The Folly of Class Warfare, Courtesy of World Bank - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15026753
anasawad wrote:Actually @Truth To Power is correct here; on the US point atleast, didn't read most of the posts. :lol:
The golden age for the US working and middle classes and when the majority were middle class and had significant living standards (i.e. when the US was really #1) was in the time period between the new deal and the 80s with the tax rate on the wealthy and corporations reaching up to 90% and the tax revenue was spent on development programs.

It's only when citizens united came along that it screwed up everyone on the behest of the wealthy.
There is a reason why everyone wants a new new deal in the US right now.


Yeah but it wasn't only taxation. That tax money was used for something.
#15026763
anasawad wrote:Well, if there wasn't a tax, then the money wouldn't've been collected and spent though.
Basically what taxes are meant for.
:lol: :lol:


Originally taxes were just extortion or protection money by property owners to obtain the wealth of the lower classes.

I digress, taxing the rich isn't that helpful nowadays especially when you consider that the rich can avoid them.
#15026767
No it wasn't.
Taxes were used to fund the state and all the services it provided.
I don't know if there was any before the Persian empire, but generally the Persian empire was the first to utilize mass tax system to fund the state, the army, infrastructure, wellfare, etc, then the Greeks adopted the Persian system, both the tax system and the federal structure, which then spread large and wide.

Before then, if I recall correctly, most states operated on slavery and proto mercantilism. Not a tax-based system.

Feudalism, which came in Europe latter on (i.e. around 1500 or so years later), is an entirely different thing and it was, essentially, a fluke due to the collapse of the western empire and the power vacuum and chaos it left.
#15026772
Saeko wrote:Por que no los dos?

Wealth inequality has very serious detrimental political consequences for the working class in a society where money is considered speech.


There is no EQUALITY: Humans have always existed in a natural hierarchy of competence. Some head straight to the gutter and others acquire wealth and move to the top. The rest align themselves in the middle.

Nature cannot be altered, however, those on top must take care of the poor to avoid a revolution. However, the poor will never reach the top. HUMANS ARE NOT EQUAL.
#15026810
Palmyrene wrote:Read the second paragraph afterward:

I did. It provides further support for my position. As land became concentrated in fewer hands, the tax burden did, too.
Read please.

Think please.
The fuck do you think I just said?

You incorrectly claimed that wealth is access to resources. It isn't. It is OWNERSHIP.
And the amount of access to new resources is a prerequisite to actually owning resources.

No it isn't, and access doesn't necessarily confer ownership anyway.
They have to be obtained somehow and to initially get those resources you must have access to them in the first place.

Necessary but not sufficient condition. Logic 101 (which you either never took or flunked).
Thus, it is an indicator of wealth.

Refuted above.
Otherwise, you could say owning loads of money doesn't indicate wealth which clearly isn't the case.

Affirming the Consequent fallacy.
Yes it does. In fact you half-agreed with me in the above.

Nope.
No it doesn't as you can see with the Sparta example you gave

The Sparta example proves me right (Athens too, where taxes fell almost exclusively on the wealthy)
or when the Soviet Union, before it fell, gave citizens equal shares in it's enterprises but eventually it resulted in an oligarchy.

The USSR became oligarchic after it fell and turned capitalist, but was not before.
Taking 100 dollars from person A and giving it to person B just changes whose in power (i.e. person B).

If $100K is taken from A and given to B, it shows having wealth is not the same as political power.
It does not deal with the fundamental problem: wealth itself.

Wealth is not the problem. Wealth SOLVES the problem of scarcity. INJUSTICE is the problem.
That's why the Soviet Union failed.

No, the USSR failed because socialism cannot be as productive as capitalism. There is a very simple and indisputable reason for this: when socialists steal factories, there are fewer factories available for production; but when capitalists steal land, the amount of land available for production stays exactly the same.
Because unlike other posters, you don't write that much which makes it easier to debate you with typing on a phone.

:lol: Debating me? Is that what you think you are doing?
And you don't put up much of a fight.

With you, I am trying to be gentle.
What about the French and Russian Revolution?

They prove you wrong: the state destroyed the wealthy.
How does that prove anything?

The wealthy lost all political power, proving that wealth is not political power.
And wealth is political power;

Already refuted.
pointing to revolutions isn't proof that it isn't.

Yes, actually, it is when those revolutions dispossess and exterminate the wealthy.
It's still true whether you like it or not.

It's false whether you like it or not, and I have PROVED it is false.
If it's not primary then it doesn't fit your point.

Yes it does.
You can't fight the rich with taxation.

Yes, you can, which is why the rich devote so much effort and money to controlling the tax system.
That was never how the poor even fought against the rich historically either.

