(10-10-2013, 05:07 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 05:00 PM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ]Well in a democracy, that's how it works isn't it? Rich or poor get 1 vote, and the government should pursue the policies wanted by the majority. I don't see the need for economic growth to be sacred enough to override the system in place.
The rich do have the right to voice their concerns, they get to vote too (and a lot of other things but never mind that) but if their position scores less votes, then they just have to put up with it like everyone else.
The way you'd like it seems to be that you only get to vote if you pay taxes.
That's only fair, isn't it?
If you are going to spend my money, you'd better have me in the decision how you are going to spend my money.
The freeloaders, sorry, you have no right to how my money should be spent.
The rich has only 1 vote, but their influence goes beyond 1 vote in all democracies already, lets not make the playing field even more uneven.
Take US as an example, they need campaigning funds, who provide those? The rich, thats why their interest is further protected when those they supported get elected. When decision making is concentrated in the concentrated few, all get affected, not just the free loaders. Look at the amount of influence NRA has on congress, not even a chance for a watered down bill to be passed on gun control, not even stricter background checks, sickening...
Economic progress need social stability as bedrock for substainability.
(10-10-2013, 05:39 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 05:28 PM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 05:07 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 05:00 PM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ]Well in a democracy, that's how it works isn't it? Rich or poor get 1 vote, and the government should pursue the policies wanted by the majority. I don't see the need for economic growth to be sacred enough to override the system in place.
The rich do have the right to voice their concerns, they get to vote too (and a lot of other things but never mind that) but if their position scores less votes, then they just have to put up with it like everyone else.
The way you'd like it seems to be that you only get to vote if you pay taxes.
That's only fair, isn't it?
If you are going to spend my money, you'd better have me in the decision how you are going to spend my money.
The freeloaders, sorry, you have no right to how my money should be spent.
Well, the the ideas in Atlas Shrugged are nice but unrealistic. There is no Galt's Gulch where the rich get to isolate themselves. The rich have the most to lose in the event of a loss of social stability.
More importantly, success does not come in a vacuum, the internet companies are built on work done by the US government, some technologies that led to smartphones too. The US financial services industry is built on strong property rights and rule of law. All these are underpinned by the political and social stability in the US. I believe that the rich should "invest" in the stability by paying their taxes.
Pure uncontrolled capitalism has had it's day in the US gilded age. The days of company towns and mercenary strikebreakers are behind us.
Maybe you should state clearly what you are trying to say about the debt ceiling. The cause, the solution?
I can't get what you try to express. One time you say entitlement cut, but raise tax? is it contradicting?
I am saying that an entitlement cut will have to come, however politically difficult it would be. Either in the form of inflation, or default or a political bill passed officially lowering entitlements. But cutting entitlements would lead to social instability if it does not come with a tax hike.
The debt ceiling problem is different, it is a bunch of people who cannot separate ideology driven politics from pragmatic governance and seem to have forgotten that they are not campaigning at the moment for an election. It was always stupid to bundle issues together in this manner just because they would not be able to get enough votes otherwise.
(10-10-2013, 05:44 PM)Greenrookie Wrote: [ -> ]The rich has only 1 vote, but their influence goes beyond 1 vote in all democracies already, lets not make the playing field even more uneven.
Take US as an example, they need campaigning funds, who provide those? The rich, thats why their interest is further protected when those they supported get elected. When decision making is concentrated in the concentrated few, all get affected, not just the free loaders. Look at the amount of influence NRA has on congress, not even a chance for a watered down bill to be passed on gun control, not even stricter background checks, sickening...
Economic progress need social stability as bedrock for substainability.
Agree and they further skew it with SuperPac
(10-10-2013, 05:07 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 05:00 PM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ]Well in a democracy, that's how it works isn't it? Rich or poor get 1 vote, and the government should pursue the policies wanted by the majority. I don't see the need for economic growth to be sacred enough to override the system in place.
The rich do have the right to voice their concerns, they get to vote too (and a lot of other things but never mind that) but if their position scores less votes, then they just have to put up with it like everyone else.
The way you'd like it seems to be that you only get to vote if you pay taxes.
That's only fair, isn't it?
If you are going to spend my money, you'd better have me in the decision how you are going to spend my money.
The freeloaders, sorry, you have no right to how my money should be spent.
