United States of Incompetence?

[AllegroVivace]

These are rather different questions with different implications than advocating the establishment of a purely arbitrary wealth or income limit that is used to punish specific people.  It could be argued that income inequality in the US is already so great that economic efficiency is compromised and even democracy itself is threatened.  I wouldn't agree with such an argument, but it can certainly get to that point.  To address such a situation, other, saner policies are available, including a variety of changes to the tax code and switching to progressive benefits in entitlement programs.

Punish? Not being able to have a saving of more than 1 billion dollars would be a punishment?

Punish? Not being able to have a saving of more than 1 billion dollars would be a punishment? I can't really understand what it is that you can't purchase with that kind of wealth.

What kind of changes, for example?

[kishnevi]

Punish? Not being able to have a saving of more than 1 billion dollars would be a punishment? I can't really understand what it is that you can't purchase with that kind of wealth.

What kind of changes, for example?

Well, for a start, invest in businesses that you think will create profit and jobs and exports--as opposed to allowing a government bureaucrat with no actual stake in the matter, and much opportunity to do favors for politically important people and hurt politically unimportant or politically hostile people, to make the decision for you.

[AllegroVivace]

Well, for a start, invest in businesses that you think will create profit and jobs and exports--as opposed to allowing a government bureaucrat with no actual stake in the matter, and much opportunity to do favors for politically important people and hurt politically unimportant or politically hostile people, to make the decision for you.

Profit, I understand. But I think you threw in the word "jobs" just to give strength to your argument. Do you really believe that's something a billionaire cares about as he invests? The phrase "job creation" has recently become a slogan with America's right-wing politicians, who would like nothing better than to drive this country into the ground.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

The phrase "job creation" has recently become a slogan with America's right-wing politicians, who would like nothing better than to drive this country into the ground.

One of the funnier Repub arguments is that we have to lower taxes, because otherwise American companies will move all the jobs to cheaper countries - as if they haven't been doing that for about 30 years already.

[eyeresist]

One of the funnier Repub arguments is that we have to lower taxes, because otherwise American companies will move all the jobs to cheaper countries - as if they haven't been doing that for about 30 years already.

Whereas surely it's employee wages rather than business taxes that are the big reasons for moving offshore. Therefore, lower the taxes for the US workers, and they'll do the same job for less gross pay. That's one counterargument, anyway

[Todd]

What kind of changes, for example?

Depends on goals.  There could be more progressivity in income taxes, fewer deductions and credits, a mix of income and consumption taxes, a carbon tax, etc, etc, etc.  Any of those are far superior to punitive, confiscatory policies like the foolish idea you floated earlier.

You obviously have an issue with conservatives or so-called conservatives, or whatever you want to call them, but do keep in mind that Democrats control the White House and Senate still.  It's convenient to blame a specific group, but perhaps the Dems should elect more forceful, effective people. 

[AllegroVivace]

Depends on goals.  There could be more progressivity in income taxes, fewer deductions and credits, a mix of income and consumption taxes, a carbon tax, etc, etc, etc.  Any of those are far superior to punitive, confiscatory policies like the foolish idea you floated earlier.

You obviously have an issue with conservatives or so-called conservatives, or whatever you want to call them, but do keep in mind that Democrats control the White House and Senate still.  It's convenient to blame a specific group, but perhaps the Dems should elect more forceful, effective people.

You're being evasive. Let's see it in black and white terms. (It's not very complicated.) Do you tax the rich or not?

You're right saying I have an issue with conservatives, but I despise our Democratic Party just as much. We simply don't have an effective political system. For instance, in order to run for presidency, a candidate has to raise a very large amount of cash. Well, those most eager to supply the cash are big businesses, who then want the president to return the favor after he's elected. That's what Obama has been doing. This whole thing could have been avoided if only a presidential candidate didn't have to lick the shoes of rich business men. Both democrats and republicans worship the rich in this country - republicans of course more slavishly. "Forceful, effective" people have no chance of stepping into this political scheme.

[ibanezmonster]

No, I'm not making it unnecessarily complex.  Reality is.  There are a lot of serious political and social considerations, and obviously economic ones, when contemplating wholesale income and wealth redistribution.  Your response indicates you've thought of none of them.

I'm just throwing out an idea- I'm no expert on economics or politics, but everyone knows something different has to be done. That's the first idea to come to mind- going Robin Hood  .

If politicians have limits on power, why can't people have limits on money? I'm completely in support for people becoming rich millionaires, but being super-rich is a different story. Just look at what is happening in Dubai- if that's America's future, I want out.

Why should your opinions prevail here?  Why not someone who loves the arts?

I love the arts, but it would depend on who you're asking. Orchestras folding is a big problem, but not nearly as big a problem as so many people being homeless or jobless, for example.

[kishnevi]

I'm just throwing out an idea- I'm no expert on economics or politics, but everyone knows something different has to be done. That's the first idea to come to mind- going Robin Hood  .

If politicians have limits on power, why can't people have limits on money? I'm completely in support for people becoming rich millionaires, but being super-rich is a different story. Just look at what is happening in Dubai- if that's America's future, I want out.


I love the arts, but it would depend on who you're asking. Orchestras folding is a big problem, but not nearly as big a problem as so many people being homeless or jobless, for example.

Have limits on money?  That's fine with me.  Let's have no one be able to have more than $10,000 worth of assets, and the surplus will be sent to the Federal Government to be spent as they see fit.  I'm sure you can find a group of politicians who can spend it exactly the way you want it to be spent.

You think $10,000 is too low?  Sounds about right to me.  Just enough to pay for a cheap car after the trade in, and we don't need to own our own homes.  The government will be happy to rent us a place. 

