Should the rich pay more taxes?

[Yum Cha]

What? Its been a week and you haven't solved this one yet?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

are u kidding? they spend millions in advertisement and studies in psychology on how to manipulate peoples thoughts and wants. its for the most part a highly successful form of propaganda. the sheer amount of money they make targeting children is well documented.

Reply]
You cannot MAKE someone want something they don't already want. All you can do is tell the public about your product, and do your best to make it appeal to the desires that already exist.

Sure, thay spend billions doing market studies to figure out what it is the market desires, and probably millions more to make sure they make products to fill those desires, but if the desire or need is not there to begin with, trying to force it to an unwanting public is a money losing venture. That is why so many products fail and go out of production every year....no amount of advertising can make them sell enough to turn a profit because no one wants them, or needs them.

[FuXnDajenariht]

its unsolvable...

but yes...im one of those who thinks the rich can very well afford to pay a few more taxes. it sure as hell isn't out of jealousy. im ****ed proud to be middle class, and i wont hide the fact that i have socialist leanings. laborers drive the economy though. im ****ed proud to earn every dollar i make with blood and sweat, which is actually what the rich are benefitting from.

it makes sense that the top 1% of the population owning 50% or more of the wealth in this country should pay a large share of its taxes from the benefits they reap on the other 99%. now i for one dont need private planes and vacation islands. all most people ask for is a comfortable living wage. but how do expect people who can barely cover health insurance and rent payments to pony up a 10-25% of their salary for taxes?

[Black Jack II]

make with blood and sweat, which is actually what the rich are benefitting from.

A LOT of them also have made it with the same blood sweat and tears.

it makes sense that the top 1% of the population owning 50% or more of the wealth in this country should pay a large share of its taxes from the benefits they reap on the other 99%.

Maybe it makes sense to you on some socialist level but not to everyone it does. That blanket statement just won't hunt.

The other 99% as you claim also in certain respects reaps off the rich in numerous ways through there tax dollars, charities and created jobs.

[Yum Cha]

[I]You cannot MAKE someone want something they don't already want. All you can do is tell the public about your product, and do your best to make it appeal to the desires that already exist.

Sure, thay spend billions doing market studies to figure out what it is the market desires, and probably millions more to make sure they make products to fill those desires, but if the desire or need is not there to begin with, trying to force it to an unwanting public is a money losing venture. That is why so many products fail and go out of production every year....no amount of advertising can make them sell enough to turn a profit because no one wants them, or needs them.

So Right,

By the way, did you see those groovy glasses Brad Pitt was wearing? Man, they cost $500 but they're worth every cent! Major chick magnets.

And, you call yourself a MAN? Driving that piece of sh1t dodge? If you can't afford a BMW, how you ever going to convince some woman you can look after her?

New Cheer has whiteners AND brightners! Get the cleaner clean that will make your family look like the brightest family on the block!

You know if it costs more, it HAS to be better.

You're in my house now Grasshopper. Need satisfaction advertising is easy, sure, no brainer. How do you think the working classes are motivated into their consumerist frenzy? Emotive appeals. Appeals to fear, status, ego, sexuality, pride, happiness, the list goes on... Look around you, how much of your "stuff" do you really need? How often do you buy stuff on impulse, coz it's "cool"?

Textbook case, McDonalds Happy Meal. All the advertising billions to drive it. The clown, hamburger man, cartoon land, nifty prizes your kids want because they are dovetailed into other popular culture driven entertainment. Why, so you'll buy them the food, which is, fair enough, not really something they "need". Possibly, at the cost of their health in favour of enrichment of the entrepreneurs. Social costs?

"Real Men drive trucks" SUVs have a much higher profit margin than conventional automobiles because they are simpler, often built with universal running gear, not monocoque designs. "They're safer" (unless you crash, in which case you have a greater chance of dying, but that's besides the point). They have all sorts of emotive appeal, but the fact is, they are uneconomical, unless you are using them as part of an profit making enterprise, i.e trades, transport, exploration, etc, or for access, like mountain roads, skiing, etc. Social cost? Carbon emissions, Petrol demand, danger to people using smaller economic transport, etc.

