at a certain point you've made enough money, is completely true. do you absolutely need that second or third billion dollars? you can't spend that much in your lifetime.
WRONG. Why do you need more than $10,000 a year to live? John Wesley gave away to charity every penny he made over $10,000. Good for him, but is it my place to tell you to do the same? No. It doesn't matter if it's $10K or $100M, the principle does not change. No man has the right to tell another man how much he is allowed to earn. The looters are successful because they convince you they are looting that billionaire over there, and use envy to convince you it is OK, because you will never earn as much as him. Classic class warfare.
nowhere in this quote does it say anything about giving away "excess" money to the state, or anyone else. if you want to add that on, that's your own paranoid addition, not part of the original.
When you, just some guy on the Internet, tells me I am making too much money; it is just your opinion, right or wrong. You may want me to donate it to charity or whatever. When Obama said it, it was to justify the government taking the excess in taxes. These are called "trial balloons", to put the idea in people's heads that the money they earn IS NOT THEIRS, because it is so much more than what YOU earn.
Obama proposed the "Buffett Rule", specifically taxing the income of people who earn more than $1M a year. Even with the "progressive" income tax rates we have now, the most you pay is 40% of taxable income. What is the justification for taxing millionaires ON TOP OF that 40%? Two words: Class envy. You don't NEED that money, so we in the government are going to take it from you and give it to the people that WE THINK need it. Why is this so hard to see?
the "you didn't build that" quote is similarly butchered. it simply says that any success an individual has is ultimately due to a team effort. bill gates is a rich man. but did he build the pcs that microsoft software runs on? no. did he build the roads that allowed the software to be delivered? no. did he even write the code for his company's product? no. he didn't build all that, he's ridden on the backs of many people to get where he is today. nothing in there about who owns any profits, either.
I would have loved to have Bill Gates make his billions on my back, I would be a retired millionaire today. Bill Gates CREATED vast amounts of wealth. Why do you envy him? How many millionaires have you created in your lifetime?
Again, this is not just an intellectual discussion. Combined with Elizabeth Warren's speech, the Democrats are planting the idea in people's minds that the ONLY reason a business is successful is because of roads, bridges, and fire departments. If that's true, why isn't everyone successful? I have roads, bridges, and fire departments at my disposal, why don't I have a profitable factory?
Elizabeth Warren said, "Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." How nice of her. Who is going to implement this social contract? Do you seriously think she expects the business owner to set up a business loan program? Of course not, the STATE is going to step in, take even more in taxes from that company, and in theory, create more businesses in the future.
The factory owner in her example already PAID the taxes to build and maintain those roads, bridges, and fire departments; a lot more than the guy next door. He also paid taxes for gas and everything else. His taxes made it possible for EVERYONE ELSE in the neighborhood to enjoy new roads and bridges. But now, because he still made a profit, Warren and Obama want to come in and take some more of his profits. Why? Because he still has money. Profit is evil, and must be punished.
when you spread the wealth around it's obviously good for everybody. even industrialists as far back as henry ford understood this. is it "better" for an economy for a single person to have a million dollars or a thousand people to have a thousand dollars each? the multiplicative property of money will say the 1000x1000 situation produces a stronger economy. trickle down economics is a fraud of the highest order, but as someone famous once said, "the great masses of the people will more easily believe a great lie than a small one." and again, your interpretation is pulled out of thin air.
At least you don't deny that Obama said "spread the wealth". You seemed determined to ignore Obama's actual words and what they clearly mean. So, was Obama saying that millionaires should give away their money on their own, or was he planning to have the Federal government do it for them?
If spreading the wealth around worked, the Soviet Union would still exist; and along with China, Cuba, and North Korea, their economic plans would have left us behind in the dust. They have wonderful redistribution plans to share the misery equally. Why does communism fail? Because it punishes the wealthy, and drags them down to the level of their fellow man. It is not your PLACE to tell a wealthy man, or any man, what to do with his money. Why on earth are you so willing to let Obama turn this country into another socialist failure? Why?
reply
share
Mystic_Fox
11 years ago
Profit is evil, and must be punished.
