The Left's War on Entrepreneurship

The power of government an only be curtailed by drying up the revenue stream that it enjoys via the taxation of its slaves. Only freedom can bring about a true rise in our standard of living. Taxation should be voluntary, not confiscated by paper pushing bureaucrats. These so called jobs are a total drag on our economy and serve as only a loyal voting bloc for the moochers on The Hill. We must completely overhaul our tax system by starting with a junking of the 71,000 pages of tax code. It should be replaced by the Fair Tax which has less than 140 pages of tax code. People would then be free to tax themselves at the retail level. Marxism as obama practices would be hard to find when Joe Six Pack finds out how badly he has been duped by our congressmen. Joe will be the biggest beneficiary of the Fair Tax as he has more money in his pockets and a bigger and better choice of jobs. Only a free market like this can eradicate Marxism completely.

@Bassboat: "Only a free market like this can eradicate Marxism completely."

And that's why our current so-called leaders will never go for a truly free market. We need to clean house.

@madman0307
Totally agree. Clean house is the way but won't happen. Too many moochers.

at lest one columnist agrees with you

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/19/4643812/john-kass-who-else-mr-president.html

When President Barack Obama hauled off and slapped American small-business owners in the mouth the other day, I wanted to dream of my father. But I didn't have to close my eyes to see my dad. I could do it with my eyes open.

All I had to do was think of the driveway of our home, and my dad's car gone before dawn, that old white Chrysler with a push-button transmission. It always started, but there was a hole in the floor and his feet got wet in the rain. So he patched it with concrete mix and kept on driving it to the little supermarket he ran with my Uncle George.

He'd return home long after dark, physically and mentally exhausted, take a plate of food, talk with us for a few minutes, then flop in that big chair in front of the TV. Even before his cigarette was out, he'd begin to snore.

The next day he'd wake up and do it again. Day after day, decade after decade. Weekdays and weekends, no vacations, no time to see our games, no money for extras, not even for McDonald's. My dad and Uncle George, and my mom and my late Aunt Mary, killing themselves in their small supermarket on the South Side of Chicago.

There was no federal bailout money for us. No Republican corporate welfare. No Democratic handouts. No bipartisan lobbyists working the angles. No Tony Rezkos. No offshore accounts. No Obama bucks.

Just two immigrant brothers and their families risking everything, balancing on the economic high wire, building a business in America. They sacrificed, paid their bills, counted pennies to pay rent and purchase health care and food and not much else. And for their troubles they were muscled by the politicos, by the city inspectors and the chiselers and the weasels, all those smiling extortionists who held the government hammer over all of our heads.

I thought about this after I heard what Obama told a campaign crowd the other day, speaking about business owners and why they were successful.

"You didn't get there on your own," Obama said. "I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

If you've got a business, you didn't build that? Somebody else made that happen?

Somebody else, Mr. President? Who, exactly? Government?

One of my earliest memories as a boy at the store was that of the government men coming from City Hall. One was tall and beefy. The other was wiry. They wanted steaks.

We didn't eat red steaks at home or yellow bananas. We took home the brown bananas and the brown steaks because we couldn't sell them. But the government men liked the big, red steaks, the fat rib-eyes two to a shrink-wrapped package. You could put 20 or so in a shopping bag.

"Thanks, Greek," they'd say.

That was government.

I've never seen a point missed by so wide a margin. If you think you don't rely on others, on government, local and federal, to build a business, I invite you to go and open a supermarket in Somalia. They have no government, hows that working out for them? The fact that employees can drive to work, that delivery drivers can read the address, that workers live past 30 is solely due to government interventions across the years. Obama is not saying that you owe specific people your success, but your whole damned county. If you or Gates or Jobs or any of the other successful
entrepreneurs were not lucky enough to be Americans, in America, you or they would not be who you are today. You owe your success to America, as well as your own efferts. True story

@Lawrence - what you say is true, but Mr. Obama uses that argument as a justification for taxing away all the gains. We know where that leads - to economic stagnation as in Greece. We don't want to go there.

Not all, Fred. Not even most, just some, to pay back what America has given. No rich person has ever been made poor by taxation (though the poor have been made poorer) and no business has ever been made broke by taxation. If your business cannot hold up to taxation, then it probably isn't a very good business. Taxation is simply another cost of running a business, just like rent, power, wages and water. Unlike these other costs however taxation scales with profit, the less you earn the less you pay. Like these other costs if you cant pay, your business model isn't good enough and you need to rethink some things.

