Emerging Cities: The Future World Capitals or Huge Monuments of Wasted Wealth

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

There are cities like Shanghai, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Mumbai and a host of others that have gone through stagnant growth in a short period of time. Billions of dollars have been invested in shiny residential and office towers, transportation, land reclamation and other infastructure projects aimed at making these cities the future captials of world economic affairs and in Dubai's case tourism. What I especially like about Dubai is that their building effort involves outdoing the others and breaking nearly every construction record possible. With all the record breaking attractions in one city it saves me the expense of having to travel to other places to see the best the world has to offer. I can truly dig that. However many people are not knowledgeable about the emerging cities and believe that the current economic capitals of Tokyo, New York, London, Paris etc., are the best cities in the world. There are also many that have heard about the emerging cities and feel that their wasting money trying to gain a status that the cities just listed will not give up.

 

I have a strong prefrence for the emerging cities and being that I live in New York it can be seen as wierd. I am in favor of whatever is big and new in the world and Dubai above all gives me plenty of both. I'm debating now whether I should move there or visit for an extended period of time.

NOW IT'S TIME WE HAND IT OVER TO THE GUYS ON NYCTF., YOU HAVE THE FINAL VERDICT., ARE THESE EMERGING CITIES WASTING THEIR MONEY OR ARE THEY ON THEIR WAY TO DOMINATING THE WORLD IN THE FUTURE?

[Citaro]

...ARE THESE EMERGING CITIES WASTING THEIR MONEY OR ARE THEY ON THEIR WAY TO DOMINATING THE WORLD IN THE FUTURE?

 

Yes it's wasting of money, because many arabians are hungry, some have no access to good healthcare or clean water. Most of the construction workers have to live like animals in old houses. Why they don't give the money their people? The same in all regions of the world, but in Europe or North America they have no money for such cities, their economy has broken down, because of self-destructive capitalism and we have no oil. The asian cities like Shanghai or Beijing, that's another thing, these countries invest on their industry and they have their own structural engineers. Look at the trade deficit of the US and than at the trade balance of Asia, that says all abouta decadent system.

[Grand Concourse]

If you feel that way, then why not go to such countries and protest then?

[Citaro]

If you feel that way, then why not go to such countries and protest then?

 

It's danger to protest in Dubai.

[Grand Concourse]

Well then your words fall on deaf ears here. We are just posters, we can't do anything about what other countries do.

[Citaro]

Well then your words fall on deaf ears here. We are just posters, we can't do anything about what other countries do.

 

What's wrong with you? Read the topic!

[Grand Concourse]

It's just a big what if. Realistically what can we do about it? Reality- nothing. We are nothing but ants to them. It's sad, but true.

 

Corporate greed is disgusting, but they got their money and they can do whatever they want with it. At least be happy Bill Gates is spending millions of $ in computers for 3rd world nations.

 

So you feel what you want in redistributing the wealth in those countries, be my guest. I'm just indifferent about it.

[Citaro]

It's just a big what if. Realistically what can we do about it? Reality- nothing. We are nothing but ants to them. It's sad, but true.

 

Corporate greed is disgusting, but they got their money and they can do whatever they want with it. At least be happy Bill Gates is spending millions of $ in computers for 3rd world nations.

 

So you feel what you want in redistributing the wealth in those countries, be my guest. I'm just indifferent about it.

 

That's not their money, it's stolen from the workers and that you are thinking that way is the reason why it is so. That's the problem in most countries, but there are nations where the people fight the system of greed called capitalism.

The people for example here in europe vote for socialists gov and then they get free healthcare, they are striking and get more money and free time and the result is that they live longer than the people in the rest of the world and have more money than american workers, because they make the change, not only one president.

 

And don't forget! There are places in the world, where all these things are reality.

 

For example in Norway

 

[lilbluefoxie]

Its not their money, nothing is stolen from anyone. You get a job somewhere, you agree to work and earn a salary, you arent entitled to anything except your salary and any benefits the company agrees to give you. Socialism is nothing more than theft from the productive class of the world, the business owners who risked all they had to create a service and product that people want and the professionals who worked hard to get where they are to the parasitic class who doesnt want to work and just wants to sit around and collect benefits all day, and they demand more and more.

 

and if you think such a system works long term, take a look at countries like Greece that had to be bailed out, and Spain and Portugal are tettering on total bankruptcy too, and who has to clean up the mess, countries that actually are productive have to bail these people out. I would ahve just cut em loose and let them live with their mistakes, you spent the years budget in two months, tough shit, that'll teach you to squeeze the life out of the productive members of society.

