Skip to main content

View Diary: Adam Smith favored progressive taxation (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not at all. (0+ / 0-)

    The examples you have given are flawed in that they do not account for the resources allotted.  Bankruptcty of a wealthy individual does not deprive him or her of contacts, a social network, or the education to manage growing wealth.  The sudden increase in wealth that you indicate, such as through the lottery or inheritance, does not provide the growing pains and therefore further education in wealth management that can only by earned, as you imply, over time.  Most of those who have gradually managed their overall resource allocation have these skills to a degree.  Ethics have little to do with it- both the rich and poor want more for themselves, one simply has better resources by which to force that to occur, better alliances and better experience in bringing this into realization while the other has much less motivation due to the lack of gain, and less suitable experience and networking structure for doing so.

    No thanks, been to the Moon.

    by Tm3 on Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 05:51:54 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  exactly! (0+ / 0-)

      As you noted in you post:  'one simply has better resources ... while the other has much less motivation...'. Exactly right, one enjoys the resources of working (giving up time) while the other, less motivated, enjoys (using time).  It is a life preference and it is OK!  Neither wants to be told how to allocate their time (or money).

      •  You are deliberately confusing the two. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rich Santoro

        What I said was that "the other has much less motivation due to the lack of gain."  That is not a lifestyle choice or life preference by any means, but a product of environment.  There is no point in performing labor or sinking money into an attempt to gain resources or money if there is no chance of return.  You seem to have the idea that somehow those living in slums or rural areas removed from what many consider 'normal' regions- such as the suburbs or residential city plots- have the same set of opportunities as anyone else, when that is clearly not the case.  You seem to believe that inhabiting these areas is a life preference, when it is decidedly not so.  Most of the people in these areas are in fact trapped by economic concerns- as I mentioned before, things like price inflation due to theft or simple gouging run rampant.  Moreover, largely because of these conditions, their income is far too unstable for them to get decent credit- which they would otherwise need to escape this cycle.  They can't afford to move into areas that may afford them better possibilities.  Your contention that the poor have less money because they refuse to spend their time working is reversed- work that allows them to earn appreciable resources (time, land, whatever) is scarce.

        No thanks, been to the Moon.

        by Tm3 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:03:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No one is telling anyone... (0+ / 0-)

        ... how to live.  That is a total non-sequitur.

        The discussion is about those who want to use their time to succeed, but have no doors to open, much less the key to open them.  You ignore this concept and seem to think that Paris Hilton somehow worked so hard to accumulate her wealth...  

        "If Bill-O collapsed into his own sphincter, like an imploding dark star, and disappeared forever...would we care?..." - Liberal AND Proud, Crooks and Liars

        by Rich Santoro on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:32:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site