At the bottom of it is the notion that the rich don’t owe anything to the society that enriched them if that society is in trouble, and they can walk away from it if they feel like it.
This contrasts with the soldiers who agree, if need be, to die in defence of it. And the nurses and anaesthetists and ambulance drivers who work round the clock to keep its older citizens going and its babies being safely born.
The rich need not do any of that. They need not spend even a dollar, if they have a billion, to help their society out.
It is like a man who has a hose refusing it to a neighbour whose house is on fire. And this is the man the Republicans speak up for. Let the neighbour’s house burn down, they say. Let it burn. Or, if the hose is used, let the house next door to it burn down to ‘balance’ the sacrifice of the water squandered on this one.
They are psychopaths, engaged in arson and pillage and the Republicans, even now, are applauding their careless, reckless, implacable, voracious cruelty.
They should be arrested as drunken drivers are. They are doing more harm than the Zeroes did at Pearl Harbor, hour by hour, today, tonight and tomorrow.
They should be kidnapped, imprisoned, bound and gagged until the vote is taken.
Discuss.
Name:
No, its not that the rich owe nothing, but why should they pay any more tax than the rest of the citizenry? Ability to pay does not equal that someone should pay more than their neighbour for the same public services.
And who is saying that a particular wealthy person is not helping their society out? Look at the rates of charitable donations in the U.S.
Why should they be rewarded more than the rest of the citizenry? But they are.
Please answer this.
Because they worked hard, to get richer grandparents? Come on.
Because they have done something that is more valued in dollar terms than the rest of the citizenry, or their forebearers have and passed the wealth on. Private property is just that Bob, and if someone chooses to pass it on to their heirs, that does not mean that someone else (other than the intended recipient) is entitled to it.
Do you support the notion of private property (incl wealth) or is it alright if the state decides that you have a little too much of something and decides to confiscate it - always for the greater good you understand.
If they still use the same public services as everyone else, tell me why they should pay more than everyone else? After all, fairness cuts both ways, and discriminating against a minority simply due to the fact that it is their wealth that makes them a minority is still discrimination. If not, they please answer why you think that this is not the case.
To Act Rationally:
No, you’re saying if a capitalist wants to put up’the price of what he gives you that’s fine, but if a duly elected government does that’s evil.
Give me a break. Everyone has the right to charge what they can get away with for what they do for you.
Or am I wrong?
Ross Gittins in yesterday’s AGE quotes Jeffrey Sachs from his book - The Price Of Civilisation. Sach says the US economy is caught in a feedback loop between corporate wealth and political power.
He describes the four pillars of corporate wealth as: 1]the military-industrial complex; 2]the Wall Street-Washington complex; 3]the Big Oil-transport-military complex; and 4]the Health Industry - meaning pharmaceutical and private health insurers which make up 17% of the US gross domestic product.
Gittins writes: “Sachs says the main thing to remember about the corporatocracy is that it looks after its own. ‘There is absolutely no economic crisis in corporate America.’
“The 30-year achievement of the corporatocracy has been the creation of America’s rich and super-rich classes. And we can now see the tools of their trade.”
“It began with globalisation, which pushed up capital income while pushing down wages. These changes were magnified by the tax cuts at the top, which left more take-home pay and the ability to accumulate greater wealth through higher net-of-tax returns to saving.”
Chief executives then helped themselves to their own slice of the corporate sector ownnership through outlandish awards of stock options by friendly and often handpicked compensation committees…”
So, Act Rationally, champion of proportional taxation I gather, going on the above, and the fact that the richest in society have only contributing to their own class and pockets in mind, at any cost, with the use of any exploitatyion of law, without any common decency or moral code, and will resist to the utmost any attempt to make them accountable and contribute to the common good; you stand by this, you defend this?
“Look at the rates of charitable donations in the U.S.” Well the richest nation in the world that uses one half of the world’s resources, comes in at 19th on the list of Official Development Assistance and national charity giving.
I’m with Bob. Those involved in the four pillars of corporate wealth as described above are actively involved in the worst crimes against humanity, the least not being the rape and destruction of the very planet you and I are standing on at this moment.
“It began with globalisation, which pushed up capital income while pushing down wages. These changes were magnified by the tax cuts at the top, which left more take-home pay and the ability to accumulate greater wealth through higher net-of-tax returns to saving.”
