Building bombs? Dropping bombs? The poor are the answer, not the problem. The rich are the problem. So way to be completely wrong.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Apple Faces Billions In Fines In Tax Avoidance Probe
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Building bombs? Dropping bombs? The poor are the answer, not the problem. The rich are the problem. So way to be completely wrong.
flashoverride
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 496
What....
Who is "the poor" that you are referring to? Confining this discussion to the United States, there are many, many people who are living in sub-optimal economic conditions. Some of these people have spent decades working at jobs that have been shifted overseas or replaced by automation. Is that their fault? It's true that one should always be seeking to improve, but we are talking about a wide scale of individual capability here, and some people are not as capable as others and will have a harder time adapting. There are folks that lack basic education - once they reach the age of majority they can shoulder some of that blame, but the lion's share falls to the education machine that's more concerned about those sweet, sweet union dues than they are positive educational outcomes. There are massive restrictions and red tape on starting small businesses, and when one is successful at opening a business everyone comes looking for a bite at the apple. There are unfavorable tax rates and crappy trade policy. There is devaluation of the currency and the resultant inflation that isn't matched by rising wages.
There are many reasons for being "poor", and for most people it's temporary. Most people get out of it. We should strive to allow everyone an opportunity to rise above it.
There are of course professional grifters, and every effort should be made to keep those people off of the government dole. Limits and audits should be routine and effective. People who bilk the system should be banned from assistance and prosecuted if they benefited fraudulently.
flashoverride
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 496
lol wut
The poor are the answer, huh? The answer to what? And who exactly are "the poor"?
Greed, what's ruining the planet and equality amongst humanity.
The people without the ability to lobby for unjust laws.
Simple.
flashoverride
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 496
Greed is a human failing endemic to all people of all economic strata. An vanishingly small number of people actively choose to be poor. Greed isn't what ruins "equality".
So, no one in the United States then.
Choose to be poor....ROFL.....everyone starts poor besides those that inherited it. Poor is the starting point and end game for 99% of the populations. What a bubble you must live in.
So the 99% of the US, then.
True, greed isn't what ruins things, it's rewarding it what does.
Might want to look at this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/
Particularly this part:
"Gilens and Page analyze 1,779 policy outcomes over a period of more than 20 years. They conclude that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.
DTN107
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,846
and what company isn't trying to avoid taxes?
You're opinion doesn't resonate with historical fact. The poor historically have always been and always shall be a drain on any society.
There are varying levels of the poor. The working poor and the chronic, multi-generational poor. The working poor are and try to be productive members of society, but they are held back any number of factors; lack of education, societal/social circumstances, familial and/or geographical ties that may prevent them from seeking a better life elsewhere, medical conditions perhaps. The working poor have the opportunities to not be in that catergory by any number of opportunities that are present to them to take advantage of within their respective states and federal programs.
The chronic/multi-generational poor are the real culprits here. They provide nothing other than their mere existence. They are at this level of poverty for one reason and one reason only and this issue plaques the working poor as well and that is, is they are horrible and in some cases incorrigibly bad decision makers. Being a bad decision maker is the #1 roadblock to betterment and advancement of those that are poor to those that are not. That horrible decision making process manifests itself in any number of ways from relationship issues, dependency issues, risky behaviors, mental/developmental issues. People at all levels of societal spectrum's display these patterns top some degree, but its the institutional poor that are the largest segment that manifest these issues to the largest degree and you can see those effects daily and monitarily. This country has spent upwards of $12 - $15 trillion dollars since the 1964 Welfare Act to declare a war on poverty and it is an utter failure and needs to end.
I don't think there should be an end to a safety net for those that contribute, but for those that don't have the desire to move upwards or show any desire for upward mobility should be left to their own devices and not see a dime of government subsidy. Cruel? No, since their chronically poor lifestyle of parasitic welfare collection usually sees higher criminality, drug/alcohol addiction, domestic violence, higher incarceration rates, and generally are a massive drain on city/state services. I don't think I need to go on further.