[Citaro]

Its not their money, nothing is stolen from anyone. You get a job somewhere, you agree to work and earn a salary, you arent entitled to anything except your salary and any benefits the company agrees to give you. Socialism is nothing more than theft from the productive class of the world, the business owners who risked all they had to create a service and product that people want and the professionals who worked hard to get where they are to the parasitic class who doesnt want to work and just wants to sit around and collect benefits all day, and they demand more and more.

 

and if you think such a system works long term, take a look at countries like Greece that had to be bailed out, and Spain and Portugal are tettering on total bankruptcy too, and who has to clean up the mess, countries that actually are productive have to bail these people out. I would ahve just cut em loose and let them live with their mistakes, you spent the years budget in two months, tough shit, that'll teach you to squeeze the life out of the productive members of society.

 

The money is stolen from the people, because no private person owns the oil resources.

Resources are property of the people.

 

You don't understand the problem with

You get a job somewhere, you agree to work and earn a salary, you arent entitled to anything except your salary and any benefits the company agrees to give you.

because market members aren't equal, some have power and others not and so some rich people get money just because they own the production medium or money. So capitalism is nothing more than theft from the workers.

 

One question? Are you a billionaire, because you are fighting for your own poverty? What is your job? How much money you earn and how much holidays you have? Do you really believe that there are billionaires, who are more important than you that they have so much more money?

I tell you one thing, there isn't a performance that you have to earn tenthousands of dollars in a month. Money leads to even more money, nothing else is capitalism.

 

Greece is nearly bankrupt, because of financial crisis and because they've privatized more and more state owned companies, they spent to less money on education and there is massive corruption many greeks don't pay taxes and by the way, california has a bigger public dept than Greece per person and Greece isn't a big welfare state. The same with Spain and Portugal, they will never go bankrupt, 50$? American "economists" says that the Euro finds to an end, but look at the Euro change rate now! There are people in your country who wish us that our economies goes down, but there is no real fact. It's a lie of Fox News. Look at Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, these countries have the biggest welfare state of the world but at the same time they have the lowest public debt in the world, they have the lowest unemployment rate and the highest standard of living in the world, the industrial level is higher than the US one, don't forget they are little countries, that's no advantage, the police has no fire arms because there is no crime, these countires haven't a trade deficit like the us and the wages are very high, so socialism works perfectly.

 

The main question is: What society we want?

Want we a society where everybody fights for himself, where share of welfare doesn't exit or want we a society where people work together and help the weak. That's the main question of mankind's history. And what happens when we have a egoistic society you see in your poverty and crime rate. Is that they way you want to live, i don't want to live in this society where war is overall and between all.

[lilbluefoxie]

The money is stolen from the people, because no private person owns the oil resources.

Resources are property of the people.

Resources belong to who discovers them first and invests in getting them

 

The main question is: What society we want?

Want we a society where everybody fights for himself, where share of welfare doesn't exit or want we a society where people work together and help the weak. That's the main question of mankind's history. And what happens when we have a egoistic society you see in your poverty and crime rate. Is that they way you want to live, i don't want to live in this society where war is overall and between all.

 

I want a society where I get to keep all of my hard earned money, that it doesn't go to subsidies someone who chooses not to work as hard. A society that recognizes the efforts and creativity of the individual, instead of trying to redistribute wealth so that noone can better themselves.

[SubwayGuy]

Socialism is nothing more than theft from the productive class of the world, the business owners who risked all they had to create a service and product that people want and the professionals who worked hard to get where they are to the parasitic class who doesnt want to work and just wants to sit around and collect benefits all day, and they demand more and more.

 

Are you joking? The parasitic class is the suits around the world who sit around doing little to nothing and getting paid the most money while their WORKERS get pennies on the dollar to MAKE those companies successful, day in and day out!

 

And for the record Greece was bailed out (which I don't agree with) not out of "welfare" but because other countries who had invested in Greece worried if Greece collapsed, their economies would too.

