And I don't really agree with super high taxes for the rich. For example, I'm someone who spends a lot of time working, studying and learning. If in 20-30 years time I happen to be lucky to be a rich person, I don't want high taxes, because why should I pay high taxes? I spent my time working while other people were laughing the days away, drinking, partying, etc. Why should my money be taken by the state to go towards financing them?! While they were working 8 hours a day, I worked 12! I worked weekends too! I dedicated myself to learn a lot, become productive for society, and give back something of value to the world. In the meantime they dedicated their time to who knows what, buying cigarettes, buying alcohol, living the life of a consumer, watching TV etc. — Agustino

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html?referer

Read this today. Shocked about Mitt Romney's father being so high-minded when it came to business affairs. We could definitely use much more of that sort of perspective right now, that voluntary desire to think beyond one's own narrow financial self-interest and towards the greater common good. Being a social conservative, I'd imagine you'd find that 'virtuous' approach to social, political and economic relations congenial just as I do.

I count myself as a liberal, and any sensible liberal should realise that Trump is a direct result of elitist liberal arrogance (as is Brexit).

The dogmatic and unrealistic approach to liberal progressiveness by politicians all over the world, the media and many others (at the expense of many ordinary people) completely undermined the good work that has been done over the past decades.

And the liberal response to the inevitable backlash? Yet more, and more vicious, liberal arrogance. Genius.

We are gradually undoing all the progress the liberal project has made and it's much more the fault of the left than the right.

As for Trump, at least he is something different. After 30 years of carbon copy, PR savvy clones we need change. We also need a shock to the system to realize where we've being going wrong. My hope is Trump will be followed by a much more sensible centrist politician who will focus on rational and sensible progressiveness.

You understand, don't you, that cutting 100% of the EPA and adding 10% to the Defense budget doesn't even remotely balance out--$18 billion (+/-) budget for EPA, $600 billion (+/-) for defense? Which state benefits from the 29% cut in the $37 billion State Department Budget? — Bitter Crank

Oh so just comparing EPA to defense increase, is that a fair comparison? :s Defence isn't even the biggest source of budget spending:



Of course you need to cut inefficient spending on Medicare, Health & Unemployment/Labour - that's more than half the budget!

The problem with budget cuts, is that much of the budget are mandatory expenses, like interest on the debt and entitlement programs such as Social Security. If we don't cut the military budget, then the cuts come out of programs that provide long term benefits to the population as a whole. — Bitter Crank

Many of those programs that you say are necessary are being run inefficiently and ought to be replaced by less costly and more beneficial alternatives, don't you think so? The point in running an economy well is to get the most value for the least cost. That is the primary purpose that everyone should be aiming for.

I have no problem with "the government" providing Medicare and Social Security, for example. What's your problem with it? — Bitter Crank

Not much of a problem, except that ideally we have to be moving continuously towards a society that relies less on such government programs. Medicare is a way to give the large insurance companies a way to do business with the state and make loads of money - because we all know it's easiest to make money when you do business with the dumb state. Just ask Trump's father, that's how he made his money. To close such loopholes we have to diminish the power of the state. Medicare isn't even necessary as far as I'm concerned. People should be taxed less, and get to decide more what to do with that income instead of paying it by force to insurance companies and the like. Maybe I don't want to pay payroll taxes to fund some insurance. Maybe I don't want to pay to fund Social Security pensions - maybe I wanna save that additional income myself.

Building a rapid transit line (not a whole system) is likely to cost 1 or 2 billion dollars--a level of expense that counties and cities can not usually come up with. — Bitter Crank

We were not talking about such programs now, so this is a red herring.

As Will Rogers said: “The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.” — Bitter Crank

He's right! >:O

ow, during WWII, the highest tax rate on the wealth was 94%. Admirable, but it didn't last. — Bitter Crank

That was way too much. It basically meant that if I'm a rich person the government chooses what to do with my money. That's wrong. Those politicians watching porn in Congress shouldn't tell me what to do with my money.

In the 1980s (the country led by the rotting brain of Ronald Reagan) the tax rate was around 50%. Then they cut the top rate to 28%. After 3 years of that, the tax system was in bad shape. After that, the rate went up to 39%

In this century it was at 39%, 35%, 43%, and 39%. — Bitter Crank

I think taxes should never be that high in the first place. What, is the country at war that it needs such taxes implemented or what? If the state is so good, why don't they start government businesses and compete in the market to generate money for state projects that they need? Oh, I forgot, they can't do that unless they have the law on their side...

