GREED: It can be both a very bad thing... and a very GOOD thing. What kind of greed holds you?

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Yeah, OP was an unreadable, horribly written wall of text, but generally, people act the way they act.

Amazing! Thank you for your brilliant insight! People act the way they act. Generally. Thank God for JVS.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

I want lots of money, so I can have lots of sexy girls, and lots of with cute pets. I wanted this since I was a wee ladd. I am still working on it.

 

[dr_hellno]

So? How is that a counter to my point? Maybe it makes him happy to wear wranglers.

Exactly. He wears Wranglers because he, like plenty of other wealthy folk, don't spend exorbitantly. It's counter to your point because you said, explicitly:

If you're envious of the wealth of the rich, rich people can only enjoy their wealth when they spend it... hence they'd pay more by default of their own choice.

And on to this other claim of yours:

they store their money in banks which is then accessed again by the populace in the form of loans.

Yeah, except for the fact the wealthy often store their money in banks overseas. And except for the fact that every time the likes of Donald Trump goes bankrupt and leaves creditors with their cocks in their hands, the interest rates go up for everyone, actually making it MORE DIFFICULT to get loans.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I want to take a minute to talk about GREED. On Facebook, online, and in person I constantly hear about “the problem of greed”. I think that the majority of the times that I hear about this the person bringing it up doesn’t understand what they’re talking about. In turn I usually find that they are the ones being greedy. So let me get into a few things here…

There are two kinds of greed, as far as I am concerned:

1) There is greed in wanting as much as you can for yourself (or others) that is achieved through consensual uncoerced business transactions.

2) There is greed in wanting as much as you can for yourself (or others) achieved through force, fraud, or some other unsavory tactic.

The first is 100% okay, from all that I can tell. There is not a finite amount of wealth in our country or in the world. If a person pursuing their own greed achieves massive wealth through the first method, they are not taking anything away from other people that wasn’t offered of their own will. There is not a lesser amount of wealth remaining for the rest of us when someone increases their wealth through this first method. In fact, to become massively wealthy through this method, you almost certainly had to create more wealth for everyone else. Steve Jobs became insanely wealthy, but did he leave the rest of us with less? Or did he leave the world with more? Our lives are BETTER because of people like Steve Jobs.

The second kind of greed is not okay. Achieving your greed through the 2nd method typically does deprive others and causes damage. How many people lost much wealth as a result of the fraud of Enron? This type of greed will suck others dry in order to enrich those pursuing this method. This method isn’t limited to scandals like Enron, however. Stealing is this type of greed. Borrowing money you never intended to pay back is this kind of greed. And more importantly, taxing the rich more than the poor IS THIS KIND OF GREED.

When you want Government to use FORCE to make the rich pay more simply because they have more… this is YOUR GREED. This is your envy. Just because they can afford more doesn’t mean its right to put a gun to their head and force them to. Does the mention of a gun sound like an exaggeration? It’s not. What happens if a rich person refuses to pay their higher tax rate? They get fined and arrested. What if they refuse to pay their fine or be arrested? In come the guns, in comes the force.

Just because you can make something like a graduated or progressive tax a law doesn’t mean that it is right. It doesn’t mean that you’re not being greedy to support something like this, even if you convince yourself that it’s for the greater good. It absolutely does mean that you’re willing to enforce the notion that a wealthy person will be separated from their wealth at the end of a gun. That is what you’re setting up with this type of law. Are you fine with that? Sounds an awful lot like robbery to me, only you’ve enlisted the Government – which has a monopoly on the use of force - to hold the gun for you. Does it make you feel better about yourself to rob people if you’re not the one holding the gun?

But what about all the poor people that the rich can help alleviate with their excess money? Why shouldn’t they do more for society?

Okay. Let’s set aside the fact that you’re STILL justifying using a gun to take fairly earned property from wealthy people because you’re greedy in the second way… Let’s look at how a wealthy person got that wealthy in the first place. Some inherit it, but that’s fine. If you get rich fairly and want to pass your wealth on, you should be able to. It’s your property. You could win it in a lottery, but that’s fair. You could win it in a lawsuit, and sometimes that might be fair and others it won’t be. Instead, let’s focus on those who get wealthy through running a successful entrepreneurship.