Yes, it was, as already proved.
Palmyrene wrote:Originally taxes were just extortion or protection money by property owners to obtain the wealth of the lower classes.

That is absurd, ahistorical nonsense. In Egypt's Old Kingdom, taxes on landownership provided almost all state revenue.
I digress, taxing the rich isn't that helpful nowadays especially when you consider that the rich can avoid them.

The fact that the CURRENT tax system favors the rich does not imply that taxes MUST favor the rich. Logic 101 (which you either never took or flunked).
#15026826
anasawad wrote:No it wasn't.
Taxes were used to fund the state and all the services it provided.
I don't know if there was any before the Persian empire, but generally the Persian empire was the first to utilize mass tax system to fund the state, the army, infrastructure, wellfare, etc, then the Greeks adopted the Persian system, both the tax system and the federal structure, which then spread large and wide.


That's not what the Achaemenids levied taxes for. Generally what the taxes were used for depended on the particular noble house's policies.

Furthermore, there were no states. States are a modern concept and were not present for most of human history. The Persian Empire for all intents and purposes is an empire even if the Sassanids created a distinction between Aryan and non-Aryans (Aryanism was cultural at the time not genetic btw).

Before then, if I recall correctly, most states operated on slavery and proto mercantilism. Not a tax-based system.


I contest this. Egypt for example did not use slaves for most of it's history. For example, the pyramids were built by workers paid in grain not slaves.

Feudalism, which came in Europe latter on (i.e. around 1500 or so years later), is an entirely different thing and it was, essentially, a fluke due to the collapse of the western empire and the power vacuum and chaos it left.


I'm not talking about feudalism.
#15026830
Truth To Power wrote:I did. It provides further support for my position. As land became concentrated in fewer hands, the tax burden did, too.


It doesn't. Nothing in the paragraph indicates this. Please quote where it said it if I missed it.

Think please.


Scathing.

You incorrectly claimed that wealth is access to resources. It isn't. It is OWNERSHIP.


It's about both. Otherwise you'd be basically be claiming that having money isn't a form of wealth.

No it isn't, and access doesn't necessarily confer ownership anyway.


It is. If you don't have money, how are you supposed to obtain resources? It's a simple concept really.

And technically you'd be owning the money but the money is worthless in it of itself. It's the fact that the money is redeemable for resources which gives it it's value.

Necessary but not sufficient condition. Logic 101 (which you either never took or flunked).


Prove that it isn't a sufficient condition. Prove that you don't need access to resources to get resources. Because to say this is a paradox. I'm sure that you'd know this since you've taken Logic 101.

Affirming the Consequent fallacy.


? ? ?
I'm just telling you the logical conclusion of your argument.

Nope.


Yup.

The Sparta example proves me right (Athens too, where taxes fell almost exclusively on the wealthy)


It didn't. Nothing in the paragraph indicated your claim. Athens also didn't have most of the tax burden on the wealth. It was ruled by the wealthy for God's sake!

The USSR became oligarchic after it fell and turned capitalist, but was not before.


Oh it most certainly was oligarchic. Especially during Stalin's regime.

If $100K is taken from A and given to B, it shows having wealth is not the same as political power.


No it doesn't. In a capitalist society, whether you like it or not, wealth is power because capitalist societies are all about accumulation of resources. The more resources you have or the higher access to resources you have, the more powerful you are.

Wealth is not the problem. Wealth SOLVES the problem of scarcity. INJUSTICE is the problem.


Wealth does the direct opposite of solving scarcity. It puts a majority of resources in the hands of a minority while the majority which works to maintain and create those exact resources get very little of the pie.

Wealth is injustice.

No, the USSR failed because socialism cannot be as productive as capitalism.


The USSR industrialized quicker than the US. I'm sure @ingliz can back me up on this.

There is a very simple and indisputable reason for this: when socialists steal factories, there are fewer factories available for production; but when capitalists steal land, the amount of land available for production stays exactly the same.


That literally makes zero sense. This isn't an economics mistake, it's just simple math.

:lol: Debating me? Is that what you think you are doing?


Well I guess it's more like dealing with someone screaming at you with their fingers in their ears rather than a debate. At least that's what you're doing.

With you, I am trying to be gentle.


Which is why you screw up basic math. Because you're going "easy on me" lol.

They prove you wrong: the state destroyed the wealthy.


The state? There was a revolution, they fought against the state.

And they didn't destroy the wealthy, they just handed that wealth to someone else.

The wealthy lost all political power, proving that wealth is not political power.


The former established aristocracy fell but a new aristocracy rose in it's abscene.

Already refuted.


You haven't done a good job of it then.