So... the directors of the companies you invest in seek your approval first?
I can see a lot of ways companies can freeload on shareholders as well...
1 man 1 vote is democracy. 1 dollar 1 vote is capitalism. We have to think which one makes more sense.
(10-10-2013, 05:51 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 05:07 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 05:00 PM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ]Well in a democracy, that's how it works isn't it? Rich or poor get 1 vote, and the government should pursue the policies wanted by the majority. I don't see the need for economic growth to be sacred enough to override the system in place.
The rich do have the right to voice their concerns, they get to vote too (and a lot of other things but never mind that) but if their position scores less votes, then they just have to put up with it like everyone else.
The way you'd like it seems to be that you only get to vote if you pay taxes.
That's only fair, isn't it?
If you are going to spend my money, you'd better have me in the decision how you are going to spend my money.
The freeloaders, sorry, you have no right to how my money should be spent.
So... the directors of the companies you invest in seek your approval first? I can see a lot of ways companies can freeload on shareholders as well...
1 man 1 vote is democracy. 1 dollar 1 vote is capitalism. We have to think which one makes more sense.
In US, it is not 1 man 1 vote. It's also representative system similarly to the board of directors.
The US House Representatives don't seek the approval of people first, either. So what's your point?
I wonder where 1 dollar 1 vote is capitalism comes from? Any reference?
(10-10-2013, 06:02 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 05:51 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 05:07 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 05:00 PM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ]Well in a democracy, that's how it works isn't it? Rich or poor get 1 vote, and the government should pursue the policies wanted by the majority. I don't see the need for economic growth to be sacred enough to override the system in place.
The rich do have the right to voice their concerns, they get to vote too (and a lot of other things but never mind that) but if their position scores less votes, then they just have to put up with it like everyone else.
The way you'd like it seems to be that you only get to vote if you pay taxes.
That's only fair, isn't it?
If you are going to spend my money, you'd better have me in the decision how you are going to spend my money.
The freeloaders, sorry, you have no right to how my money should be spent.
So... the directors of the companies you invest in seek your approval first? I can see a lot of ways companies can freeload on shareholders as well...
1 man 1 vote is democracy. 1 dollar 1 vote is capitalism. We have to think which one makes more sense.
In US, it is not 1 man 1 vote. It's also representative system similarly to the board of directors.
The US House Representatives don't seek the approval of people first, either. So what's your point?
I wonder where 1 dollar 1 vote is capitalism comes from? Any reference?
ya it is called a
republic. They have "you in the decision" when they determine how to spend taxpayers money... by
majority interest
Essentially capitalism is if you have more money you have more say... that's why 1 dollar 1 vote. And by your inferences to taxes, that seemed to be what you are saying... people who don't pay taxes have no say how it should be spent. And so SuperPac is right in your view because they probably pay more taxes than any individuals.
http://equilibrium-economicum.net/onedollar.htm
I could understand where are your ideas from? My emphasis earlier is that freeloaders should not decide how my tax money should be spent. Of course, tax payers have a say in how tax money is spent by votes. Having a say does not equal making the decision, isn't it?
Your idea of "capitalism is if you have more money you have more say" is really refreshing. Any reference?
I think you never understand my point. My point is that the rich pay their due, but not more. By current standard, they pay enough. More tax should not levied on them to maintain unrealistic entitlement.
(10-10-2013, 06:23 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]I could understand where are your ideas from? My emphasis earlier is that freeloaders should not decide how my tax money should be spent. Of course, tax payers have a say in how tax money is spent by votes. Having a say does not equal making the decision, isn't it?
Your idea of "capitalism is if you have more money you have more say" is really refreshing. Any reference?
I think you never understand my point. My point is that the rich pay their due, but not more. By current standard, they pay enough. More tax should not levied on them to maintain unrealistic entitlement.
Anyway, i don't think we are all going to ever agree. Specuvestor and I believe that people are humans first, productive workers second. You believe everyone has to earn the right to survive. There are merits to both arguments.
More practically, how do you feel the situation is going to play out short to mid term and what is the impact to our portfolios? Many assume that default is impossible and it is not worth the cost to insure our portfolios. George Soros said "money is made by discounting the obvious and betting on the unexpected." so do you think put options merit a look? They offer protection at a predictable cost (used to be cheaper last week due to the recent volatility spike).