If you want to accumulate as much wealth as possible with your business, how do you do it? Imagine that your end goal is to have your own Trump Tower. How do you get this insanely wealthy? Well, you could try to do it by following the 2nd method I mentioned above. You could commit fraud or theft, but that’s pretty risky. What if you decide to do it through the 1st method?

If you want to maximize your wealth you have to create a good or service that other people want. This means you must spend your life putting in the time and effort to create something that someone else feels is more valuable to them then their own money. This is called a “Two-Way Benefit”. If the business man is offering a product that doesn’t benefit the consumer… then he isn’t going to get very wealthy, is he? If he is offering a beneficial product but is charging so much that the consumer isn’t willing to agree to the terms… then he isn’t going to get very wealthy, is he? If a consumer agrees to the purchase of their own free will, then they are agreeing that the product or service being offered is WORTH MORE TO THEM THAN THE MONEY THEY ARE GIVING UP. That means the consumer fees that after the transaction their life will be slightly BETTER. There is nothing wrong in this transaction. Of course a buyer may feel remorse afterwards, but is that in of itself a problem or a sign or foul play? No. Perhaps they miscalculated, but that’s on them.

So how do you maximize your wealth in this way? You would have make this product or service – that benefits the lives of people – available to the maximum amount of people. That means that in order to get wealthy you have to provide a LOT of people with a good or service that they feel is BETTER for them than the money that they spend. So you’re improving the lives of all of these people to varying degrees.

Does this greed sound that bad to you? If it does, I’d say you’re being irrational and perhaps a bit greedy yourself… in the bad way.

It goes further than this. The business doesn’t just bring these goods and services to the people to better their lives. In order for the business to do this well on a grand scale - to become insanely wealthy - they had to CREATE JOBS. They couldn’t do all of this all by their lonesome. In their pursuit of the dream of wealth they bettered the lives of the maximum amount of people that they could serve. In doing so they also created jobs, jobs that didn’t exist prior to their venture. Jobs are created, goods and services are created, and so on. All of this was created by the greed of one person who is pursing their dream through mutual uncoerced business transaction. Their dream of greed isn’t just helping themselves, they are employing people and giving them a livelihood that will put a roof over their head and put food on the table. Society itself gets more wealthy as a result, as these employees are now producing and purchasing within the marketplace. People now have access to new goods and services that bettered their lives. It keeps on rolling, as the business grows contractors are given work to build offices. The local economy gets a boost. All of this results from this person’s pursuit of their own greed.

But it doesn’t stop there. Where does this wealthy person keep their money? Fast forward to when they’re filthy rich. Where does their money go? In their own vault? No, it goes into INVESTMENT, which in turn creates even MORE opportunity for growth. It goes into BANKS, giving them money to lend out to other people, money the bank would not otherwise have to help boost the local economy through loans and entrepreneurship investments. Their contribution to society continues on.

When greedy people of the 2nd stripe complain that they want the rich to pay more, they’re being greedy in the 2nd way. They misguidedly want to gain access to that wealth – for their own benefit or for that of others – and are willing to support force being used against this great entrepreneur in order to get it. They ignore ALL that the greedy person of the 1st stripe has done and continues to do for society. That person gained wealth through hard work, personal sacrifice, and they have benefited society by enriching the lives of countless people by bringing them goods and services that the consumers felt improved their lives, they created jobs in order to manufacture and spread those goods and services, they improved the local economies through a combination of these benefits, they invest their money in other productive investments, and they store their money in banks which is then accessed again by the populace in the form of loans.

And you don’t think they’ve done enough? You think that they should do MORE? And you think yourself or the Government is going to be able to do more for society with the taxes taken by force than this great entrepreneur would have done had he been able to continue to invest and grow as he had so successfully done? Is the United States Government more productive for society with the money they took from Steve Jobs than Steve Jobs would have been had he kept that money?

It is neither moral nor accurate to think you’re benefiting society by supporting a progressive tax. What have you done for society? Are you benefiting society? Certainly not on this scale. It seems to me that the good guys are the guys who pursued the 1st form of greed and that the progressive tax advocatesare the 2nd type of greedy people. No matter how they try to con you or guilt you into supporting it - even if they BELIEVE it – they’re still embracing the 2nd kind of greed.