"no business has ever been made broke by taxation. If your business cannot hold up to taxation, then it probably isn't a very good business. Taxation is simply another cost of running a business, just like rent, power, wages and water"

You're an idiot, Laurence - an idiot who has obviously never run a business of any size or managed the back-office of one. Please leave the commenting on business and taxation to those who have some actual experience with it.

I'm sorry, Laurence, but that's idiotic. Of course businesses go broke because of taxation.

You are right that, to a business, taxes are just another cost. By definition, if the costs of operating a business exceed the revenues, the business will go broke. It logically follows, therefore, that when taxes are raised, some number of businesses will find that the increase in taxes exceeds their profit margin and thus they go broke.

Of course the same thing can and routinely does happen when other costs increase, particularly energy costs. Remember when the price of oil went through the roof and all the airlines declared bankruptcy? But taxes will have a more powerful effect because they affect not just the business's own accounts directly, but also every other cost of everything else the business needs because all their suppliers' taxes went up too.

Businesses go broke from taxes and excessive regulations (which can be looked as a type of tax) ALL. THE. TIME.

You're totally ass-backwards on biz expenses.

Water and utility bills are not "regular business expenses" UNLESS THE BUSINESS NEEDS THEM. In other words, if the business decides that it can't make money (or not as much money as it would like to) without paying for running water than it will pay for running water.

For capital intensive businesses, most expenses are COGS (cost of goods sold) which is directly related to inventory. Paying for COGS expenses = generating more profit.

Tax is nowhere related to these types of expenses. as a businessman, you don't "invest in taxes" because it gives you some return. You pay them because a government forces you to.

If you're looking for a good business analogy, taxes aren't a business expense, they're profit sharing. Only a type of profit sharing that isn't voluntary.

No, I'm not. Sorry if offended you somehow, but what I said is true. If you can't make a profit and pay tax, you don't deserve to be in business! If you disagree please state how and why.

Tax is the cost of business of doing business in America. You pay for the privilege or go operate in Somalia. They don't have much in the way of tax I hear. You clearly don't understand taxation. You get taxed on your revenue. If you don't make any revenue, you don't pay tax. If you revenue is insufficient to allow you to pay tax and profit at the same time, you are in the wrong business. Its simple

"If you can't make a profit and pay tax, you don't deserve to be in business"

Umm.... What if the tax is 100%?

What about businesses that are capital intensive such as oil companies and pharmaceuticals? A billion dollars in "profit" this year is nothing more retained earnings to build a deep-sea oil rig next year. If the governments takes a hunk of my profits this year, and I need them to invest (and create jobs) next year, how do I do that?

"Tax" is a moving target. There is no set in stone specific amount that "tax" is. It's a confiscatory step by governments to take what you earn. Like twibi said, it's profit sharing.

You realize that for small businesses, most "profit" is basically the employer's earnings, right? It's little more than their salary, usually nothing more.

What you said is not only false, but laughably so. As I said, you obviously have zero business experience. Someone should figure out how to keep you libs from voting.

OK, so, in the Soviet Union, where there was a 100% tax on all business profits (and your life as well), then according to you, nobody "deserved" to be in business. Nice.

As twibi said, you have this totally backward. The right question is, what right has the government to steal some of your money? What does it provide for the money? Yes, government can provide some things of value and it's legitimate that we should all pay for them - military protection, the police, efficient justice system, border control from invaders. Seen thsoe being tended to well lately?

"You clearly don't understand taxation. You get taxed on your revenue. If you don't make any revenue, you don't pay tax"

You continue to make yourself look stupid.

Some businesses get taxed on revenue; most get taxed on net income (profit).

The problem isn't that taxation shouldn't exist. Of course, it should. But on the individual and their consumption, not on income. Taxing income is stupid because it penalizes growth in income.

To quote yourself, you clearly don't understand taxation.

Patience, we're talking past each other here. :-)

The problem with people like Laurence is that they don't understand macroeconomics.

They don't understand the flow of money and the business cycle, or retained earnings, or capital markets, or investor confidence.

Above all, they don't understand the hard work, dedication and extreme difficulty in getting someone else to pay you money for your goods or service. Or that 90+% of all new businesses fail, along with the money it took to get started.