And then we have brand stratification. One product at the cheap end, a couple in the middle, one at the top, across wide price range, but the fact is, they are all basically the same thing (soap is the classic example) but the idea is to get people to spend as much as they will bear for preceived value. Cars, soap, cosmetics, clothing, etc, etc. Social costs? Class consciencousness, social discontinuity, emotional distress (we're talking about skinny chicks in magazines read by normal chicks that feel inadequate here, because they can't count their ribs from behind, can afford xyz jeans, or abc cosmetics, or blokes that think Colorado boots are really better than K-mart boots, that the secret to boardroom success is a Patick Phillipe watch.

An Aussie discovered that Ulsers were caused by bacteria, and they could be cured by antibiotics. He did battle with the drug companies for 10 years to prove it beyond their protestations. Drug companies made zillions selling symtomatic treatment to people for a condition that could last for years. Eventually he won a Nobel prize for medicine for the cure for Ulsers. ****ed off a lot of drug companies. Social cost of looking for lifelong treatments as opposed to cures/vaccines? Much less profitable for sure, sod the tortured souls.

Ok, so maybe I'm swinging it a bit loose here, but the point is, you buy all sorts of stuff you don't need everyday, you just think you need it. And why do you think you need it?

After 911, what was Bush's first commandment? Go out and buy. The economy needs you. And, now, for the money shot.....

And just who is making the money, when the economy booms. You make a percent, and the further up the chain, they make a BIGGER percent (not a flat rate), and up the chain, they make a BIGGER percent.

What's rich? 80k? 180k? What a lot of pesants! Million a year for a key to the clubhouse, seats in the sun. 10 million a year to get the staff to remember your name. And it goes up from there. Sure they pay more tax than I make gross, but what they make is gross, so forgive me if I don't feel guilty. They most likely used inherited capital and cronyism to keep it rolling.

So, there is a social cost, health, happiness, social cohisiveness, progress.

Yes progress. This sacrasanct idea the the wealthy make the world go round with their earth shaking discoveries of how to market an ever increasing range of brand differentiated products, or how to arbitrage economies, transport labour efficiencies across national boundries, or profiteer on scarce commodities is about run its course.

end rant - pass me one of those boutique beers, and some of those imported prawns....

[FuXnDajenariht]

blood sweat and tears in the same way as the one on the factory floor working doubleshifts to meet a deadline? you mean ordering your workers around is on the same level as 16 hours of physical labor? i understand its mentally stressful but be serious....

in what ways do tax dollars benefit? i understand that jobs for the working class are created because without them wealth wouldn't be sustained. that seems self serving. that argument is very circular in trying to establish how the rich benefit the rest of society.

also the rich arent the only ones giving to charity and having their taxes benefit the country. the rich just have more of it to give. should they be patted on the back for this fact? they'd just be called cheapskates otherwise.

if you think about it though. if wealth was distributed equally then we wouldn't be having this conversation about who contributes more to society and why.

[FuXnDajenariht]

are u kidding? they spend millions in advertisement and studies in psychology on how to manipulate peoples thoughts and wants. its for the most part a highly successful form of propaganda. the sheer amount of money they make targeting children is well documented.

Reply]
You cannot MAKE someone want something they don't already want. All you can do is tell the public about your product, and do your best to make it appeal to the desires that already exist.