(10-10-2013, 06:31 PM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 06:23 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]I could understand where are your ideas from? My emphasis earlier is that freeloaders should not decide how my tax money should be spent. Of course, tax payers have a say in how tax money is spent by votes. Having a say does not equal making the decision, isn't it?
Your idea of "capitalism is if you have more money you have more say" is really refreshing. Any reference?
I think you never understand my point. My point is that the rich pay their due, but not more. By current standard, they pay enough. More tax should not levied on them to maintain unrealistic entitlement.
Anyway, i don't think we are all going to ever agree. Specuvestor and I believe that people are humans first, productive workers second. You believe everyone has to earn the right to survive. There are merits to both arguments.
More practically, how do you feel the situation is going to play out short to mid term and what is the impact to our portfolios? Many assume that default is impossible and it is not worth the cost to insure our portfolios. George Soros said "money is made by discounting the obvious and betting on the unexpected." so do you think put options merit a look? They offer protection at a predictable cost (used to be cheaper last week due to the recent volatility spike).
Where did you see that I said people need to earn the right to survive? If that's the case, why would the rich pay so much tax for so many entitlements?
I merely said that for any more than minimum necessary, the government better has a strong argument why the rich should pay more tax to fund unrealistic entitlements?
Think you never understand why the republicans object obamacare. They did not object the concepts, just how Obama government wants to fund it, which is through raising debt ceiling and higher cost for business, which means higher tax.
Did the republicans object basic social security?
What default are we talking about?
The us government has no problem of issuing new debt to repay matured debt. It does not have problem of paying interest on its debt. So what default are we talking about?
Us will default on its debt only because the politicians are so stupid that they choose to default.
gov shut down for over a week already
how come market never crash? instead its going higher again
(10-10-2013, 06:44 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 06:31 PM)Clement Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2013, 06:23 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]I could understand where are your ideas from? My emphasis earlier is that freeloaders should not decide how my tax money should be spent. Of course, tax payers have a say in how tax money is spent by votes. Having a say does not equal making the decision, isn't it?
Your idea of "capitalism is if you have more money you have more say" is really refreshing. Any reference?
I think you never understand my point. My point is that the rich pay their due, but not more. By current standard, they pay enough. More tax should not levied on them to maintain unrealistic entitlement.
Anyway, i don't think we are all going to ever agree. Specuvestor and I believe that people are humans first, productive workers second. You believe everyone has to earn the right to survive. There are merits to both arguments.
More practically, how do you feel the situation is going to play out short to mid term and what is the impact to our portfolios? Many assume that default is impossible and it is not worth the cost to insure our portfolios. George Soros said "money is made by discounting the obvious and betting on the unexpected." so do you think put options merit a look? They offer protection at a predictable cost (used to be cheaper last week due to the recent volatility spike).
Where did you see that I said people need to earn the right to survive? If that's the case, why would the rich pay so much tax for so many entitlements?
I merely said that for any more than minimum necessary, the government better has a strong argument why the rich should pay more tax to fund unrealistic entitlements?
Think you never understand why the republicans object obamacare. They did not object the concepts, just how Obama government wants to fund it, which is through raising debt ceiling and higher cost for business, which means higher tax.
Did the republicans object basic social security?
I apologize if i misunderstood your position to be more extreme than you intended. It is difficult for us here in Singapore to assess whether the new entitlements are excessive and what is the minimum required, as such i would follow the views of the American people. You don't like them because you view them as populist measures, i respect that. I don't like the new system too, for i feel that the structure is dangerous even if the intentions are good.
There is no way the entitlements are going to be cut right now as society has voted that it is beneficial as a whole. No amount of clumsy bundling of bills will reverse that and if the republicans don't get their act together, they can prepare to not be in power for a long time. The rich can now either pay higher taxes or lose their wealth through inflation or default.
My guess is that over the mid term there will be no higher taxes, no entitlement cuts and inflation would occur to avoid a default, if necessary the fed can buy up unlimited amount of US bonds. I think the populace will choose inflation over default as it spares the existing financial infrastructure rather than having to really start all over again.
As to the last question, failing to pay social security benefits or other benefits signed into law also constitutes a default doesn't it? The government has failed to honour it's obligations to the people established by law. Not sure if it would trigger cross default clauses and all that but the probability is rather remote at the moment.