Greed has or is ruining the planet? Hmm, history says your opinion is wrong. Accumulation of wealth historically leads to better societies and better people. We don't live in pre-historic times anymore. Why? Because advancements of ideas from the most basic to what we have now have allowed people to become more and more prosperous. And the more accumulation of wealth you can recieve through your labors, the better life you can afford. The better life usually will see you move up in terms of lifestyle, health, standards of living. That in turn will see you, hopefully progress to safer environments, the ability to manage resources better to help you generate more prosperity and wealth. Wealth creation coupled with a capitalistic environment has been a fantastic boon for humanity in general for those that decide to use it. We've seen how other societies are like that don't.
Just so you know, in the USA, there are more working poor than the chronic poor:
So when you talk about the poor, in the USA at least, you're mostly talking about people who are busting their asses to get by.
That's kind of like saying an arena fighter has the opportunity to win his freedom. Yes, it's possible for some, but there are a myriad of societal factors working against them, exponentially moreso than people in middle or upper class.
Culprits of what? Being a drain on society? How much of what the financial sector is honestly essential for a society to function? How many resources and brainpower does it drain from more productive areas? Who is it who caused the economy to crash again? Why are the lazy poor somehow a bigger drain than banks making billions from laundering money for Al Qaeda and the Cartel? I'm not arguing the chronic poor as you describe them aren't a drain, but you can't claim to know how many of them would not function in society if they had food, shelter, and some basic medical care / education as ASSURANCES. The stress of day-to-day survival is incredibly debilitating and only the most strong-willed can break out of that, with many who might otherwise make it if they didn't have to live hand to mouth. You're judging a whole group by different standards than those with means, when the reality is many of them are as capable "productive" people, but don't have the bountiful opportunities you seem to think they do. There's a saying about how psychopaths born in poverty tend to up in prison, psychopaths born into wealth tend to up as managers.
If you think letting anyone to die in the street isn't cruel, all I can say is you're either a sociopath or have lived an incredibly sheltered life.
RealityCrunch
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,393
We'll just wait until there isn't enough liquid left in society to drain away 
spintroniX
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 974
in a society as wealthy as the U.S.A., virtually nobody would die in the streets in the absence of government welfare. The truly disabled would be taken care of, because most people aren't sociopaths and would gladly pitch in (voluntarily) to take care of those that can't take care of themselves.
Without an extensive safety net, most people are remarkably resourceful and would find a way to support themselves.
The point about squandering 10+ trillion on eradicating poverty is valid. It may have been well intentioned, but it has created generational poverty. Had that money been permitted to circulate in the economy, far more wealth would have been created, thus raising everyone's standard of living.
I think current poverty levels far outstrip what private charity would cover, but I don't really want to get into that argument right now.
Oh please. You can't make that argument and then ignore how at least 21 - 32 trillion is being used for tax evasion offshore:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18944097
Essentially what Apple is doing.
RealityCrunch
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,393
Technically it could be a self-sufficient cycle. As wealth inequality continues to increase the top of the food chain will have more to spend on "charity" to the poor and impoverished as the number of poor and impoverished continues to increase.
Except poverty has only increased as we've had tax cuts for the wealthy, and proportionally, middle and lower classes (that have disposable income) give a higher percentage of their income than the rich.Technically it could be a self-sufficient cycle. As wealth inequality continues to increase the top of the food chain will have more to spend on "charity" to the poor and impoverished as the number of poor and impoverished continues to increase.
jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,591
Apple doesn't owe, they're just being taxed wrong.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
The biggest argument against private charity is the fact that private charity:
1) Doesn't do shit as-is,
2) Discriminates.
Magically, if the government were to vanish or eliminate taxes, private charity is going to do much more when they're not even doing the most they can?
Just so you know, in the USA, there are more working poor than the chronic poor:
So when you talk about the poor, in the USA at least, you're mostly talking about people who are busting their asses to get by.
Yes, I know there is more working poor than the institutionalized poor.