I would like to think these concepts are well understood here, but from what I see it isn’t.

LOL

I think the two kinds of greed, is the one where my interests are aligned with your greedy ass, and one where my interests are not aligned with you.

Our capitalist system worked when corporate America's interests were aligned with the average American.

That is not the case today, and the main cause of that is multi-national corporations, and globalized trade.

Corporate America is my enemy, because their interests are no longer aligned with mine.

 

[5H3RD0G]

There is no good in greed because there will always be someone that wants more whether it's one person or many, it's a disease of humanity in mental form. It's one of the many mental diseases our human species possesses until vanquished all will perish eventually...............................

 

[VivaRevolution]

There is no good in greed because there will always be someone that wants more whether it's one person or many, it's a disease of humanity in mental form. It's one of the many mental diseases our human species possesses until vanquished all will perish eventually...............................

It's not a disease, it is a function of a system where resource scarcity dominates the world.

Fusion and automation are how you hit post scarcity, and will cure the "disease".

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Exactly. He wears Wranglers because he, like plenty of other wealthy folk, don't spend exorbitantly. It's counter to your point...

It's not a counter to my point. Warren Buffet is just one person, an anomaly. Yet despite that the guy invests billions in other company's, buying shares and stocks and so on. He also splurged on a private jet. He makes sizable contributions to foundations and securities. He invests in the environment and his companies.

Are you suggesting that Warren Buffett doesn't do anything for the world or for the economy? Because that would be patently absurd. Are you suggesting that because an extremely rare anomaly in terms of an extremely wealthy person living a modest lifestyle exists, that the wealthy as a whole don't spend their money? Because that's also patently absurd. So no, you didn't make a point. You pointed out a rare breed of wealthy person, yet that person STILL is active in benefiting society.

Yeah, except for the fact the wealthy often store their money in banks overseas. And except for the fact that every time the likes of Donald Trump goes bankrupt and leaves creditors with their cocks in their hands, the interest rates go up for everyone, actually making it MORE DIFFICULT to get loans.

WHY do many the wealthy individuals store their money offshores? They do it to avoid ridiculous taxation. And what would happen if we didn't tax people on their income and only on their spending? Would they keep their money offshores then? Well.... fucking DUH. They wouldn't. They'd have no reason to. So you just made my point FOR ME. Thank you.

Come back and try again, but next time why don't you be honest and tell me how much you want a piece of the wealth of the wealthy.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

I think the two kinds of greed, is the one where my interests are aligned with your greedy ass, and one where my interests are not aligned with you.

ROFLMAO. So when *I* want something, it's "my greedy ass". But when you want something, it's just your interests.

If you cannot even start off honestly, what's the point of even trying?

Our capitalist system worked when corporate America's interests were aligned with the average American.

Capitalism works fine. When you involve Government and Business together, then Corporatism takes over. THAT is when the interests of the common people are negatively affected. A business MUST have something for it's consumers, else it's not a viable business in a Capitalist Society. But when you involve Government and Business, crony's can buy favors, manipulate laws, etc to serve THEIR interests. Government has the monopoly on force. Business can't force anything. But if Business can buy off bureaucrats and gain favors then they gain an influence on the use of force. THAT is when we get CRONY CAPITALISM, which is what I oppose. That's not Capitalism, it's Corporatism.

That is not the case today, and the main cause of that is multi-national corporations, and globalized trade.

Corporate America is my enemy, because their interests are no longer aligned with mine.

What you're opposed to is Corporatism, or Crony Capitalism. You're not opposed to Capitalism.

 

[kpt018]

Amazing! Thank you for your brilliant insight! People act the way they act. Generally. Thank God for JVS.

I failed to see the insight in the OP. If we were to summarize it in a much more manageable way, could we say that you oppose taxation on income because greed has benefits?

You used a rent seeker in one of your points, which is probably the worst example to use. They literally profit from owning something and produce nothing.