You forgot to add that in this provided employment in lower wage countries whereas if not for the low labour rates, it would not have existed there in the first place.
“Chief executives then helped themselves to their own slice of the corporate sector ownnership through outlandish awards of stock options by friendly and often handpicked compensation committees…”
If their shareholders (owners) allowed this to happen, then more fool them.
“So, Act Rationally, champion of proportional taxation I gather, going on the above, and the fact that the richest in society have only contributing to their own class and pockets in mind, at any cost, with the use of any exploitatyion of law, without any common decency or moral code, and will resist to the utmost any attempt to make them accountable and contribute to the common good; you stand by this, you defend this?”
Have they complied with the laws of the land? If so then good luck to them. And what is this common good that you speak of? It is a very subjective issue. MY common good is the health and wealth of my family and friends, combined with reasonable shared public services that ALL who use them should contribute to. What those reasonable public services are is very much a matter of opinion. Some people don’t like their tax dollars going towards defence or immmigration costs (assylum seeker detention). I don’t like my taxes going to things like the department of social inclusion (it exists, google it) or foreign aid whilst there is such a homeless problem in Australia.
In conclusion, I support the imposition of what could be called a head tax - take total annual Federal expenditure requirements, divide them by the over 18 population of Australia, and apply to every one of them - some might say that that would be ACUALLY fair.
Jesus H Christ, are you for real?
A head tax, Jesus in your case you obviously meant,a Dick Head tax? Still that would put you on the top margin, so it ain’t all bad I guess.
Yep I can see it now, Mary Jean rotten crotch the local dunny cleaner, paying the same tax as the P.M. of Australia.
What were you saying about logic?
But the best for last.
The common good is subjective. That’s what the prison guards said at Auschwitz whilst feeding in the next load of Jews.
That’s what Julius Streicher said as they placed him on the gallows. All of my propaganda in the papers, was purely subjective.
Go away you supercillious buffoon.
AR, you are running a deductive or natural law argument for capitalism, much as your political forebears ran natural law arguments for the monarchy, for slavery etc.
“Argument” may be giving you too much credit. You are more simply stating the axioms of capitalism as if they were self-evidently true. They are not.
Political axioms can really only be proven inductively, that is by showing that following them leads to a good result. Imagining that they are laws of God that must followed no matter what the consequences is just the arrogance of power.
And inductive criticism of capitalism might point out that it delivers huge bags of money to for example people whose job is to market junk food to children but relies on volunteers to fight bushfires. Or the two word refutation of capitalism might be “Gina Rhinehart”.
But you have chosen the deductive or natural law argument, let us look at that briefly.
The essence of capitalism is the idea that an employer owns the product of an employees labour. As the theoretician of capitalism Locke wrote (I paraphrase from memory) “The turf my servant cuts belongs to me”. He has in this context been arguing that property rights derive from “mixing” labour with the material world; but from his labour to his servants labour is too far a jump. He may have a contract with his servant but that does not work either; if his servant is always morally responsible for his own action it follows that he cannot contract away his labour any more than his eyes. It is inalienable in an ultimate sense.
Furthermore all property is ultimately based on robbery and murder, if not by its present owner then at its source. In Australia the robbery and murder is comparatively recent but it is the same everywhere. This means that there can be no ultimate right of inheritance based on natural law. If great-grandad gained his land by murdering its original inhabitants and passed it on to me, and that is OK, then it will be also OK for someone to murder me and take it. Or why not? Remembering that we are looking purely at deductive or natural law arguments here.
So I think capitalism must be defended inductively, on its actual results. It seems to me that mixed-economy “social liberal” capitalism does OK on inductive arguments…..neo-liberal capitalism not so much.
Why should the rich pay more? Typical right wing clap trap. Because for one, the system is loaded in their favour, and as they have control and own that system, they have been rorting it at the expense of every one else..
As for charitable donations, good thing, it shows some do get feelings of guilt. After all, they’re only giving back what in many cases is stolen money. Tax deductable ta boot.
Every time I have doubts about being a socialist, some fucker like Act Rationally comes along and restores my faith.
Arguments for socialism.