 

Last, corporations and rich individuals FROM BIRTH enjoy resources that the average person doesn't. It's not about who is or isn't willing to work or take risks. It's about what's possible. A lot of people in THIS country don't have much more to hope for other than to be a worker bee for the rest of their lives. They could start their own business, but they don't have the money to make it succeed. A rich guy with rich parents inherits wealth, can take loans from his/her parents to start a biz, but most people don't. You are arguing in favor of a meritocracy (which to some extent I agree with) but you seem to fail to see that, that's an inequality that has nothing to do with how good or bad someone is at life. A rich guy can have a bad biz idea just as likely as a poor guy. The difference is, the born rich guy can fail, shrug, pay off his debts, and try again someday. Everyone else either enters bankruptcy and can't get credit again, or they work their ass off as a worker bee to pay it off, but they're a long way away from being able to try again. They get fewer opportunities, FROM BIRTH, than the rich guy.

 

Instead of pursuing policies that encourage the wealthy and corps to grow IN AMERICA, and promoting laws that encourage fair wages and working hours, we have high corporate tax rates and greatly lowered high income individual tax rates. So the corporations want to keep their profits high, so they don't hire American and they outsource, all in the name of growing profits. Using the heightened unemployment here they squeeze an unfair amount of productivity out of their (few) American workers who either work harder or join the unemployed. Then, when they have record profits, they turn around and pay their executives huge bonuses, and they skirt the taxes by investing it in offshore holdings in Cayman, or taking all sorts of ridiculous deductions and credits most people can't. Those who do invest their bonuses get a lower tax rate when their investments do well as long as they hold it for 12 months, which is a luxury many Americans can't afford to do with a lot of their savings when they need it to pay their bills. Meanwhile the high corporate profits are not used to hire more workers, who either starve or get unemployment benefits paid for by the taxpayer, and right now they get #2. So we all end up paying anyway and the govt's lose money, and they respond by adding all these regressive taxes on the working and middle class because they are paranoid the rich guy will pack up and move and god forbid they offend him, and now the majority of us pay MORE.

 

Sorry. Corporate welfare is worse than individual welfare. Lower business taxes and exorbitantly high "high earner" taxes on incomes over 1 million, 5 million, and 10 million would be a start to fixing this whole mess.

[Citaro]

Resources belong to who discovers them first and invests in getting them

 

NO, Resources belong to the people. That is not wild wild west.

 

I want a society where I get to keep all of my hard earned money, that it doesn't go to subsidies someone who chooses not to work as hard. A society that recognizes the efforts and creativity of the individual, instead of trying to redistribute wealth so that noone can better themselves.

 

You don't get all your hard earned money in capitalism. Again: How much money you earn? I want to compare it, with european standards. Then, we will see, who gets his earned money.

 

creativity of the individual

 

Good joke, that's the reason why the capitalist country USA has the biggest trade deficit of all times. From which country the propulsions for your metro are coming from? Which country hasn't a trade deficit, yeah Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the countries which have the biggest welfare state produce the best products, they are creativ.

[lilbluefoxie]

NO, Resources belong to the people. That is not wild wild west.

 

 

 

You don't get all your hard earned money in capitalism. Again: How much money you earn? I want to compare it, with european standards. Then, we will see, who gets his earned money.

 

 

 

Good joke, that's the reason why the capitalist country USA has the biggest trade deficit of all times. From which country the propulsions for your metro are coming from? Which country hasn't a trade deficit, yeah Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the countries which have the biggest welfare state produce the best products, they are creativ.

 

If the resources are on my bought and paid for private property, they are mine, and no government has the right to take away anyone's private property. Even eminent domain laws can be sketchy at times, especially with that one development in Connecticut that never went anywhere.

 

Comparing the USA to Europe is like comparing apples and oranges, because while Europe may earn slightly more, there is a higher cost of living in Europe, a higher cost of electronic goods and value added taxes onto goods so in reality in balances out. Not to mention fuel in some places is $5-6 a liter.

 

and as for europe, i doubt its the people sitting around doing nothing on welfare designing the train systems and stuff, its the engineers who actually work for a living and you guys tax the hell out of who are designing such machinery.

[Citaro]

If the resources are on my bought and paid for private property, they are mine, and [...] Even eminent domain laws can be sketchy at times, especially with that one development in Connecticut that never went anywhere.

 

There is something that is called civilization and community. It's better the resources belong to the community and not a to a private person.

 

no government has the right to take away anyone's private property.

 

Why not? Who told you that? There is no law of nature which says that a gov has no right to take away anyone's private property. People make rules, that's a civilized step of humanity and gov force you by police and they can make rules that resources belong to the community.