 

[senri]

Zeke do you harbour indignation to some people in sherdog and in real life?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Why is an income tax a use of force and akin to robbery but a spending tax is not?

You need to earn income and you need to buy things to survive.

So once you get past the idea that taxing in general is not immoral than I comes down to policy.

Which form of taxation brings in the most amount of revenue?

What tax is least harmful to the overall economy?

What tax is less likely to put harmful economic pressure on our most vulnerable citizens (the elderly, children and disabled)?

 

[dr_hellno]

It's not a counter to my point.

You're seemingly a bit dim, so let's clarify again the point *I* was countering -- not your addendum and not your revised bullshit. You said, explicitly:

If you're envious of the wealth of the rich, rich people can only enjoy their wealth when they spend it... hence they'd pay more by default of their own choice.

You were speaking as if every wealthy person lives in Versailles and has gold faucets and therefore the country as a whole would be able to get by merely on taxes gathered from the exorbitant spending of the wealthy.

WHY do many the wealthy individuals store their money offshores? They do it to avoid ridiculous taxation. And what would happen if we didn't tax people on their income and only on their spending?

They would find another way around it. They ALREADY expense and write off anything and everything under the sun as is. It's what they're good at doing, and it's what they pay lawyers and accountants top dollar to do. (This is surely where you continue your inane dance and claim "see, they employ lawyers and accountants to evade taxes! More employment! Better economy!").

Come back and try again, but next time why don't you be honest and tell me how much you want a piece of the wealth of the wealthy.

This is what mouth-breathers do -- they project biographies on to people, lump them all into one convenient boat that fits their narrative, then say "see, you're exactly what and who I was talking about!"

P.S. You know I'm not wealthy, how, exactly?

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

I failed to see the insight in the OP.

I never suggested that there was hope for everyone. I was hoping that I'd help SOME of the people who don't get it, knowing full well that there would be greedy assholes of the 2nd stripe who would refuse to consider learning. I am especially not surprised to see it be the same group that it always is.

If we were to summarize it in a much more manageable way, could we say that you oppose taxation on income because greed has benefits?

That is only a small part of it. Taxation is also forced theft, and I oppose the use of force against people who are doing no wrong and are benefiting society. I laid out examples about the benefits of the first kind of greed because that's more informative than just saying, "greed has benefits".

You used a rent seeker in one of your points, which is probably the worst example to use. They literally profit from owning something and produce nothing.

"Rent seekers"? I assume you're talking about someone who loans out living space for profit?

Such a person is providing a consumer with something that they want and don't have. It is a "Two Way Benefit" the terms of which are mutually agreed upon. The consumer agrees that the shelter and amenities are worth more to them then they money they are offering up for it. The renter agrees that the money is worth more to him than the shelter. Both benefit. If there was no benefit for the consumer, then they wouldn't agree to it.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Why is an income tax a use of force and akin to robbery but a spending tax is not?

An income tax is the forced apprehension of your property prior to it ever being in your possession. Spending tax is a tax that is taken only if you voluntarily enter into a trade. You are only taxed if you agree to the trade of your own volition, fully aware of the tax. There is no force making you engage in that trade nor to pay that tax. Income taxation is force.

You need to earn income and you need to buy things to survive.

Income isn't just money, it's anything. You can make a living growing crops and selling or trading them yourself.

So once you get past the idea that taxing in general is not immoral than I comes down to policy.

We are not past that idea. I am not going to accept your preference to the use of force merely because you say it is good for me.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

An income tax is the forced apprehension of your property prior to it ever being in your possession. Spending tax is a tax that is taken only if you voluntarily enter into a trade. You are only taxed if you agree to the trade of your own volition, fully aware of the tax. There is no force making you engage in that trade nor to pay that tax. Income taxation is force.



Income isn't just money, it's anything. You can make a living growing crops and selling or trading them yourself.



We are not past that idea. I am not going to accept your preference to the use of force merely because you say it is good for me.

1. Income tax is a tax that is taken only if you voluntarily enter into the workforce. You are only taxed if you agree to the trade your services for compensation of your own volition, fully aware of the tax.

2. Ok?

3.You are past the idea because you accept a spending tax.