Under global free market capitalism, twenty thousand children die a day, mostly of bad water.
Under Castro/Chavez/Hollande socialism, less than two.
Argument over.
Why is this important? After all there are children and there are children. White children say, and black children. Children worth mourning and children not worth spitting on. But all the children are sacred, well most of them, until they turn into washing machine repair men and are discussed at length by Tracy Grimshaw.
Let us discuss Yoko Ono further, imposter celebrities and the voraciousness of their shimmy-shimmy-shakes.
Beware the sexist men. Beware the men that make no secret of a love of toasted cheese sandwiches and sloppy blow jobs. Let us stand idle and don our balaclava backwards as Doug would have it. Let us assume that progress has peaked and we know it all.
If God is dead, let us kill mystery next, followed by passion, love, lust, art and make pace for the moons of Jupiter.
“Don our balaclava backwards”? Que?
You say tomayto, I say tomato, You say Cidcayda, I say cicada. Sorry Doug. I am in a foul mood. Everywhere I look I’m seeing people dying alone of strangeness, and you have in the past given something like seven minutes of your time under a prose poem I posted to tell me that I was wrong, and you mentioned black arm bands, it took me less than seven minutes to want to reply with backwards balaclava.
I’m taking Ellis’ advice and going to the pub. さよなら.
Bob, thats two countries you are talking about……and moreso, which capitalist countries have twenty thousand children die each day? I would appreciate a reference seeing as you are making an assertion.
You are not including parts of Africa in by any chance are you? I wouldn’t call that capitalism, I would call that anarchy.
Hey Phill, bit of a tip on blog etiquette - you see that “reply” button next to my post header? Thats how you reply to someone elses blog post.
Every time that I have doubts about my position on the political spectrum, some individual with a coarse vocabluary and minute debating skills (with minimal logic) comes out and restores my faith.
No, it’s free market global capitalism. It’s African countries that owe money to the IMF and the World Bank. What else is it? Five hundred children died since you wrote your response, and you think this is fine, do you.
Do you?
Oh dear oh dreary dear. Look wank stain. Any failings I have I was born with, what’s your excuse?
Any hoo, what ever they are, in my case it still makes me infinitely smarter than you by an order of magnitude.
2. If you are going to moan about my limited vocabulary, at least spell it right.
3. In the game of insult/wit there are no prizes for seconds. ” Restoring my faith ” is mine, get your own retort you condescending wanker.
You have produced nothing in any of your your diatribes that resemble facts, or indeed debate.So spare me anymore of your prattle.
As for course, being an x shearer we don’t say vagina we call a cunt, a cunt. Is that clear enough for you?
” Argument over.”
It has never been an argument for me, I am a socialist and proclaim it to the world with pride.
It will one day be the norm to be a socialist, unforunately not in my life time. We will have to suffer a lot more yet as a species to convince the doubters.
But global warming and the financial collapse that is coming, will no doubt get some new recruits..
Frank with due respect, I have read a lot of books. I didn’t wake up in the morning and ‘ Presto ‘ a model socialist. I have as they say in the classics, been around. But the book by Orwell you have taken delight in referencing, would I am sure apply more to you, than my good self. I like Kipling’s work myself, a rampant Imperialist with child like qualities in his verse. A favourite ‘Eeny meeny mini mo ‘ all very interesting eh Frank?
So you can take the piss and have your little jokes, but I know your side of politics is on borrowed time. If we are to survive as a species we must do better, and we will.But this will not include a Capitalism that rapes and pillages a planet to give some unctuous greedy Cunts enough money to buy a painting, the price of which could buy a children’s hospital.
You must be getting a sense of where I am at, by now Frank?
Orwell may have had the USSR in mind as a model back then, but it is the USA that has come in time to tick all the boxes that he so feared and decried.
Indeed. Frank is probably a little confused. But hey, I cut him slack, he is after all a conservative.
Frank just think, all the comments here are being read by ASIO.
My file will have a red ribbon, your’s a nice blue rinsed set one (The same colour as Bronwyn Bishop’s hair)
Mine will have a nice glossy photo in it of me, taken no doubt at the Fremantle Wharf dispute.
Ain’t democracy grand?
Wanker first class @Act Rationally strikes again!