 

Comparing the USA to Europe is like comparing apples and oranges, because while Europe may earn slightly more, there is a higher cost of living in Europe, a higher cost of electronic goods and value added taxes onto goods so in reality in balances out. Not to mention fuel in some places is $5-6 a liter.

 

 

Why do you think, that everything here is more expensive? Because of higher wages and welfare payments, europeans can afford more.

 

and as for europe, i doubt its the people sitting around doing nothing on welfare designing the train systems and stuff, its the engineers who actually work for a living and you guys tax the hell out of who are designing such machinery.

 

Welfare payments are for people who lose their job and for the weak, so that they can survive to get a new job. Also high welfare payments lead to wage increases and low crime rate, so there is a peaceful atmosphere. These system and the system of high wages, good healthcare and much freetime has motivated the people to work better. The human capital is more valuable and the people don't fall into disrepair, so that they can work again and don't form a ghetto. There are some ghettos in Europe too, but there are just immigrants who want to destroy the western world. There is a american study which says that europeans are much more healthier and taller. The good education system and good healthcare system brings a healthy and edcuated workforce. There are so many american childrens who have no access to good education, good healthcare and a social life. They are born into poverty, they will never have opportunity, they will never go on college and will be a engineer. Because of Equal Opportunities! and free colleges we have so many engineers who build your propulsions and cars. Also we invest more on industry than on wall street.

 

If we cut taxes and cut welfare, healthcare and education, we will end up like the US, high crime rate, high poverty rate and big trade deficit.

 

 

[Ms. W Supporter]

That's not their money, it's stolen from the workers and that you are thinking that way is the reason why it is so. That's the problem in most countries, but there are nations where the people fight the system of greed called capitalism.

The people for example here in europe vote for socialists gov and then they get free healthcare, they are striking and get more money and free time and the result is that they live longer than the people in the rest of the world and have more money than american workers, because they make the change, not only one president.

 

And don't forget! There are places in the world, where all these things are reality.

 

For example in Norway

 

 

Its not their money, nothing is stolen from anyone. You get a job somewhere, you agree to work and earn a salary, you arent entitled to anything except your salary and any benefits the company agrees to give you. Socialism is nothing more than theft from the productive class of the world, the business owners who risked all they had to create a service and product that people want and the professionals who worked hard to get where they are to the parasitic class who doesnt want to work and just wants to sit around and collect benefits all day, and they demand more and more.

 

and if you think such a system works long term, take a look at countries like Greece that had to be bailed out, and Spain and Portugal are tettering on total bankruptcy too, and who has to clean up the mess, countries that actually are productive have to bail these people out. I would ahve just cut em loose and let them live with their mistakes, you spent the years budget in two months, tough shit, that'll teach you to squeeze the life out of the productive members of society.

 

I like the idea of socialism. I hate the idea of "rich getting richer and poor getting poorer." The poor, some say are leeches and want to take other's hard earn money...I don't believe that. So many poor people, even here in NYC, are working their butts off trying to survive, and the rich are prancing around buying expensive stuff, Louis Vutton bags and Barneys.. I bet the rich are the ones living the easy life.

 

I was on welfare for a while (could not get a job for the life of me even with a BA) I see and those people work so hard just to get out of the system. The system treats them like sh*t, forcing them to do a full time unpaid internship while they have families to take care of. They are also forced to go on minimum wage interviews (that most likely will not hire them). They are usually not sent to a real interview for a real career. If you think welfare recipients are just sitting around living off the government, think again. Go to the office and see how they treat those people. Its so sad going to that office everyday to report and seeing those sad situations.

 

All over the world, the poor work so hard and cannot enjoy themselves like the rich. Its totally Unfair and sad. If I ever become well off, I know I won't be fully happy knowing people outthere suffering. I would gladly accept a "share friendly" system!

[Citaro]

I like the idea of socialism. I hate the idea of "rich getting richer and poor getting poorer." The poor, some say are leeches and want to take other's hard earn money...I don't believe that. So many poor people, even here in NYC, are working their butts off trying to survive, and the rich are prancing around buying expensive stuff, Louis Vutton bags and Barneys.. I bet the rich are the ones living the easy life.

 

I was on welfare for a while (could not get a job for the life of me even with a BA) I see and those people work so hard just to get out of the system. The system treats them like sh*t, forcing them to do a full time unpaid internship while they have families to take care of. They are also forced to go on minimum wage interviews (that most likely will not hire them). They are usually not sent to a real interview for a real career. If you think welfare recipients are just sitting around living off the government, think again. Go to the office and see how they treat those people. Its so sad going to that office everyday to report and seeing those sad situations.

