got rich by creating new technology, etc. others
by lending money or drilling for oil, not by being particularly
innovative. It is pretty much all over the map. So I don't see how
anyone can conclude that taxing the rich is like penalizing the
brightest student in class or hamstringing innovative investments.

As long as people earn their money legally, they should be entitled to decide how much more they want
to earn through investments, risk taking, starting new companies, etc. It isn't for anyone else to decide
what limit there should be on an individual's wealth. Taxes are paid both on income and also in the
form of estate taxes. The weathy are already heavily hit on both. Thus, they have to do a lot of estate
planning or make other choices to minimize their hit. Some of them find illegal ways to do that, and
they may be prosecuted. The wealthy make investments that create jobs. They should be praised
when their actions are legal and prosecuted when their actions are not.


Theoretical question. Should we tax Bill Gates more than the kid from
the getto who becomes a drug addict? An argument in favor is that Gates
had special advantages that the kid down the street did not (Gates had
access to computers at an early age which most people at that time did
not). The playing field was never level to start with. Why shouldn't
someone who had special advantages to start with (or in other cases
inherited their money) be asked to pay back some of that?

This should not be about advantages or life choices or any other socail context. You are assuming that
there is a finite number of dollars, so that if one person has more, it means that another person has
less. In a healthy economy, the economy grows and the number of dollars grows along with it. The
progressive tax system has been in place from a long time, but it's gotten to be where the bottom 50%
of income earners pay little or zero tax. These same people reap large benefits from the government
in the form of earned income credit (a free check from the government - spreading the wealth) or
other government services and benefits. Since they reap benefits from the government, but do not pay
for government, they are most easily manipulated into voting for people that want to further the growth
of government and the programs that benefit them.

Then, as government grows, the costs to the private sector increase, reducing profits, reducing
economic growth, rising unemployment, etc.


2) Saying that it is ok for someone to get the minimum wage (or worse)
because they agreed to it assumes everyone is equal. But the playing
field is not equal. If you never learned to read because you grew up in
the rain forest you cannot go out and get a high paying job programing
computers. A low paying job is not, in most cases, a fairly negotiated
social contract.

Minimum wage is not meant to be living wage. It is usually the entry wage, then as workers gain
experience and prove themselves to employers, they can get wage increases. If a worker is not useful
to an employer or would be too costly to keep as a result of increasing the minimum wage, then that
employee will be fired. On the other hand, if the minimum wage is kept at a reasonable level,
employers can afford to hire more people at that wage, who then have opportunities for advancement.



3) We want capitalism because the competition is effective in improving
goods and services. But if one company beats all the others and becomes
the monopoly, is that capitalism? No. So shouldn't there be some kind of
limit on size and power of individual companies (and rich people) so
that there IS true competition? Should United Fruit have special
political privileges? Should Suez or Vivendi be allowed to charge poor
people in Africa whatever price they choose for drinking water because
they are the only source?

We have laws in place that limit monopolies and price gouging.


4) Many previous posts are pretty gloom and doom. But, for example, the
emissions of heavy metal in the US has been declining for the past 20
years. There ARE solutions. There is a direct inverse correlation
between wealth and pollution. Once people have their basic needs met
they start worrying about the environment. This isn't to say that doom
forecasters aren't needed; someone has to point out the problems and
find the solutions. It also doesn't mean wealth is everything (standard
of living includes much more). But I don't think alarms that the world
is ending are called for or particularly useful.

There are solutions, but government hasn't proven that it can solve the most basic problems efficiently.
This is not to say that there aren't some jobs that the government does well, nor that the private sector
always does things right. The best combination is letting the private sector do what it does best and let
government do what it does best. In the process, perhaps we can attain a society that at least gives
people a chance to work hard and advance themselves.