I would agree with such high taxes (80%+) out of non-productive endeavours such as income from financial speculation. If it was after me I'd tax all of Wall Street like that. But businesses and regular people - including millionaires - no need for it. Banks on the other hand, insurance companies - those folks who earn money by doing almost nothing and gaming the system - I wouldn't mind taxing them.

But there is something that can be done: Just wait for the logic of Trump's policies to totally screw the working and unemployed lumpen proles to the point where they finally see the light. — Bitter Crank

I don't think this will happen. What "screws" the working and unemployed is a bad economy. They'll always be screwed in a bad economy - it's just what it is. And as Posty McPostface would tell you, it is what it is.

At least they said they were sorry, instead of finding something to charge you for. — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O >:O I tell you, with these services you should sometimes be happy that at least they haven't harmed you!

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html?referer

Read this today. Shocked about Mitt Romney's father being so high-minded when it came to business affairs. We could definitely use much more of that sort of perspective right now, that voluntary desire to think beyond one's own narrow financial self-interest and towards the greater common good. Being a social conservative, I'd imagine you'd find that 'virtuous' approach to social, political and economic relations congenial just as I do. — Erik

I've read that, and I don't agree with it. I see nothing wrong with making a lot of money in and of itself. It depends what the person does with that money. But I don't think the state should force them to surrender that money so that greedy and stupid politicians can redistribute it to "the people", meaning in truth to things like banks, insurance companies, Wall Street, military companies, and the like.

I much agree with Tolkien's political views. The government is to a great degree an unnecessary evil.

Agustino, this is the type of mindbogglingly moronic political philosophy that I'd expect from a freshman high school student who is just started read Atlas Shrugged. You've participated in philosophy forums for what? Four years now give or take? You have absolutely nothing to show for it. — Maw

Well I'm not the only one on philosophy forums with similar views. And no, I'm not a Randian, thanks for the red herring though.

I've read that, and I don't agree with it. I see nothing wrong with making a lot of money in and of itself. It depends what the person does with that money. But I don't think the state should force them to surrender that money so that greedy and stupid politicians can redistribute it to "the people", meaning in truth to things like banks, insurance companies, Wall Street, military companies, and the like.

I much agree with Tolkien's political views. The government is to a great degree an unnecessary evil. — Agustino

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position. Think about it from a different angle: if "the people" are not represented by the current government (one of Trump's claims)--by the (Deep) State--but government has instead been infiltrated by those already possessed of large amounts of wealth, then these can buy off politicians and bend policy to their will, getting even richer, more powerful, and thus more politically-influential in the process. This is a problem whose only remedy is more rather than less democracy.

So politicians no longer represent the will of "the people", they represent the banks, insurance companies, Wall Street, military companies, etc. who then use the levers of government to their advantage. They're obviously not going to tax themselves at a higher rate but are instead going to place that burden on the middle and lower classes. You think that's fair? Is this a straw man? I do want to understand your views on the topic.

I also think it's a bit of an exaggeration to juxtapose poor people and rich people as you seem to be doing. Most of the rich people I know have been the beneficiaries of significant advantages and most definitely not self-made. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who are either poor or of extremely modest means who work their assess off to simply survive. And contrary to stereotypes (perpetuated by the often undeserving and idle rich no doubt) they're not always stupid or totally lacking in self-restraint.

I'm all for rewarding hard work and talent to a certain extent, but this simplistic economic narrative-- which rationalizes greed and selfishness--is, in my estimation, largely BS. You can obviously point to examples which support this Randian position, but there are too many counter-examples these days to make it compelling.

Finally, I'm not familiar with Tolkien's political views, but if that's how he felt then I'd have to disagree with him. What alternative view of social organization did he recommend? What historical examples did he draw from as showing themselves superior to some form of government?

The government is to a great degree an unnecessary evil. — Agustino

Well, we live in democracies, so the government we have is the government we've elected. If you don't like it then vote for an anarchist who promises to strip the government away.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position. Think about it from a different angle: if "the people" are not represented by the current government (one of Trump's claims)--by the (Deep) State--but government has instead been infiltrated by those already possessed of large amounts of wealth, then these can buy off politicians and bend policy to their will, getting even richer, more powerful, and thus more politically-influential in the process. This is a problem whose only remedy is more rather than less democracy. — Erik

No, the remedy is very simple. Get rid of the power of government, then the rich cannot become more politically influential in the first place. Power is the problem, not the solution.

