Michael Moore- "Capitalism is evil"... (2 Viewers)

[Lon Huang]

I go to see the 911 movie. I got there late and had to sit in front. At the end of movie everyone clapped. Someone tap me on the shoulder so I turn around and see everyone in theater standing up. They all look so mad at me. I thought they might eat me.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

You know tax cuts are a form of redistribution of wealth as well.

Perhaps I should have clarified myself instead of setting myself up for such a knee jerk reaction. I believe taxing for certain programs through which the government establishes and protects our basic human rights is fine, I also find some educational welfare and other programs designed to help people help themselves to be acceptable. What I do not think is fair however is when there is an attempt to shift wealth away from one group to another through government redistribution simply because it is decided that there is too much of a disparity. The custodian does not earn anywhere close to as much as the Lawyer for a reason, and it is up to the custodian to live within his or her salary of find a way to change their station while the Lawyer has every right to do with their wealth as they see fit. The custodian can aim for something better for them self or their children and the government can set up programs to help with that aim, but for them to claim that the Lawyer somehow owes them money because they need it or because their standard of living is too different from the Lawyer's is asinine.

As far as Tax cuts being redistribution of wealth... the only way to truly avoid any forced redistribution of wealth is not to tax at all... now as I am not an anarchist I do not advocate that. However the lower the overall tax rate is, the lower the amount of money taken in by the government, the less money that can be forcibly redistributed to others. The simple fact is the lower class basically does not pay taxes, about all they have to pay is FICA, while the upper middle class who make 300,000 or more have to pay marginally more on their top end income... and I am fine with that. As long as is stays reasonable it is not a problem. Nations like Sweden, Belgium, France, and Denmark just to name a few have absurd tax rates that destroy the incentive to pursue higher skills and achievements. It is hard to find any news pertaining to the subject but if you have a good degree or skill it is easy to find a job and gain citizenship in these nations due to a rather large exodus of skilled professionals having created a shortage.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

So if every earner in society is paying a fixed tax rate to pay for roads that everyone uses equally and you cut taxes for the largest earners using that road, they are now able to use that road at a cheaper price and their wealth has increased by virtue of not having to pay the same amount as others to support that road.

Uhmm they would still be paying more for the road than the low earners so I do not see how they are paying less for the road? Even with the recent tax cuts the top earners still payed a higher rate and more in taxes than the lower earners... the lowest of which basically only have to pay FICA.

Now if you want to be truly fair about it without any redistributive effects you simply set it up as a toll pay system where the people who use the road all have to pay the same flat rate to use it to pay off the price of its construction.... therefore the more use you get out of it the higher amount you pay for it.

 

[RazorOye]

I thought they might eat me.

only really a risk of Michael was in the audience screening his own film

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Uhmm they would still be paying more for the road than the low earners so I do not see how they are paying less for the road? Even with the recent tax cuts the top earners still payed a higher rate and more in taxes than the lower earners... the lowest of which basically only have to pay FICA.

Now if you want to be truly fair about it without any redistributive effects you simply set it up as a toll pay system where the people who use the road all have to pay the same flat rate to use it to pay off the price of its construction.... therefore the more use you get out of it the higher amount you pay for it.

Im talking in hypotheticals to illustrate my point that wealth redistribution is not a one way street. Come on man, you can clearly see that. I can come up with a hundred other examples about how tax cuts to the rich can redistribute wealth upwards.

Perhaps I should have clarified myself instead of setting myself up for such a knee jerk reaction. I believe taxing for certain programs through which the government establishes and protects our basic human rights is fine, I also find some educational welfare and other programs designed to help people help themselves to be acceptable.

Which is cool cause thats your opinion, so long as we stay honest here and understand that your opposition in wealth redistribution is not one that opposes all redistribution but merely those in which you dont support.

What I do not think is fair however is when there is an attempt to shift wealth away from one group to another through government redistribution simply because it is decided that there is too much of a disparity.

Most redistribution is not simply because their is too much disparity, it may be one facet in some people justification, but most is because people have decided that their is a need to for some program or policy to better promote a functioning society and improve the lives of the citizenry. If the goal is to provide low-income housing its irrational to expect the low-earners, who already cant afford a house, to be taxed for that house.