They'll keep pounding their head on the same played-out stupid economically-illiterate policies over and over again.

Nothing we say will change their mind because "the rich mean business owner has everything and I have nothing".

'Ever notice that it's the folks who've never started a business or created a job who whine the most about how business owners owe everything to society? Hmmm. Why does the business owner own anything to society when he's already providing jobs? If anything, business owners should be taxed **less**, not more. I say for every person you employ, your tax rate should go down .1%. Employ a 100 people? you pay 10% less in taxes than everyone else.

Nobody is ever penalised for making more money. If you make more money, you pay more tax,but at the end YOU STILL HAVE MORE MONEY. As I said tax is scalable, 20% 30% 40% of your profit (yes I said revenue before, I meant profit. poor choice of words) but 1) It is never 100% ever. If you think it is you don't know what you are talking about 2) you will never be taxed more than you have (unless you don't pay your taxes for several years and get hit with the bill in a oner). Even if your profits increase to the point where you go onto a higher tax band, you will still be better of by earning more money. Everytime. As I said before if you cant afford to pay tax you suck, and should find a new business.

and FBI Dave, I am not whining, and I am not stating that you owe everything
to society, I know you work hard, and deserve your pay. But it is an indisputable FACT that whatever business you happen to run would not be possible or successfully without the massive infrastructure investments of the country in which you live. Its a fact,

"Nobody is ever penalised for making more money"

Utterly wrong. When I go from making 200k per year to 300k, I enter a higher tax bracket. By definition I was just penalized for making more money.

You do understand what a progressive tax structure is, right?

A tax, inherently, is a penalty. In macroeconomics one is taught that taxes penalize growth. Taxes = penalty. You saying otherwise doesn't change that.

Like most liberals, your view of taxation is totally monolithic. You see it only as taking a chunk of someone else's profit. You never consider all the effects it has on consumers as businesses hand the cost of extra taxation to the consumer. You never consider all the ways in which taxes can have sideways ramifications - for instance, fuel taxes raising transportation costs which make small-margin truck drivers lose their shirt.

"But it is an indisputable FACT that whatever business you happen to run would not be possible or successfully without the massive infrastructure investments of the country in which you live"

Again, utterly wrong. It NOT a fact; it is a misconception by liberals who lack perspective.

What investments? Highways? Bridges? (Dear Lord, please don't say the Internet again which is false).

The government doesn't create wealth with which it can build things. It can only take wealth from wealth creators. The government did not "build highways" or "create the internet". Rich tax payers did. When Walmart builds a store, it buys land and pays property taxes. It pays salaries to local employees who buy houses and pay property and sales taxes.

Your income, from which you pay taxes, was GIVEN TO YOU by someone who is rich as a CHOICE on their part.

The rich ALREADY paid for the infrastructure that you would tax them on again for using.

You don't really understand taxation; you're only good at parroting the liberal netizen view of it.

lets say the threshold is 250k, you go from earning 200k to 300k you pay the higher rate on everything OVER 250k the lower rate on everything UNDER 250k, you do understand that don't you? I don't mean to patronise but you would be surprised at how many people I meet who think their whole wage would be taxed at the higher rate, leaving them worse off. Point is yes you pay more tax, but you STILL TAKE HOME MORE MONEY. Therefore you you are not being punished or penalised, you are just paying more tax.

Ifon: That's all Tax is, taking a chunk of someone else's profit. That is the perfect description of it! we are not talking about fuel taxes here, just business taxes. Tax is one cost that you cannot pass on to the consumer, because if you raise your prices, you make more money (assuming steady sales) therefore you pay more tax. So to say the Cost of tax is passed onto the consumer is a bit false. But hey, you are not a charity, you are there to make money, you have no obligation to provide goods/services at the lowest rate possible, except where supply/demand dictates.

But the wealth creators would not be able to create wealth without the services that the government provides. You mentioned roads and bridges, so I assume you've heard the argument that without roads Walmart would have no customers (unless they built the road themselves, but how would they pay for it? by charging tolls? price increases? you know it would not be free to use!) So consider the police, who protect walmart from thieves and vandelism. Consider the Armed Forces, who protect walmart from Mexico.
The public works companies (who admittedly are probably private now) who remove waste ans sewage. The public schools that teach customers to read the labels. Fire dept. ect.etc. My point is that these are all necessary services that have to be paid for, and will be paid for one way or the other. If these services were provided by private entities you would still pay for them. Only you would pay more, for less.