So politicians no longer represent the will of "the people", they represent the banks, insurance companies, Wall Street, military companies who then use the levers of government to their advantage. They're obviously not going to tax themselves at a higher rate but are instead going to place that burden on the middle and lower classes. You think that's fair? Is this a straw man? I do want to understand your views on the topic. — Erik

Yes, politicians will never represent the will of the people. It's in the nature of power to be corrupt.

Government is like the One Ring in LOTR. The good guys in LOTR don't want to use the One Ring (power) to destroy Sauron (the evil guy) - they fear that they too will turn into the bad guys. Rather they want to destroy the source of power itself - the ring.

Most of the rich people I know have been the beneficiaries of significant advantages and most definitely not self-made. — Erik

Yeah I know a few of those too. But most of them got rich because of business with the government - which again is the easy money. If you're corrupt and have a little bit of intelligence (and are willing to do what it takes), it doesn't seem like it's that hard to get rich.

On the other hand, I know a lot of people who are either poor or of extremely modest means who work their assess off to simply survive. — Erik

Yes, that is true. Poor people who are honest but naive - or perhaps naive is not the right word but rather don't have their own initiative and rather just go with the flow, relying on the work / jobs others provide them, can end up working very hard for very little reward. That's very unfortunate, but I think this can be only cured by more education... It's very difficult to say, because for some people it's in their nature to not take much initiative themselves...

Well, we live in democracies, so the government we have is the government we've elected. If you don't like it then vote for an anarchist who promises to strip the government away. — Michael

The Family Guy episode Tea Peter has something like this. The town government gets shutdown, things turn bad when it becomes a free-for-all, and soon they realize that they need to cooperate, establish a system of rules that they need to live by, and end up bringing the government back.

And if you can't trust Family Guy to get your political wisdom, then what can you trust?

People are supposed to take care of each other, not governments. — Agustino

That's how governments happen. A small community works together, with a select few being chosen as the leaders ('cause people will always disagree on something, and so there has to be arbiters). The community grows, eventually merges with nearby communities and their leadership, and so on. A few thousand years later and you have a country and a government.

I don't think you've really thought your own idea through. It's idealistic and impractical.

@Agustino

If you get rid of government then you'll likely have anarchy (by definition obviously). That may not be good for anyone, rich or poor.

I'm beginning to incline towards Hegel's overall positive view of the state, at least in theory, which runs counter to the 'necessary evil' (not to mention unnecessary evil) narrative: genuine freedom (as contrasted with license and a lack of self-restraint) is only found within the state and under the rule of law, in which the individual freely places himself or herself under the universal.

Now of course the modern coercive state, dominated by large corporate interests, is a perversion of this more 'natural' political association. But the goal shouldn't be to rid ourselves of government entirely, but rather to make it conform to those authentically democratic principles which it currently works against.

Did you not read that 26.9% of the richest 20% will actually see their taxes go up?
Did you not read that 22% of the next bracket of rich will see their taxes go up? — Agustino

We did and the converse is still true; the majority of the rich get a tax break and that break is significantly bigger than that for poorer people while the rich need it the least. The 380 USD increase for poor people is comparatively tougher on them as they are already on a tight budget.

In addition, poorer people use more of the programs that are being cut to fund these tax cuts so they are confronted with increased spending to make up for the disappearance of those programs as well and those 100 USD for the 64.5% will not offset that in the least.

In short, poor people are shafted even if their income taxes might be lower as they lose access to several programs, while rich people by and large will get richer. Compared to a poor person who gets 100 USD every rich person gets 200 times as much without working any harder. I don't see the fairness in this.

I'm sure the word "solidarity" isn't really in the average US citizens' vocabulary but we tax richer people at higher rates because they can carry the burden. These tax breaks and defunding of projects is hurting poor people and it's not doing much for rich people (anything earned above 75,000 USD has very little effect on happiness). Meanwhile, I'm not sure what defunding EPA is supposed to accomplish. In the short term I suppose it could fuel some growth due to lax regulations but in the long run you're going to have to clean up the mess you make. It's only so much pollution the environment can absorb before we suffer the consequences. It's all very clear there's no concern about the future and future generations.