Sure, thay spend billions doing market studies to figure out what it is the market desires, and probably millions more to make sure they make products to fill those desires, but if the desire or need is not there to begin with, trying to force it to an unwanting public is a money losing venture. That is why so many products fail and go out of production every year....no amount of advertising can make them sell enough to turn a profit because no one wants them, or needs them.

this completely defies the logic of why roughly half the time spent watching tv is spent watching advertisements.... if they infact did not work...


lol the commercial spot played at the halftime of the Superbowl is even bid upon for millions of dollars. a 5 minute spot worth a couple million? for no obvious benefit?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I don't think that people who believe that the rich should pay more taxes have to be subject to the "socialist" label - even if some of them believe in some sort of socialist model personally.

After all, instead of today's corporate socialism - we're talking about real Capitalist Democracy as it was envisioned by the founding fathers. A brilliant system of checks and balances was put in place so that no one individual or relatively small group of individuals could gain enormous power over society and the country at large - as it exists right now.

BUT THERE WERE NO GIANT CORPORATIONS IN THE 1700/1800'S.

The way to change the current situation, within a capitalist structure, is economic democracy to go along with political democracy through progressive taxation and the use of taxes to offer incentives for companies to go in different directions (as in energy and the automobile industry, for example). And those taxes, at this point in time, can only be gotten fairly by raising the rates upon those who can most afford to pay them - namely the ultra wealthy. (Including the closing of the most obnoxious loopholes for both individuals and corporations).

And the breaking up of some of the HUGE energy conglomerates, such as Exxon-Mobil, or example. The way a Teddy Roosevelt would probably have done. Was he a socialist?

Hardly.

Was his cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, a socialist for introducing Progressive Taxation and the Social Security safety net?

Hardly.

Both of them were smart capitalists who understood the true nature of Democracy - both economic and political. And that's the kind of political/economic direction the country needs right now: somewhere between a TR and an FDR.

Not OIL men running the country from the White House - like Bush and Cheney.

[Black Jack II]

blood sweat and tears in the same way as the one on the factory floor working doubleshifts to meet a deadline? you mean ordering your workers around is on the same level as 16 hours of physical labor? i understand its mentally stressful but be serious....

One persons blood, sweat and tears regarding what they do in work is just as important as another's, no matter the there financial position they "earned" in life. Who are you to say one works harder just because they have less money.

It comments like these that showcase why Socialism is a broken down inherit failure like its big pimp daddy Communism. Which in practice are the same.

in what ways do tax dollars benefit?

Your kidding right. The massive amount of cash the "rich" shell out really helps to bankroll all those government programs you so love. Not to mention the vast job sectors these people create which helps to drive our very economy. Even twits like Paris Hilton create jobs, the very parties she throws for buying a new pair of shoes, helps to bring food to someone elses table.

The idea of sharing incomes by government management of resources is about as disgusting to me as it gets in certain political regards. Forced socialism and its uptopian scheme's have failed time and time again in its search of a absurd equality and its destruction of free will.

What does a centralized economy to function lead us into....lost productivity and corruption. Let's just even mention Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, all outstanding citizens of this way of thinking.

Socialist societies of the past went the way of the Berlin Wall, Soviet Union, Eastern Block, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Sandinsita's Nicaragua, the Brook Farm and those actually still around with us today are walking zombies. Cuba which has all but abandoned socialism due to poverty, which of course like most the others of its ilk became a dictatorship, China, hopes to catch some sweet capitalist-style reform with some expanded free trade ever since Mao put them in the crapper, North Korea, on the brink of freakin starvation due to socialisms disastrous outcome.

Should we even bring up the Socialist death tolls across the world.....Mao Tse-Tung's "Great Step Forward" is widely known as the greatest disaster in attempt of a centralized economy. Countless millions were murdered and starved to death in China during this period. China also established a series of gulag concentration camps under Mao, complete with slave labor employing over 10 million people on numerous occasions. In fact, China still employs widespread forced labor today, with estimates on China suggest the total to be about 40 million dead.

Please keep your dead failure in practice to yourself. Most people who adopt socialism anyway do it because they are younger of age and use it for the sole purpose of misplaced social deviance and to protest what they think is a romantic value of anti-capitalism.