 

All over the world, the poor work so hard and cannot enjoy themselves like the rich. Its totally Unfair and sad. If I ever become well off, I know I won't be fully happy knowing people outthere suffering. I would gladly accept a "share friendly" system!

 

Yeah, that's tru;)

 

The socialism from the past isn't a good idea, but the northern european way of socialism called democratic socialism is a good idea for for the great America.:tup:

[Grand Concourse]

Ok, if you love socialism so much, then: If you get an A for a report, but some other person gets an F, would you be ok if your professor decides to give you both Ds to balance out the grades? Essentially a redistribution of grades.

[SubwayGuy]

Ok, if you love socialism so much, then: If you get an A for a report, but some other person gets an F, would you be ok if your professor decides to give you both Ds to balance out the grades? Essentially a redistribution of grades.

 

That's not "socialism" that's stupid.

 

However, if the kid that gets an F gets an F because he went to an awful school before attending the same school I did, and I went to the best school in the country before, and got my A, then that's not fair either.

 

I'm certainly not arguing in favor of handouts, what I'm saying is, that some funding ought to be directed towards the crappy school to make it better so that kids who have to go there have an equal shot in life. And if that means cutting some funding from the top school, so be it.

 

You can't argue in favor of a meritocracy when some people are more privileged than others from BIRTH. You can only have a meritocracy if people are given basically equal opportunities in life from birth, then let the winners win and the losers lose. But if the losers lose, it should be because they are losers, not because mommy and daddy weren't rich.

[Grand Concourse]

I should've been more specific in that 'example'. I'm saying if both kids went to the same schools all their life or something similar and one is just smart and the other just either did poorly or 'gets by' [basically same conditions]. Your point about different conditions is also good.

 

I'm not against a balance either, but I'm not sure what his idea of a balance is. Like does he want: the rich to be taxed till they have to pay out more than half of what they earn so the very poor can get that money or taxed enough so the poor can get enough money to stand on their own?

I just want to know: at what line should the bar be set at before it becomes favortism for one class over the other?

 

I'll also bring up the example with Wall St, sure corporate greed is terrible, but if you overtax them, they'll threaten to move over to Jersey where tax rates are lower. Then you killed the 'golden goose' and lose the source of funds for city services like cops, firefighters, etc.

Of course it would be nice if the ubber rich would be more willing to part with that money so we the 'ants' can use it to pay off debts etc, but then what happens to maybe the companies they run? They'll have to lay off people to cut the budget and it'll cause ppl to be on welfare. It's a domino effect in a way.

[SubwayGuy]

I should've been more specific in that 'example'. I'm saying if both kids went to the same schools all their life or something similar and one is just smart and the other just either did poorly or 'gets by' [basically same conditions]. Your point about different conditions is also good.

 

I'm not against a balance either, but I'm not sure what his idea of a balance is. Like does he want: the rich to be taxed till they have to pay out more than half of what they earn so the very poor can get that money or taxed enough so the poor can get enough money to stand on their own?

I just want to know: at what line should the bar be set at before it becomes favortism for one class over the other?

 

I'll also bring up the example with Wall St, sure corporate greed is terrible, but if you overtax them, they'll threaten to move over to Jersey where tax rates are lower. Then you killed the 'golden goose' and lose the source of funds for city services like cops, firefighters, etc.

Of course it would be nice if the ubber rich would be more willing to part with that money so we the 'ants' can use it to pay off debts etc, but then what happens to maybe the companies they run? They'll have to lay off people to cut the budget and it'll cause ppl to be on welfare. It's a domino effect in a way.

 

Regarding the example, the reason I said what I said, is that the unequal from birth situation is what goes on in the US today. The rich are born with privileges the rest of us simply do not have. "Rags to riches" is an American dream but it's not really feasible anymore. Sure, some do make it, but it's not with the same regularity that it used to be, so the poor can't bet on climbing out of their birth socioeconomic status the way they used to be able to. If America is the land of opportunity, it's not doing a very good job of living up to its name in that regard.

 

The bar should be set so that opportunity can be equal. Which means the rich pay more because they can afford to and still get by with most of there perks. There comes a line where it just is hoarding. What difference is it to someone whether they make 25 or 26 million dollars? However, that million dollars can do a lot of good for others. Of course, you make those poor EARN it, you don't just hand it to them.