Of course you need to cut inefficient spending on Medicare, Health & Unemployment/Labour - that's more than half the budget! — Agustino

It's not a given its inefficient. Healthy people are productive people.

If you get rid of government then you'll likely have anarchy. That may not be good for anyone, rich or poor. — Erik

I think anarchy works in small communities. Larger communities will need a very small state, preferably a non-democratic one - ie constitutional monarchy.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure what defunding EPA is supposed to accomplish. In the short term I suppose it could fuel some growth due to lax regulations but in the long run you're going to have to clean up the mess you make. It's only so much pollution the environment can absorb before we suffer the consequences. It's all very clear there's no concern about the future and future generations. — Benkei

I agree on this point, I think too much money was taken out of the EPA. I'm leaning much more towards environmental friendliness than most Republican voters though. I'm not certain on the negative effects that are predicted for global warming (I think those are likely exaggerated because of the extreme complexity and sensitivity of our climate), but I think we should nevertheless be careful, since if temperature does rise as much as predicted, that will be quite bad.

The 380 USD increase for poor people is comparatively tougher on them as they are already on a tight budget. — Benkei

I agree that this is very high as I said. However, it only applies to 6.8% of the bottom 20%, and I said that I would hope this would be balanced out by higher economic growth rate & increase in wages.

In addition, poorer people use more of the programs that are being cut to fund these tax cuts so they are confronted with increased spending to make up for the disappearance of those programs as well and those 100 USD for the 64.5% will not offset that in the least. — Benkei

Is the budget being cut just to fund the tax breaks? I'd say that the budget should have been cut anyway since it was growing too large. The US government is becoming a huge behemoth.

In short, poor people are shafted even if their income taxes might be lower as they lose access to several programs, while rich people by and large will get richer. Compared to a poor person who gets 100 USD every rich person gets 200 times as much without working any harder. I don't see the fairness in this. — Benkei

That is true, but relative to their income I suppose they'd be about the same. A poor person currently manages with say $1300/month. So a growth of $100 in that $1300 would be appreciated, it might just make the difference between being capable to afford enough for monthly expenses.

Now a rich person would probably not appreciate a growth of 20K that much, because well - what is 20K when you make 200K? Probably affords another vacation, or something of that nature. I agree that the rich don't "need it" as much, but that isn't to say that it should forcefully be taken from them. Again, I think the rich have a duty to give back to society, and they should decide how to do this themselves.

I'm sure the word "solidarity" isn't really in the average US citizens' vocabulary but we tax richer people at higher rates because they can carry the burden. — Benkei

Right, but here's the point. Just because the rich can carry the burden without starving doesn't mean they should be taxed more. Government should aim to extract the least amount possible in taxes and be efficient. The reason why our governments tax so much is because they're incredibly corrupt and wasteful. Most big business and quick money is made in governmnet deals, because the government leaves a lot on the table and doesn't care. Instead, when they need more, they just raise taxes. They have very little incentive to be efficient.

Not to mention that most creative, innovative, smart, etc. people don't end up in government usually. It's the fools who end up there most often, the most corrupt, those who cannot do something else, and so on so forth.

It's not a given its inefficient. Healthy people are productive people. — Benkei

I agree, but are current programs the most cost-effective way to get people healthy? I agree that health is absolutely necessary, but we have to determine the most efficient way to provide it. We shouldn't just squander money because it goes to health.

I find the idea of government or business relations being (necessarily) a sort of zero sum game to be extremely questionable. But that antagonistic perspective--in which individual actors try to maximize their advantages at the expense of others by any means necessary--seems to be what guides Agustino's views on many things.

I find it not only morally suspect, but also not always true from a more practical standpoint. The best (and most financially successful) companies that I've worked for, for instance, cared about their employees (and customers, vendors, etc.) and treated them very well. Morale was high, productivity was good, customer satisfaction was through the roof, etc. That's a solid business model that unfortunately seems a bit old-school within our current, short-term and money-obsessed consumer culture.

Anyhow I appreciate your posts but this excessive cynicism is not at all more 'realistic' than other positions. I know I'm probably misrepresenting your views a bit but this is the impression they've left on me. You create these stark contrasts then privilege one side as being superior without considering more nuanced and moderate alternatives. Again that's just my (probably mistaken) impression and I do respect you as a thinker.