What pompous, sanctimonious crap. What you say is not actually unusual or even especially objectionable, but by the great hairy balls of the lord of hell, it is so pompous, so didactically officious and hackneyed that you couldn’t be more objectionable if you tried.
You can’t satirise this stuff, it satirises itself.
Again we get the abuse thrown around…can’t debate a topic without it can you?
Tell me why it is wrong, seeing as you only threw abuse about (oh, and see my response above regarding etiquitte on blogs)
Or alternatively, you can point out why one individual is required to contribute more than his neighbour for use of the same services.
So .. a Rockefeller should contribute no more than a street beggar? A Rupert Murdoch no more than quadriplegic?
What are you TALKING about?
The richest 20 per cent of Australians own 60 per cent of the wealth and the bottom 20 per cent own 1 per cent of the wealth. The top 40% bracket of income earners pay 70% of total income tax revenues - but receive only 20.5% back as benefits/services(education/health etc) whilst the lowest 40% pay 15.6% and receive 64% of the benefits. 20% of the people are paying 80% of the tax.
The richest 1 per cent of Americans now control more wealth than the bottom 90 per cent. In Britain, half the population holds just 1 per cent of the country’s cash. The gap between rich and poor is wider than at any time since World War II. Forbes magazine, the plutocrats’ bible, chortled this year that the world now has 1210 billionaires, up from 1011 last year, with a total worth of some $US4.5 trillion, more than the gross domestic product of Germany. Even here, in lil ol’ Australia, median pay for the chiefs of our top 100 companies has rocketed by 131 per cent in 10 years, with bonuses up by 190 per cent.
I will never forget the 80′s when Howard objected to every pay rise brought before the arbitration commission.Wages have not gone up in the USA since the 90′s and the base rate is still $7 an hour-and that is the way the Libs always wanted it.Wages DID go up under Howard but only because of the unions. If there were no unions we would be in the same state as the USA re wages.
Me not being on top of modern tax deductions for the rich (and it’s been a while since I have seen the Pitt Street Farmers go at it), any idea of what your basic or effective tax rate is Bob? You know, the net amount of money handed directly by you to the tax department as a percentage of your gross income from all sources? Nothing as crude as actual money amounts (how gauche) but percentages?
Even those two venerable patron saints of capitalism, Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek were old Whig humanists and ardent lovers of liberty - not conservatives. Smith left little to the imagination when he reported on the “vile maxim” of the “masters of mankind”. All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind - he said.
At the bottom of it indeed is the notion that the rich don’t owe anything to the society that enriched them.
Such insatiable greed is psychotic.
Immunity to the pandemic of sociopaths must be possible and it may require quarantining of the carriers of the cognitive bacillus long enough to effect a cure and to continue the process of civilizing humanity or perhaps we can submit and just let the savage beasts lurch on past Damascus to be born again.
Yikes Yeats - how are they to be rounded up and enclosed long enough to be sedated and tranquilized? They do not belong inside civilized communities.
In the USA, and elsewhere, a progressive tax system is bedrock to a social contract whose rôle is to avoid riot and revolution, which often involves the execution of elites and aristocrats, and the confiscation of their lands and necklaces.
May I suggest an alternative to the 1% of USA who will be affected by the ending of their tax cuts (ie people earning over $450,000 a year, which is ten times the average)?
You can opt out from paying any tax whatsoever, but you forfeit the right to access any services whatsoever. This includes, but is not limited to, police, fire brigades, ambulances, hospitals, the national guard, the courts. Of course you will not vote, and while bound by US law, you will not have standing to enforce the law against any citizen.
And not just that Dali : the average poor person in the USA rides to work in a bus, whilst the wealthy ones ride around in limousines or Humvees; the poor consume a fraction of the resources of the planet consumed by the wealthy; few of the poor can afford to attend “college” as they quaintly term their advanced learning. The poor are also largely unable to access the health system, and the wealthy are up in arms to keep it that way.
We could go on, but I’m sure the reader gets the drift.
“The poor are also largely unable to access the health system, and the wealthy are up in arms to keep it that way”
Any links for a reference to these facts DQ?
The opposition to what they call “Obamacare” has been hysterical. Or do you and the other Tea Party capitalist running dogs support it now? Hmm?