 

That means there are three culprits:

 

1-the pay structure of today's corporations that has them paying their top executives hundreds and even in some cases thousands of times what their workers get (vs. years ago when it was less than 100x in every corp)

 

2-a tax code that penalizes businesses for hiring American, and does not penalize for outsourcing

 

3-tax codes that allow rich individuals who are very high earners to claim a lot of deductions and credits which reduce their tax rates, the 1980's reduction in the top earner tax bracket rate, AND the fact that the income thresholds for tax rates are rarely adjusted for inflation. There need to be more tax brackets to charge exorbitant rates to VERY high earners, at the federal level, so that differences in state taxation policies do not encourage tax evasion in the form of rich guys going "I'm gonna move." However this MUST be coupled with a big cut in corporate tax rates, AND a reduction in the amount of foreign wages that can be deducted by a corp on their US tax filing. This encourages them to hire American, to spend more on their workforce, and frees up discretionary money for business expansion, which can then be marketed overseas and help offset somewhat our trade deficit. Since corps that generate income from here would have to file, that affects foreign corps too, and encourages them to maintain jobs and production in the US if they're going to continue selling here.

 

State and local taxes would maintain a similar structure as today, although they could benefit from raising high earner income taxes as well. However this must be done gradually, and as close to consistently across the board as possible, to discourage the very wealthy from moving to evade taxes (BTW another luxury they have that the poor don't since the poor don't have the credit or income to take out new loans on new residences).

 

And of course, state, local, and federal governments would emphasize a few things with tax earnings: -infrastructure (including public transportation), healthcare, police/fire/EMS/FEMA, the SEC, pensions/social security, and education. Rather than a lot of the stupid crap endorsed now. That eliminates a lot of the waste.

 

Also regarding illegals because it has come up a lot lately, my stance is simple: If you are here illegally, you are here illegally. If you're caught, fine, bye bye deported. No pussyfooting around. But it's not worth spending taxpayer dollars on what amounts to a witch hunt. Instead, they just simply don't get the rights of ordinary citizens. Gov't can seize their assets to pay off a claim (ie illegal w/o a driver's license hits someone's car), gov't can jail them without a fair trial by a jury of their peers, they don't have a right to a lawyer, they can't vote, and they can't drive. They're not required to be paid minimum wage either. That's my view on it.

[Grand Concourse]

Well said and I totally agree.

[Citaro]

at first you have to introduce universal healthcare

[Ms. W Supporter]

Yeah, that's tru;)

 

The socialism from the past isn't a good idea, but the northern european way of socialism called democratic socialism is a good idea for for the great America.:tup:

 

Yes! I bet the Europeans are looking at us like we are a bunch of barbarians. Seriously.

 

I should've been more specific in that 'example'. I'm saying if both kids went to the same schools all their life or something similar and one is just smart and the other just either did poorly or 'gets by' [basically same conditions]. Your point about different conditions is also good.

 

I'm not against a balance either, but I'm not sure what his idea of a balance is. Like does he want: the rich to be taxed till they have to pay out more than half of what they earn so the very poor can get that money or taxed enough so the poor can get enough money to stand on their own?

I just want to know: at what line should the bar be set at before it becomes favortism for one class over the other?

 

I'll also bring up the example with Wall St, sure corporate greed is terrible, but if you overtax them, they'll threaten to move over to Jersey where tax rates are lower. Then you killed the 'golden goose' and lose the source of funds for city services like cops, firefighters, etc.

Of course it would be nice if the ubber rich would be more willing to part with that money so we the 'ants' can use it to pay off debts etc, but then what happens to maybe the companies they run? They'll have to lay off people to cut the budget and it'll cause ppl to be on welfare. It's a domino effect in a way.

 

I understand situations, such as Wall St+police and such, but no one starts out with the same background. The poor are usually born at a disadvantage.

 

Regarding the example, the reason I said what I said, is that the unequal from birth situation is what goes on in the US today. The rich are born with privileges the rest of us simply do not have. "Rags to riches" is an American dream but it's not really feasible anymore. Sure, some do make it, but it's not with the same regularity that it used to be, so the poor can't bet on climbing out of their birth socioeconomic status the way they used to be able to. If America is the land of opportunity, it's not doing a very good job of living up to its name in that regard.