But that antagonistic perspective--in which individual actors try to maximize their advantages at the expense of others through any means necessary--seems to be what guides Agustino's views on many things. — Erik

But it seems to me that most people who go into government seem to be the worst kind of individuals in the first place - privileged, went to the very best schools, didn't do much in their lives, can't really do much, aren't creative, aren't very knowledgeable about science and philosophy (just check that super small science budget...), like to rule over others just to feel powerful, and so on so forth. Governments aren't meritocratic generally, quite the opposite. They're the rule of a select few who aren't very good at doing anything else - so they go become a politician...

That is true, but relative to their income I suppose they'd be about the same. A poor person currently manages with say $1300/month. So a growth of $100 in that $1300 would be appreciated, it might just make the difference between being capable to afford enough for monthly expenses. — Agustino

Uhmmm... that's 8.35 USD per month not 100 USD per month.

Now a rich person would probably not appreciate a growth of 20K that much, because well - what is 200K? Probably affords another vacation, or something of that nature. I agree that the rich don't "need it" as much, but that isn't to say that it should forcefully be taken from them. Again, I think the rich have a duty to give back to society, and they should decide how to do this themselves.

Likewise, it's yearly sums. And the forceful taking... of course it's enforced but there's good reason for him to pay taxes; he uses a lot of government funded assets and services. As a community we tend to agree that those worse off should be helped and government is much more effective at helping the community (it's supposed to serve) than a multitude of charitable organisations with narrow themes may manage. Additionaly, a government can be held accountable and can be influenced by those actually receiving benefits - instead of things being dictated by the person giving money.

So by and large, it's much more likely to have just and fair results. Of course inefficiencies arise due to all sorts of processes.

Finally, I'll note that a lot of research on inequality shows that it's unhealthy for a community to have too large discrepancies between its members. There's also plenty of literature on how GPD growth results in wealth increase for a limited number of people. It's not apparent to me why CEOs nowadays should earn 271 times as much as the least paid employee, especially when put in a historical perspective. See for instance:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html?_

I'd probably care a lot less about how these tax brackets were made up if the starting point of income inequality is not already this large. I mean, people talk about the entitlement generation when it's people looking up to the government for benefits but if I look at salary expectations of CEOs nowadays I think we've got it backwards.

I agree, but are current programs the most cost-effective way to get people healthy? I agree that health is absolutely necessary, but we have to determine the most efficient way to provide it. We shouldn't just squander money because it goes to health. — Agustino

I agree we should preferably go about it as efficient as possible. I'll also note that sometimes principles cost money. How about accessibility for all, for instance? From an insurance perspective not very efficient... but then should a person with a prior condition be left out to dry?

Uhmmm... that's 8.35 USD per month not 100 USD per month.

Ah yes, my bad. No idea why I made that confusion. Yes, I would agree that that is too little as an increase on average for the bottom 20%. The other income brackets though, until the richest 20% at least seem reasonable.

As a community we tend to agree that those worse off should be helped and government is much more effective at helping the community (it's supposed to serve) than a multitude of charitable organisations with narrow themes may manage. Additionaly, a government can be held accountable and can be influenced by those actually receiving benefits - instead of things being dictated by the person giving money. — Benkei

That's all nice in theory, however the problem of course is that big government = big corruption. I think big government is part and parcel of the rich getting richer more easily.

Finally, I'll note that a lot of research on inequality shows that it's unhealthy for a community to have too large discrepancies between its members. There's also plenty of literature on how GPD growth results in wealth increase for a limited number of people. It's not apparent to me why CEOs nowadays should earn 271 times as much as the least paid employee, especially when put in a historical perspective. — Benkei

I would agree. Especially CEOs of multinational corporations, they definitely earn too much for what they do. BUT - I wouldn't agree that entrepreneurs who assume the risk of starting the business earn too much for their efforts generally.

I'd probably care a lot less about how these tax brackets were made up if the starting point of income equality is not already this large. I mean, people talk about the entitlement generation when it's people looking up to the government for benefits but if I look at salary expectations of CEOs nowadays I think we've got a backwards. — Benkei

Well it is to a large degree entitlement generation because people just expect to be given, and a lot of the mentality around the world is built around it. The mantra goes like go to college, get a degree, get a good job. That is an entitlement mindset, and I think it's very destructive. Even the CEO just happens to be the lucky product of the entitlement mindset more often than not. And it's very common, even amongst the poorer people, who still aspire to that. Many people with college degrees can't get a job that easily though, because colleges have become quite bad frankly in terms of the real value of the education they offer. People who finish college these days generally talk about "entering the real world" :s - I mean what were they doing for 20+ years before? Living in dream land?