I think it's probably more like it's better to inconvenience some rich people than let other people suffer. If Objectivists want to be taken seriously, they really need to stop with all this false dilemma BS. Just because one does not worship businessmen as gods does not mean that one thinks that they are demons. Just because I don't believe that one's success is based 100% on his own efforts, does not mean that I believe he did nothing.
Again, this is not just an intellectual discussion. Combined with Elizabeth Warren's speech, the Democrats are planting the idea in people's minds that the ONLY reason a business is successful is because of roads, bridges, and fire departments.
Why do you exclude enforcement of private property, contracts and intellectual property? Those things, as Objectivists prefer them, don't exist in the "natural order". This is where Objectivism basically refutes itself. It tries to portray Capitalism as a natural order that the evil government corrupts, but at the same time, it insists the government is necessary for that order to exist. They admit the collective helps the individual, but the collective can't ask for anything in return. Owning certain resources can affect others negatively. I don't think it's too extreme for ownership to come with some strings attached.
reply
share
CigarDoug
11 years ago
I didn't exclude anything. I have never heard an Objectivist or a Libertarian claim that we don't have a need for private property, contracts, and intellectual property, or the need for some state agency to protect those rights. A contract is a way for you and I to cement a deal between us, I sell you coal for XXX dollars. One necessary evil of the state is the means for me to sue you when you don't comply with the terms of the contract. The only issue with contracts that Ayn Rand mentions is when people are forced to sign contracts that are not mutually beneficial, like when Hank Rearden refuses to sell to the State Science Institute.
If I want to enforce a contract, I need a neutral third party (the court, the state, etc.) to settle disputes between parties. Having to pay a small amount of tax to have that system to protect me is reasonable. Objectivism, and Libertarianism, is not about Anarchy and no government. We don't advocate privatizing the courts, the police, the fire department (Roads? Maybe.) It is about just enough government to do the job.
All that aside, that has nothing to do with what Elizabeth Warren and Obama are saying. Liz is saying the owner of a business has an obligation to give something back to the "people" for use of roads, bridges, and fire depts. I point out that the owner of a business has ALREADY paid for those roads, bridges, and fire departments through taxes; and paid a larger share than the guy in the same neighborhood who owns one house and one car. What she wants is to come back around and demand MORE, after the fact, because the business owner still has money in his pockets. That is evil. That is piracy. The only surprise is that Democrats are now being open about what they want, they used to be more subtle about it.
reply
share
dab6
11 years ago
Cigar Doug, once upon a time the country had food and gas rationed during wartime. That was considered patriotic.
reply
share
CigarDoug
11 years ago
Cigar Doug, once upon a time the country had food and gas rationed during wartime. That was considered patriotic.
But this isn't about a time of war. This is about the socialists like Elizabeth Warren telling you that even though your taxes paid for the roads, the bridges, and the fire department, because you dare to make a profit, the profit belongs to someone else. It is pure evil. In the mind of statists like Warren and Obama, all the money you make belongs to the government. All of it. It is only by the kindness of their hearts that they let you keep any of it.
North Korea operates this way, so does Cuba and the former Soviet Union. Do you believe that their system is one you want to live under?
reply
share
phantom2-2
11 years ago
In the mind of statists like Warren and Obama, all the money you make belongs to the government. All of it.
this is pure fiction
reply
share
phantom2-2
11 years ago
btw, every single elected official in the usa is a "statist" in your tinfoil-hat terms, they just vary in degree to some minimal level.
since you'd prefer to live in a non-statist society, i understand somalia is thriving these days. you should move there while you still can.
reply
share
bocomoj
11 years ago
Nice posting. Don't waste your time on phantom. S/he is a lightweight intellectual poseur.
reply
share
CigarDoug
11 years ago
Nice posting. Don't waste your time on phantom. S/he is a lightweight intellectual poseur.
Quite true, but my replies are not for her. We must refute these "arguments" when they come up, otherwise other people reading them will swallow them. Every argument by the statist is easily destroyed by facts and logic, but our propaganda media won't discuss it. So we must.
reply
share