If that truly were sole motive by most on the left - to take money from one and give it to others - you would see people advocating for taxes on the rich that blindly distributed that money to the poor as checks in the mail. But since most support these programs for the reason i stated above and not some cynical Robin Hood plot, that scenario isnt happening.

The custodian does not earn anywhere close to as much as the Lawyer for a reason, and it is up to the custodian to live within his or her salary of find a way to change their station while the Lawyer has every right to do with their wealth as they see fit.

And if the custodian has no system in place to help him climb that ladder out of poverty (access to an education, enough food to live off of etc,) you create a society where climbing the ladder is near impossible.

And to provide that ladder you cant expect the poorest people to float that bill. The lawyer has benefited far greater from the established government and the guarantees to his wealth protected by our stable government of laws, rights and protections and thus it is not unreasonable to expect that person to chip in more to help support those protections, services and laws that not only insure his wealth and prosperity but that ensure others have the opportunity to achieve what the lawyer did.

As far as Tax cuts being redistribution of wealth... the only way to truly avoid any forced redistribution of wealth is not to tax at all... now as I am not an anarchist I do not advocate that. However the lower the overall tax rate is, the lower the amount of money taken in by the government, the less money that can be forcibly redistributed to others.

The question should not be "too much" or "too little" it should be "is this amount enough to optimize the goal of providing the best possible society to the most members and allowing the best avenues to achieve success and happiness."

Some of these things may be best left to market forces and individual choices but happiness and optimal outcomes may in areas be best achieved by providing programs and services that ensure access to those outcomes (defense, courts of law, education, homeless shelters, emergency room care, polic, fire departments). Its a balancing act and political philosophy is constantly wrestling with what best achieves the optimal.

The simple fact is the lower class basically does not pay taxes, about all they have to pay is FICA, while the upper middle class who make 300,000 or more have to pay marginally more on their top end income... and I am fine with that. As long as is stays reasonable it is not a problem. Nations like Sweden, Belgium, France, and Denmark just to name a few have absurd tax rates that destroy the incentive to pursue higher skills and achievements. It is hard to find any news pertaining to the subject but if you have a good degree or skill it is easy to find a job and gain citizenship in these nations due to a rather large exodus of skilled professionals having created a shortage.

thats not true at all, Denmark for example constantly rates near the top in terms of global satisfaction and happiness. It is true that in some of those countries taxes have led to a much narrower gap between the richest members and the poorest members but i would submit to you that monetary wealth is not the sole goal of a society or the sole indicator of happiness and thus a system of maximizing wealth is not necessarily the most optimal system one could achieve.

I would further question where you are getting info of a mass exodus of people. Emigration is prevalent in most countries, as of right now there are many people leaving America to go get jobs in China. I would argue that the evidence of emigration to another country is not complete evidence of that country having an inferior system(it may be if it is extremely prevalent and widespread) but merely that those citizens that are leaving are leaving are doing so because they have different ideals about what makes them the most satisfied and happy.

 

[RazorOye]

LOL

You dont know fear untill you turn around and see 200 clapping liberals standing there staring at you with mean looks on face. Yes I got up fast and clapped too. I clapped hard, I clapped for my life.

I watched it in a theater full of Canadians.

My experience was not dissimilar to yours.

Except my cannibalistic scenario involved gravy.

 

[crosswatt]

So if every earner in society is paying a fixed tax rate to pay for roads that everyone uses equally and you cut taxes for the largest earners using that road, they are now able to use that road at a cheaper price and their wealth has increased by virtue of not having to pay the same amount as others to support that road.

Or say corporation X is receiving subsidies to build some form of infrastructure but the congress passes a tax cut to corporations making over 250,000 dollars a years. Corporation X makes over 250,000 dollars a year. So they now pay less in taxes while receiving the same subsidies as before, their wealth has increased.

Redistribution of wealth works both ways but it seems most conservatives tend to only view it as a one way street.

.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

.

Cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

I watched it in a theater full of Canadians.