 

The bar should be set so that opportunity can be equal. Which means the rich pay more because they can afford to and still get by with most of there perks. There comes a line where it just is hoarding. What difference is it to someone whether they make 25 or 26 million dollars? However, that million dollars can do a lot of good for others. Of course, you make those poor EARN it, you don't just hand it to them.

 

That means there are three culprits:

 

1-the pay structure of today's corporations that has them paying their top executives hundreds and even in some cases thousands of times what their workers get (vs. years ago when it was less than 100x in every corp)

 

2-a tax code that penalizes businesses for hiring American, and does not penalize for outsourcing

 

3-tax codes that allow rich individuals who are very high earners to claim a lot of deductions and credits which reduce their tax rates, the 1980's reduction in the top earner tax bracket rate, AND the fact that the income thresholds for tax rates are rarely adjusted for inflation. There need to be more tax brackets to charge exorbitant rates to VERY high earners, at the federal level, so that differences in state taxation policies do not encourage tax evasion in the form of rich guys going "I'm gonna move." However this MUST be coupled with a big cut in corporate tax rates, AND a reduction in the amount of foreign wages that can be deducted by a corp on their US tax filing. This encourages them to hire American, to spend more on their workforce, and frees up discretionary money for business expansion, which can then be marketed overseas and help offset somewhat our trade deficit. Since corps that generate income from here would have to file, that affects foreign corps too, and encourages them to maintain jobs and production in the US if they're going to continue selling here.

 

State and local taxes would maintain a similar structure as today, although they could benefit from raising high earner income taxes as well. However this must be done gradually, and as close to consistently across the board as possible, to discourage the very wealthy from moving to evade taxes (BTW another luxury they have that the poor don't since the poor don't have the credit or income to take out new loans on new residences).

 

And of course, state, local, and federal governments would emphasize a few things with tax earnings: -infrastructure (including public transportation), healthcare, police/fire/EMS/FEMA, the SEC, pensions/social security, and education. Rather than a lot of the stupid crap endorsed now. That eliminates a lot of the waste.

 

Also regarding illegals because it has come up a lot lately, my stance is simple: If you are here illegally, you are here illegally. If you're caught, fine, bye bye deported. No pussyfooting around. But it's not worth spending taxpayer dollars on what amounts to a witch hunt. Instead, they just simply don't get the rights of ordinary citizens. Gov't can seize their assets to pay off a claim (ie illegal w/o a driver's license hits someone's car), gov't can jail them without a fair trial by a jury of their peers, they don't have a right to a lawyer, they can't vote, and they can't drive. They're not required to be paid minimum wage either. That's my view on it.

 

:tup: I agree with this.

[Citaro]

Yes! I bet the Europeans are looking at us like we are a bunch of barbarians. Seriously.

 

I know there are many americans with a brain like you, but most europeans can't understand the "tea party" movement and they really think that your country is uncivilized. But don't forget, in 1950 the US was the greatest nation on earth, europeans thought and it really was. Europeans were jealous, today they laugh about things that are going on in your country.

 

Today, i saw on tv that in Bangladesh workers earn 14 cent per day for working the whole day to make shirts and in Germany they sell these shirts for more than 50 Dollar/Euro by H&M. Capitalism sucks!!!

 

But compare two different countries!

 

.........................................................Sweden (socialism)............USA ("freedom")

 

Human Development Index.........................................0.963...................0.956

Nominal GDP per capita..........................................44,400....................47,000

Death penalty.........................................................No......................Yes

Peace Index rank...................................................10........................85

Homicide rate.......................................................0.92......................5.4

Prison population per 100,000 inhabitants....................82........................756

Life expectancy in years.......................................80.9.........................78.2

Unemployment rate.................................................9.3%.....................9.5%

Public debt of GDP...............................................35.80%.....................52.90%

Current account balance.......................................+29.50..................−380.1

Infant mortality rate................................................2.5...........................6.7

Healthcare costs of GDP..........................................9.2%.......................16%

Physicians per 1000 people.........................................3.6.........................2.4

Income equality (Gini)...............................................23%.......................45% (higher means more inequality)

Welfare expenditure of GDP.................................. 38.2%.................19.4%

Press Freedom (Rank).....................................................1........................20

AIDS death rate per year.............................................100....................22000

PISA rank (math)........................................................14........................24

Human height +20 age..............................................1.779 m...............1.763 m

Humanitarian donation of GNI.............. .......................0.12%.................. 0.03%

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/business/worldbusiness/17iht-wbmcdo.1.7153577.html