How about accessibility for all, for instance? From an insurance perspective not very efficient... but then should a person with a prior condition be left out to dry? — Benkei

No, I don't think they should be left out.

In fact, I did call the police one time when I got my place attacked in the UK and guess what - they came in 2 days, and ended up doing almost nothing, just saying how sorry they were... I think the state bureaucracy is actually really bad and crippling many of these services. For example, I remember healthcare used to be quite horrible in the UK (massive waiting times) - although it was free. — Agustino

You know, I've noticed something vaguely analogous in big business. Monetary resources go up and down, left and right, and can depend on who-knows-what. North Korea testing nukes and missiles is just one example, with an odd ripple effects. When monetary resources go down, some managers tend to leave (you know, the grass always seem greener on the other side), and people on the floor are let go with no backfills, etc. However, when that happens, the work load does not change (at least not proportionally), meaning that existing employees suddenly have more to do. Eventually some things may get dropped as a result, with lots of resistance, complaints, all that. :)

An analogy in society could be cutting down resources for police, or any supporting public/governmental areas, or something subsequently requiring more police resources. Tax cuts tend to mean something gets dropped, and it may not be readily clear what implications there are. Personally, I pay for civilization with taxes (to paraphrase someone I don't recall), and I certainly don't mind doing so. Do we need 3 cars? No, we have 1, and public transportation is fine. In the US it seems an election could be won by promising tax cuts, and meanwhile there are plenty kids on street living in poverty. That's kids for crying out loud. Kids that could end up taking up police resources for that matter. It's ridiculous.

I don't think it's a secret that cooperation, a civilized society, can accomplish a lot more than some scattered (para-anarchistic?) locals. No, government isn't some abstract "evil entity" "over there"; it's a serving body of it's society.

The rich sit on the shoulders of society @Agustino. They don't levitate to their position but climb up there because there is a solid social body in place to support them. Trump's budget is the equivalent of inviting them to piss down that body's neck. The next step will be to let them strangle it completely. Don't think they will then remain magically afloat. Everyone will be on the ground.

The rich sit on the shoulders of society Agustino. They don't levitate to their position but climb up there because there is a solid social body in place to support them. Trump's budget is the equivalent of inviting them to piss down that body's neck. The next step will be to let them strangle it completely. Don't think they will then remain magically afloat. Everyone will be on the ground. — Baden

Sure, I have no doubt about that. However, I don't think that Trump's budget is the equivalent of inviting them to piss down that body's neck. We'll see how things evolve, but I think your fears are exaggerated.

You can record this moment in your calendar, and if you're right you can laugh at me the way I laughed at you when you so confidently predicted Crooked will win >:) :P

Lol, will do. (Y)

I would agree with such high taxes (80%+) out of non-productive endeavours such as income from financial speculation. If it was after me I'd tax all of Wall Street like that. — Agustino

Just to be clear, you are saying that you agree with a tax rate of 80% or higher on non-productive stuff like financial speculation? Well, as the French economists Piketty shows, that's precisely where a good share of the rich folks are making their money -- financial speculation, currency manipulation, and so on.

Just to be clear, you are saying that you agree with a tax rate of 80% or higher on non-productive stuff like financial speculation? Well, as the French economists Piketty shows, that's precisely where a good share of the rich folks are making their money -- financial speculation, currency manipulation, and so on. — Bitter Crank

Yes.

The reason for that is that the rich should be breaking their brains to do something productive with that wealth, not keep it growing while doing nothing. Inflation should be allowed to eat away at their wealth if they cannot find something productive to do with it. There is no hoarding.

To be more clear, I am not pro rich as a social class, if you thought that, then that would be wrong. I am pro the possibility of getting rich. I think people who do outstanding work that impacts a lot of other people positively should get rich. So I wouldn't agree with many countries like Nordic countries, some of them where it is quite difficult to get rich. EU is also bad in my opinion due to the devilish invention of a VAT tax :-O

I think people who do outstanding work that impacts a lot of other people positively should get rich. — Agustino

So, Trump casinos, pro or con?