Yes, actually, it is when those revolutions dispossess and exterminate the wealthy.


Do you know anything about those revolutions? Like, anything about what happened after?

It's false whether you like it or not, and I have PROVED it is false.


Screwing up basic math and screaming "no!" is not "PROVING" anything.

Yes it does.


No it doesn't. See? We can do this all day.

Yes, you can, which is why the rich devote so much effort and money to controlling the tax system.


They don't control the tax system, they just avoid it. That's what the current tax system is supposed to do; make it easier for the rich to avoid them.

Yes, it was, as already proved.


No, it wasn't, as already proved.

That is absurd, ahistorical nonsense. In Egypt's Old Kingdom, taxes on landownership provided almost all state revenue.


Egypt was an exception in many ways. It was basically akin to China in how centralized it's government was.

The fact that the CURRENT tax system favors the rich does not imply that taxes MUST favor the rich. Logic 101 (which you either never took or flunked).


Well looks like you haven't taken Logic 101 either if you think the rich won't avoid taxes just as easily as they did before.

And you can't force them because they're too powerful to punish. Epstein is the biggest example of this.

And the reason why they can do this is because money is power. Shouldn't it be obvious that, in a system like capitalism, capital gives you power?
#15026842
Julian658 wrote:There is no EQUALITY: Humans have always existed in a natural hierarchy of competence. Some head straight to the gutter and others acquire wealth and move to the top. The rest align themselves in the middle.

Nature cannot be altered, however, those on top must take care of the poor to avoid a revolution. However, the poor will never reach the top. HUMANS ARE NOT EQUAL.


He thinks social hierarchy is based on competence. Aww, how adorable! :lol:

Human hierarchies are not based on competence. They are based on superficial aspects like your looks and the circumstances of your birth. Competence is viewed upon with deep suspicion by those at the top, and rather than being rewarded, it is, at best, tolerated.
#15026847
Saeko wrote:He thinks social hierarchy is based on competence. Aww, how adorable! :lol:

Human hierarchies are not based on competence. They are based on superficial aspects like your looks and the circumstances of your birth. Competence is viewed upon with deep suspicion by those at the top, and rather than being rewarded, it is, at best, tolerated.


Sure, the hierarchy can become powerful, tyrannical, and oppressive. No one denies that!

But, I am simply talking about the distribution of talent among humans. This unequal distribution of talent always lead to hierarchical structures. That is the nature of the beast. The only humans that are equal are identical twins.
#15026857
Julian658 wrote:Sure, the hierarchy can become powerful, tyrannical, and oppressive. No one denies that!

But, I am simply talking about the distribution of talent among humans. This unequal distribution of talent always lead to hierarchical structures. That is the nature of the beast. The only humans that are equal are identical twins.


Even the same man is not equal to himself throughout the day. But the current distribution of wealth has little to do with the distribution of talent, fyi.
#15026870
Saeko wrote:Even the same man is not equal to himself throughout the day. But the current distribution of wealth has little to do with the distribution of talent, fyi.


It's also not an indicator of hierarchy. Hierarchies involve roles and persist, often whether or not the individual is actually capable of fulfilling the role. (Bad managers still command exceptional employees. Weak or inept rulers may be deposed, losing the role, but it is still always the ruler who rules. Etc.)
#15026880
Saeko wrote:Even the same man is not equal to himself throughout the day. But the current distribution of wealth has little to do with the distribution of talent, fyi.

You are correct again. But at one point everybody started the race together and some moved ahead faster than others. Once a family accumulates resources they are passed to the offspring. By the way some are way ahead in life and drift to the gutter. The importance of talent cannot be denied. Even in North Korea talent buys you something.
#15026885
Julian658 wrote:You are correct again. But at one point everybody started the race together and some moved ahead faster than others. Once a family accumulates resources they are passed to the offspring. By the way some are way ahead in life and drift to the gutter. The importance of talent cannot be denied. Even in North Korea talent buys you something.


North Korea is unequal as fuck. It's your ideal society, the strong force themselves upon the weak.
#15026886
Julian658 wrote:You are correct again. But at one point everybody started the race together and some moved ahead faster than others. Once a family accumulates resources they are passed to the offspring. By the way some are way ahead in life and drift to the gutter. The importance of talent cannot be denied. Even in North Korea talent buys you something.


What point was that? :lol:

In every single generation, no matter how far back in geological time you look, everyone is born with unequal abilities and advantages in life. One does not choose his parents or his genes, and it would be ridiculous to claim that the advantages you were born with were somehow earned.

The left have created a pathetic fantasy world.[…]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELQiBErX0[…]

Yea, I can't agree with this. The latest trend in[…]

If Trump authorizes Giuliani to represent him, […]