The only difference between a spending and income tax is how it works. They are both collected using government force.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

You're seemingly a bit dim, so let's clarify again the point *I* was countering -- not your addendum and not your revised bullshit.

You were speaking as if every wealthy person lives in Versailles and has gold faucets and therefore the country as a whole would be able to get by merely on taxes gathered from the exorbitant spending of the wealthy.

That is a false caricature of my position. I never said that all wealthy people live in Versailles and have gold faucets. What I said is that with a spending tax the wealthy are going to be taxed more because they spend more. That's true. Now you may find some wealthy person somewhere that doesn't spend anything and in fact burns his money in the fireplace for fun, but does that demonstrate any falsehood regarding my point? No. If you want to argue semantics and suggest, "Well you didn't say that there would be an exception" then fine, I didn't add a caveat for the very rare case that some rich person doesn't spend a dime. Whoopty fucking do. The point remains however - no matter how much you try to undermine it - that the wealthy DO spend more than the poor and middle class. That's a fact. That's the point. So do you want to dwell on the hypothetical guy who gets a kick out of burning all of his dollars in the fireplace?

They would find another way around it.

Find another way around WHAT? If there is no income tax - which is what they're trying to avoid by moving their money off shores - then what are they trying to find their way around? There's no income tax! There's nothing to "find your way around". Are you just a fucking moron?

They ALREADY expense and write off anything and everything under the sun as is. It's what they're good at doing, and it's what they pay lawyers and accountants top dollar to do.

Because.....? Go on.... Answer it.... They are good at avoiding paying taxes because.....?

Because they don't want to pay the income tax. Therefore....? Do I have to connect the dots for your stupid ass? Therefore.... if there IS NO INCOME TAX....? Still nothing? *Sigh* If there is no income tax then there is nothing to evade.

Duh, you fucking nitwit.

This is surely where you continue your inane dance and claim "see, they employ lawyers and accountants to evade taxes! More employment! Better economy!".

No. The fact that you even missed the obvious point about no income tax and instead went on this weird line of thought that isn't a part of the point I made serves to demonstrate that you're a total retard. Moreover, your indignation is not an argument. You seem to think that it is, but perhaps when you graduate middle school you'll learn that scoffing at Straw Men is no argument.

This is what mouth-breathers do -- they project biographies on to people, lump them all into one convenient boat that fits their narrative, then say "see, you're exactly what and who I was talking about!"

P.S. You know I'm not wealthy, how, exactly?

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said you were wealthy. You're a moron.

 

[kpt018]

That is only a small part of it. Taxation is also forced theft, and I oppose the use of force against people who are doing no wrong and are benefiting society. I laid out examples about the benefits of the first kind of greed because that's more informative than just saying, "greed has benefits".

You didn't connect "greed has benefits" to support for changes in the tax code. Obviously capitalism has produced a ton of great things (things you mentioned in the OP as a starter) under the current tax system. Why would changing the code lead to more awesome stuff? Taxes are already very low compared to other first world countries. I think we rank something like 25th among them in effective tax rates. There is no scenario that is holding companies back from innovation due to tax rates on their profits.

As to your point about "taxation as being theft", well that's a very crazy view point. This wonderful system of capitalism is not possible without an advanced government that requires funding. It's also bizarre that you view taxation as theft but support a consumption tax. Same thing would apply, no?

"Rent seekers"? I assume you're talking about someone who loans out living space for profit?

Such a person is providing a consumer with something that they want and don't have. It is a "Two Way Benefit" the terms of which are mutually agreed upon. The consumer agrees that the shelter and amenities are worth more to them then they money they are offering up for it. The renter agrees that the money is worth more to him than the shelter. Both benefit. If there was no benefit for the consumer, then they wouldn't agree to it.

They basically profit from the ownership of property while the government funded threat of force protects their property rights. They don't make anything, don't produce any activity, nothing. I get that people need a place to live but they are the least productive owners of property in the entire system. Someone who works but owns very little contributes much more. I am saying that was a poor example to use.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

1. Income tax is a tax that is taken only if you voluntarily enter into the workforce. You are only taxed if you agree to the trade your services for compensation of your own volition, fully aware of the tax.