My experience was not dissimilar to yours.

Except my cannibalistic scenario involved gravy.

Come on, no one is afraid of Canadians.

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

This dude is proof you can be fat, dumb, ugly, and smell bad and still make lots of money in America. It's the american way ...get over it.

Actually that was proved by Rush Limbaugh, but Moore is doing his best to keep the dream alive......

 

[Superfan]

This dude is proof you can be fat, dumb, ugly, and smell bad and still make lots of money in America. It's the american way ...get over it.

Not when you have Oxycotingoggles on.

 

[ghetto saint]

Michael Moore is the most narcissistic film maker there is. He is the only director that stars in all of his films, like it or not. If you take any stock in what he says in his new abomination, then you should look at what pelosi did with that stimulus bill. she's the one to blame, not corporate america. remember the government wrote the check, the companies only endorsed it.

 

[brophy]

Just kind of wondering what is different from the content of THIS FILM from the early Huey Long platform?

* because as every M.Moore thread, regardless of how you feel about his content, always devolves into a competition of unrelated ad hominems.

 

[Deuceistheman]

fair enough if we are talking about the Moore film (i have never seen a Moore film so can't comment intelligently.) But i was addressing the anecdote that Mojomajik posted, which seems to imply that someone who's rich can't be, or shouldn't be, expected to be empathetic to the plight of those less fortunate... Hell, all you have to do is look at someone who's had a ton of news coverage over the last few weeks- the late Sen. Teddy Kennedy-- for an example of someone who was 'to the manor born' and didn't *have* to work a day in his life if he didn't want to; but he spent most of his political career fighting for things like healthcare for all, civil rights, discrimination etc etc...

Yeah, that is just great what he did over his years, but where did he live? Give me a break about not having to work a day in his life, but he spent most of his political career fighting for things for the poor. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He NEVER had to worry about anything from the day he was born. It is easy for anyone that lived in his world to say they support the less fortunate. Live it first, then I can believe you and what you are fighting for. He and his corrupt freaking family live in one of the most recognized, high profile/dollar areas of the country, while the poor people he fought for couldn't. Yeah, his whole family are saviors of the poor. What a joke.

This is what gets me about the Kennedy's, the Michael Moore's of this country, etc. They talk a good game but when the camera's are off, they don't want anything to do with the people they supposedly support. When these a-- clowns live in the poorest of the poor areas and commit their lifetime careers to that cause, then I could support them. Until then, they are merely useless scum. I would puke on them before I would talk to them.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Yeah, that is just great what he did over his years, but where did he live? Give me a break about not having to work a day in his life, but he spent most of his political career fighting for things for the poor. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He NEVER had to worry about anything from the day he was born. It is easy for anyone that lived in his world to say they support the less fortunate. Live it first, then I can believe you and what you are fighting for. He and his corrupt freaking family live in one of the most recognized, high profile/dollar areas of the country, while the poor people he fought for couldn't. Yeah, his whole family are saviors of the poor. What a joke.

This is what gets me about the Kennedy's, the Michael Moore's of this country, etc. They talk a good game but when the camera's are off, they don't want anything to do with the people they supposedly support. When these a-- clowns live in the poorest of the poor areas and commit their lifetime careers to that cause, then I could support them. Until then, they are merely useless scum. I would puke on them before I would talk to them.

EXACTLY... which is what i was trying to say-- he never *had* to work if he didn't want to, and yet he *chose* to fight for people who didn't have a pot to **** in-- and you hold that against him?? If not, then what did you mean by 'Give me a break'?? Unless i'm missing something, you seem to be really bitter about those who 'have it all', and you think that that automatically disqualifies them from feeling empathy and working to help those who aren't so lucky (not implying that all wealth comes from luck, but most truly wealthy are born into it.) ...Should Kennedy have chosen to live in an urban slum? And because he didn't, you're saying he should've kept his trap shut and not try to make a difference??? 'Helping the poor' doesn't mean giving away all your money and living like them-- it means helping others rise up through education, job opportunities, affordable healthcare, etc. so that everyone at least has a chance to achieve something..... Pls help me understand your thought process.




.