You think it's too subjective?  That I'm plucking a figure out of the air, or imposing my judgment on everyone else?  That's fine.  Just explain to me whatever figure you come up with would be any less subjective, any less a figure plucked out of the air, any less simply your imposing your judgment on everyone else.

----
Yes, my sarcasm mode was on, at leas a little bit.  But the real point is this:  any limit on assets or income you set has to be sujbective,  and can never be justified by pointing to facts.  Bill Gates is a good richer than anyone on Wall Street--you want to strip him and his foundation of all his money just to punish the Wall Street executives?

[ibanezmonster]

Bill Gates donates a lot of his money, so I don't have a problem with him based on what I've heard.

Have limits on money?  That's fine with me.  Let's have no one be able to have more than $10,000 worth of assets, and the surplus will be sent to the Federal Government to be spent as they see fit.  I'm sure you can find a group of politicians who can spend it exactly the way you want it to be spent.

That money would have to go somewhere else for this pretend scenario, definitely. Politicians would be the last people in the world to trust. Maybe if a rich person owns over their limit (again, I don't mean normal millionaires, I mean billionaires or close to it), all of that would have to be donated to either help build houses for the poor or help fight poverty in some way?

[kishnevi]

Bill Gates donates a lot of his money, so I don't have a problem with him based on what I've heard.

And what do you say to those billionaires who claim they donate and do good things with their money?  Who decides which ones would be exempt? And what good works would qualify for the exemption?

That money would have to go somewhere else for this pretend scenario, definitely. Politicians would be the last people in the world to trust. Maybe if a rich person owns over their limit (again, I don't mean normal millionaires, I mean billionaires or close to it), all of that would have to be donated to either help build houses for the poor or help fight poverty in some way?

Who decides what qualifies?  Suppose the billionaire sets up a phony charity--who's going to be able to decide the phony charity doesn't qualify?

The answer to both questions would be a politician or a bureaucrat, who would thus be empowered to decide based on his own friendships and biases what's good and what's not.

I'm not really trying to be argumentative here.  I'm just trying to point out that your good intentions couldn't become reality in the real world, because politicians and corruption and the establishment would still decide who gets what money.  All you would really do is replace people who were powerful because they were rich with people who were powerful because they were bureaucrats and politicians. 

And in fact, your idea was put into practice several times during the 20th century with some memorable results.  Among the people who tried it were some guys named Lenin and Mao. 

[ibanezmonster]

And what do you say to those billionaires who claim they donate and do good things with their money?  Who decides which ones would be exempt? And what good works would qualify for the exemption?

1) depends
2) if a rule or a law were laid out, it could be just that. 
3) donating to help fight poverty in some way

Who decides what qualifies?  Suppose the billionaire sets up a phony charity--who's going to be able to decide the phony charity doesn't qualify?

The answer to both questions would be a politician or a bureaucrat, who would thus be empowered to decide based on his own friendships and biases what's good and what's not.

I'm not really trying to be argumentative here.  I'm just trying to point out that your good intentions couldn't become reality in the real world, because politicians and corruption and the establishment would still decide who gets what money.  All you would really do is replace people who were powerful because they were rich with people who were powerful because they were bureaucrats and politicians. 

And in fact, your idea was put into practice several times during the 20th century with some memorable results.  Among the people who tried it were some guys named Lenin and Mao.

Maybe there could be a way to make corruption impossible? Like having a specific charity to build apartments for homeless working poor people- and it would be a law that they have to only do that. I forgot what that one organization is called- you see NBA players often helping out building houses for people who need them- something similar to that.

Of course, that wouldn't work because politicians are all evil and would change the law so they could spend money on useless stuff, like they are doing now. If it were a law no one could touch, it might work out- otherwise, all the disgusting excuses for human beings will get their hands on the money.

[Bulldog]

Maybe there could be a way to make corruption impossible?

Dream on.  The only way would be to eliminate the human race.

[ibanezmonster]

Dream on.  The only way would be to eliminate the human race.

Yes, exactly! That's one reason why I say people should stop reproducing and let the human race die off! 

[DavidRoss]

Yes, exactly! That's one reason why I say people should stop reproducing and let the human race die off! 

Thanks for doing your part!

[ibanezmonster]

Thanks for doing your part!

Always glad to be of service. No way would I want to bring life into this miserable world...

[Todd]

You're being evasive. Let's see it in black and white terms. (It's not very complicated.) Do you tax the rich or not?

How on earth am I being evasive?  Evasive with regard to what?  I've been pointing out how outlandishly stupid your proposed idea is.  This isn't a debate about sensible policy alternatives, it's banter regarding an extreme idea that relies on arbitrary, unlimited government power that has as much chance as coming to fruition as Ron Paul does of becoming President. 

If politicians have limits on power, why can't people have limits on money?

Part of the reason politicians have limited power is precisely to prevent them from seizing property (that is, wealth) unduly from citizens.  That's a good thing.  It's really rather simple.

[Brian]

Here's an article that answers the question "United States of Incompetence?" with an emphatic"yes!" Prominent, veteran restaurant critic is subjected to bad service at a diner, doesn't think much of it. And then the owners send him an email in self-defense and the situation goes into nuclear meltdown...

[Bulldog]

Here's an article that answers the question "United States of Incompetence?" with an emphatic"yes!" Prominent, veteran restaurant critic is subjected to bad service at a diner, doesn't think much of it. And then the owners send him an email in self-defense and the situation goes into nuclear meltdown...

I can't even recall the last time I received poor service in a restaurant (high-brow or ordinary).  This includes the U.S., Poland, Germany, Hungary, Austria, Czech. Republic and Italy.

[Brian]

I can't even recall the last time I received poor service in a restaurant (high-brow or ordinary).  This includes the U.S., Poland, Germany, Hungary, Austria, Czech. Republic and Italy.

Really? That's a pretty amazing streak of good fortune.