On Feb 4, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

Well John do you prefer a screw you get out of the lifeboat because too many who look like you are already in attitude?

Imagine a large lifeboat with a hundred seats. A hundred people get on the boat. Imagine, further, each seat represents 1% of the nation's wealth and each person represents 1% of the nation's population.

Then, if the 1% rich own 40% of the wealth--as they do in this country-- that means, by analogy, 1 person gets to take up 40 of those seats. The other 99 people have to scramble for a piece of the other 60 remaining seats.

So Bill Gates will not drown even if he gives up 35 of his seats.

That would be a great illustration IF like a single lifeboat with 100 seats there was a fixed amount of money available in the world. Since that's not true, it kinda sucks as an illustration.

Imagine instead an ulimited number of potential lifeboats that 'could' be built but 50% of the people aren't interested in helping build them, only in using them.

Do "potential lifeboats" really help anyone? Some 750 million people lack access to a stable supply of clean drinking water. The fact that maybe if we continue to create wealth, then they might have clean water some day really help anyone?

Good thing we have waterbottles in our lifeboat.

On Feb 3, 2015, rockwall wrote:
... While studies have shown that conservatives are much more generous at donations to charity, ...

On Feb 3, 2015, landmark wrote:
...
Wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk......arities/

On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
...

Michele Margolis and Michael Sances note that Brooks' conclusion [i.e. conservatives give more] comes from a dataset that doesn't really ask how conservative people are politically so much as how conservative they are socially.
...

On Feb 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
1) Illustration, as it helps to have an easily imagined visual when thinking about these things. We can use ten chairs and ten people too. One rich person (much less of course) takes up 4 chairs while the other 9 have to scramble for a piece of the remaining 6 chairs.

2) Danny was distraught that some rich people might get screwed out of the lifeboat. My Bill Gates remark was to reassure him that Bill would land on his feet. He'd still have plenty of room in that lifeboat, even if wealth were substantially re-distributed.

3) Practical how of it? Start with taxing capital gains at the same level as income tax, get rid of the Social Security rich person entitlement discount, enact a stock transfer tax. And for Lord's sake, stop boo-hooing that then you'll only be able to afford ten mansions instead of twenty.

Doesn't all of this talk assume there is only one pie and it has to be divvied up. The economy, resources and wealth creation can be limitless.

On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
1) Illustration, as it helps to have an easily imagined visual when thinking about these things. We can use ten chairs and ten people too. One rich person (much less of course) takes up 4 chairs while the other 9 have to scramble for a piece of the remaining 6 chairs.

2) Danny was distraught that some rich people might get screwed out of the lifeboat. My Bill Gates remark was to reassure him that Bill would land on his feet. He'd still have plenty of room in that lifeboat, even if wealth were substantially re-distributed.

3) Practical how of it? Start with taxing capital gains at the same level as income tax, get rid of the Social Security rich person entitlement discount, enact a stock transfer tax. And for Lord's sake, stop boo-hooing that then you'll only be able to afford ten mansions instead of twenty.

Doesn't all of this talk assume there is only one pie and it has to be divvied up. The economy, resources and wealth creation can be limitless.

So no problem with the deficit, then.

On Feb 4, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

Well John do you prefer a screw you get out of the lifeboat because too many who look like you are already in attitude?

Imagine a large lifeboat with a hundred seats. A hundred people get on the boat. Imagine, further, each seat represents 1% of the nation's wealth and each person represents 1% of the nation's population.

Then, if the 1% rich own 40% of the wealth--as they do in this country-- that means, by analogy, 1 person gets to take up 40 of those seats. The other 99 people have to scramble for a piece of the other 60 remaining seats.

So Bill Gates will not drown even if he gives up 35 of his seats.

That would be a great illustration IF like a single lifeboat with 100 seats there was a fixed amount of money available in the world. Since that's not true, it kinda sucks as an illustration.

Imagine instead an ulimited number of potential lifeboats that 'could' be built but 50% of the people aren't interested in helping build them, only in using them.

Do "potential lifeboats" really help anyone? Some 750 million people lack access to a stable supply of clean drinking water. The fact that maybe if we continue to create wealth, then they might have clean water some day really help anyone?

Good thing we have waterbottles in our lifeboat.

On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
Ah, I see. So from now on when you say, "studies show..." what you really mean is "flawed studies show..." Thanks for the clarification.

It would certainly save time, however, if you included the modifier "flawed" (as in, Wrong) from the beginning.

On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
1) Illustration, as it helps to have an easily imagined visual when thinking about these things. We can use ten chairs and ten people too. One rich person (much less of course) takes up 4 chairs while the other 9 have to scramble for a piece of the remaining 6 chairs.

2) Danny was distraught that some rich people might get screwed out of the lifeboat. My Bill Gates remark was to reassure him that Bill would land on his feet. He'd still have plenty of room in that lifeboat, even if wealth were substantially re-distributed.

3) Practical how of it? Start with taxing capital gains at the same level as income tax, get rid of the Social Security rich person entitlement discount, enact a stock transfer tax. And for Lord's sake, stop boo-hooing that then you'll only be able to afford ten mansions instead of twenty.

Doesn't all of this talk assume there is only one pie and it has to be divvied up. The economy, resources and wealth creation can be limitless.

So no problem with the deficit, then.

On Feb 4, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Give your water bottle to others. Give YOUR seat to others. Don't tell me what I am obligated to do with mine.

Don't tell the rest of the world what to do, Danny.

You might believe that greedily holding on to anything you've got your hands on to be the most ethical thing. Why should you impose your will on others?

On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
Ah, I see. So from now on when you say, "studies show..." what you really mean is "flawed studies show..." Thanks for the clarification.

It would certainly save time, however, if you included the modifier "flawed" (as in, Wrong) from the beginning.

Well, if you wanted to discuss which studies were flawed, that would be a whole nuther discussion, now wouldn't it?

On Feb 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

In the United States, education (even in impoverished areas), might be considered a "potential lifeboat." If A and B grow up in the same low-income environment, and A studies hard, stays in school, and parlays his education into a decent job and elevates his economic circumstance to, let's say, the middle class, while B drops out of school, has kids he can't afford, turns to crime and as a result becomes less employable, the "potential lifeboat" didn't help B, (that's why it was only a potential lifeboat), but it could have. Yes, B had it tougher than most, but is it really accurate to say or suggest (as some no doubt would) that because of those circumstances, B never really had a chance?

Which leads to the question where is the money being wasted? I think the answer is obvious to all.

On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:
As we have also established that when you say Wrong!, you're talking about yourself, not the person you're commenting on.