Everyone has a right to live, and to live you have to produce unless you've got someone to take care of you. If you have to work to live, the Government shouldn't have the ability to come in and take the fruits of your labor at the end of a gun. If you work to live and keep the fruits of your labor, it's up to you to do with as you please, including entering into trade. No one is coming in with a gun. That's the difference.
If you truly oppose Government being involved at all, then there are avenues available to you to be completely off the grid. You can farm and live off of the land or engage in similar endeavors. You can be completely left alone. With the income tax you can never be left alone, you're always under the threat of force.

But there is more. The Government is led by politicians that misuse and waste your money. They always take more and need more. A spending tax severely limits the size and power of the Federal Government, preventing it from ever growing too big. It is no coincidence that when the income tax became a Federal Law that Government has been exponentially growing bigger and bigger every decade. Even someone such as yourself should see how problematic that is.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

You didn't connect "greed has benefits" to support for changes in the tax code.

I undermined the idea of a progressive tax. A progressive tax is discrimination by the Government according to how much money you earn. That is immoral, and yet people like to make the moral argument that because they have more they should be taxed more. My argument shows that they already do so much more than everyone else, therefore the "moral argument" for a progressive tax is a lie.

Obviously capitalism has produced a ton of great things (things you mentioned in the OP as a starter) under the current tax system. Why would changing the code lead to more awesome stuff?

Because people who are good enough with their money and production to make it rich are by and large going to be far better with the money than some bureaucrat in Washington. These are people who already created new innovations that made life better for everyone. These are people who function in reality with a production level far beyond that of the normal person. How is some bureaucrat in Washington going to be better at producing than they are?

Moreover, anyone who works for a Government group that receives a budget knows just how wasteful they are. It's not their money. It did not come as a result of their hard work to produce it. It was money given to them, and there is going to be more coming. A business does not operate like that. Their income is directly tied to how well they are meeting the demands of society. If they fuck up or falter, the business loses. If Government loses, they just tax more. The risk is not the same. Therefore they operate differently.

As to your point about "taxation as being theft", well that's a very crazy view point.

No it isn't. It may seem foreign to you, but that doesn't mean it's "crazy". It stems from the non-aggression principle as well as from the idea of property rights. If you believe that you should not use force against people who aren't using force or being harmful to other people, then all it takes is for you to remain consistent in that belief. For you to say that taxation is not theft will require you to be inconsistent in terms of the use of force and in terms of property rights. It's not crazy, it's consistency. That's all.

This wonderful system of capitalism is not possible without an advanced government that requires funding.

That's not true. The only thing that is needed from Government is protection from other Governments and to deal with disputes and punishment of those who commit crimes. Aside from that, a free people looking to survive and thrive will trade with one another. That's natural. That doesn't require an advanced Government.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Everyone has a right to live, and to live you have to produce unless you've got someone to take care of you. If you have to work to live, the Government shouldn't have the ability to come in and take the fruits of your labor at the end of a gun. If you work to live and keep the fruits of your labor, it's up to you to do with as you please, including entering into trade. No one is coming in with a gun. That's the difference.
If you truly oppose Government being involved at all, then there are avenues available to you to be completely off the grid. You can farm and live off of the land or engage in similar endeavors. You can be completely left alone. With the income tax you can never be left alone, you're always under the threat of force.

Are you insinuating that right now if someone moved to the hills of Montana and started living off the land that the US Government would go in and start taking crops they produce as part of an income tax collection?

But there is more. The Government is led by politicians that misuse and waste your money. They always take more and need more.

If that's true why is the income tax lower now than it was under FDR?

Tax rates and deductions move for number of reasons.

I don't have a problem with government trying o increase revenue as long as it doesn't have an adverse effect on he economy and the money is going to things I think are beneficial to society and it makes more sense for he government to provide them than the markets (roads, military, SS etc)

A spending tax severely limits the size and power of the Federal Government, preventing it from ever growing too big. It is no coincidence that when the income tax became a Federal Law that Government has been exponentially growing bigger and bigger every decade. Even someone such as yourself should see how problematic that is.

Was the US government ever reliant on a sales tax?

Before the income tax the major source of federal revenue was on tariffs.