This is the fairness distribution curve. Some will make it, some will not, some will get worse. You can't factor for those societal factors and asking for government to do it is why the myriads of problems government has with it's wealth redistribution schemes create a lot of the issues that are seen, coupled with what i've said earlier about the poor being horrible decision makers. Those of the poor that make it out are usually because their decision making processes improved in favor of their self-preservation and need to excel for whatever reasons or factors. Yes, the poor have a higher burden to get out of their poverty, but once they do, the levels of opportunity are many factors above where they were.
RealityCrunch
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,393
I think it'd be fairly safe to say that a society would be most efficient at a particular wealth distribution curve, a curve that generates the most effective motivation:asset ratio amongst most of the population. Forced equal distribution is silly as it eliminates motivation, just as a distribution where the top 1% own 99% of the wealth would be silly as 99% of the population would be spending all their time just trying to survive and drinking their own urine for hydration.
Any factor distorting this ideal curve could be considered a drain on the society. From a person who chooses to live off welfare, to someone who has more money than Uncle Scrooge and rewrites the laws as to increase his own profit by a few % at the expense of the rest of society, to even members of politics who enact changes. As to which group/s are the most draining to a society, looking at both the bottom and the top provides the best picture.
Extra attention should be paid for those with the most power, as any decision they make can have huge impacts on a society, making one individual or group possibly responsible for huge drains/gains.
Any factor distorting this ideal curve could be considered a drain on the society. From a person who chooses to live off welfare, to someone who has more money than Uncle Scrooge and rewrites the laws as to increase his own profit by a few % at the expense of the rest of society, to even members of politics who enact changes. As to which group/s are the most draining to a society, looking at both the bottom and the top provides the best picture.
Extra attention should be paid for those with the most power, as any decision they make can have huge impacts on a society, making one individual or group possibly responsible for huge drains/gains.
And you completely fail to see how this all connected. You probably think when business interests lobby get congress to cut funding on food stamps, that's not a source of the problem. Or how by withdrawinng support from the safety net at the same time tax breaks are given to the most wealthy how that creates more of an underclass out of people who would be productive to society if they had half a chance.Methadras said:
You said the chronic poor are "the real culprit" to drains on society. I'm saying parasitic practices of the incredibly wealthy and powerful are a larger drain and are more the culprit than the lazy poor, especially when most of the poor are working. Again, 2-3x as much money has been sheltered from the government via tax avoidance and evasion than all the welfare money combined. But sure, let's focus on a minority of an underclass and pretend they're the ones really steering the country and causing most of the problems, right?
Yeah bullshit. I'm assuming you're not crippled, half-blind, have a debilitating illness, are literate amongst other things. Your tendency to group everyone together and assume they all have the same opportunities is obvious fallacy to your arguments.
Who said anything about equal? I think people who contribute more to society SHOULD be rewarded. I'm talking about not further rewarding people who already have more resources than they'll ever use at the same time support for the most desolate are cut. Piling money on the rich at the same time you kick out the stool from under the poor is not a formula for the success of a society. I'm looking at this from a utilitarian point of view. If someone is earning 563 million with tax breaks, maybe 3 million of that could do a whole hell of a lot of good for thousands of people who could contribute to society than it will for that millionaire using tax exploitations in the first place. But no, god forbid we ever touch a rich person's money, for they are the ultimate good of society, right?
Yeah, I'm sure the government had nothing to do with their success. You say education, how did that happen? Has anyone in your family gone to public schools, used a library? Were they drinking water purified by a municipal source? But no, it was all them AND you. You say you did it, so you've literally gone from rags to riches without any government assistance, which is an incredibly rare demographic in America. Care to elaborate specifics what you actually did to succeed or are you just going to talk in generalities that sound like you never did this? How much did you spend on meals each month? What kind of food did you eat, did anyone in your family face health problems? How did they afford them? If you didn't take anything from the government, how did you afford housing? I mean I could be wrong here, but the way you're talking comes across like you haven't really experienced this, especially the "I did it" part.