After reading the posts from the last couple of days it is obvious that Laurence was educated by a government education. His observations are those of liberal professors who have no clue how to make a profit or are from liberal talking points. Neither does he or ever run a business. I say all of this not to disparage Laurence but to point out how badly capitalism needs to be taught from the first grade all the way through the PhD programs from a wealth creation point of view. If this were implemented our economy would flourish.

"lets say the threshold is 250k, you go from earning 200k to 300k you pay the higher rate on everything OVER 250k the lower rate on everything UNDER 250k"

Who the hell is debating that? You're changing the argument to avoid the previous argument, which you were losing.

You've created a strawman argument. No one is arguing the rates specifically. The debate is about how growth is penalized.

Businesses are in business to grow. Specifically to grow wealth for those that created the business. Not to create jobs or to employee people or to acquire power or any of that. Business only want to grow wealth (ie. profits and assets)

If I want to grow my business form 200k to 300k, I need PROFITS from previous years or previous endeavors to invest so that I can get there. You can't snap your figures and magically grow. Capitalism requires capital. If the government decides to, progressively, confiscate more and more of my profits, my retained earnings are less for future growth.

In other words, I am being penalized for growing.

Follow?

Oy vey. You are right bassboat, poor Laurence needs a proper education from the ground up.

1. Penalization. Laurence, of course higher tax brackets mean you are being penalized for earning more. Supposing your boss came in one day and said, "Hey Laurence, I want you to start working Saturdays. You'll be paid for your time, but I think you're making too much money, so instead of paying you $30/hr like normal I'll be giving you $25/hr instead." Now, you aren't being paid any less, are you? You're still making more money than you were before, aren't you? But I bet you'd consider yourself penalized and would be first in line to complain to the state labor department.

2. You are right that roads and bridges help the economy. The Erie Canal helped grow America's economy. The Eisenhower expressway system helped grow our economy.

How about that Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska? It's a bridge, right, so it ought to grow the economy? NO - because it was in the middle of nowhere and nobody would use it.

We see this all over the place. China has whole empty cities that nobody lives in, Japan and Spain have empty unused airports. Those were infrastructure investments, for sure, but they didn't benefit the economy one bit. The money was just stolen from taxpayers and flushed down the toilet.

So while you're right that infrastructure investments can benefit the economy, they don't always. In fact they don't usually anymore - because most of the obvious stuff has already been built, and environmentalists work overtime to prevent anything new from being built anywhere near people. You can still build a highway out in the middle of nowhere maybe, but what's the point?

Most of what our government does TODAY is either totally useless or so grossly inefficient that it might as well be. The last thing the government needs is more money. It needs LESS money, to force it to concentrate on doing a good job of the handful of things that it ought to be doing instead of being distracted by so many things it has no business in.

3. It comes down to this: Why don't you just give all your money to the government and go on welfare? Well, I suppose because you think you can do a better job of spending your own money than the government can, right? So if that's true, why would you ever argue that the government should take more of it?

"But the wealth creators would not be able to create wealth without the services that the government provides"

Ugg. This is like arguing with a toddler who wants the 5 shiny pennies instead of the single dull dime.

Let me start over...

Wealth doesn't magically appear out of thin air. It takes wealth to build roads and pay policeman and do all the things you're talking about.

That wealth isn't created by government or "our society". It's collected mostly from the top 5-10% by a wide margin. I'm not even talking about a progressive income tax. I'm referring only to the natural state of those with lots of wealth spending more of it and having more assets than everyone else. Even if there were no income tax at all, this would be true. Walmart builds stores on land that is taxed a dozen different ways. Thus, there's a lot more of Walmart's money in the pot than yours or mine.

And that was always the case. The roads built "way back when" were paid for by the businesses and rich guys of the day.

"But wait!" you say. "Millions of individual like me are taxed to pay for those road and policemen!"

Nope, you probably didn't have any wealth either, unless you were born into a wealthy family or created a business out of scratch that managed to eventually create 'new money'.

The only wealth you've accumulated was given to you in exchange for your labor by someone who ALREADY HAD WEALTH. So the taxes you pay were ALSO taken from the wealth of businessmen and rich guys.

The policemen who "protect Walmart from vandalism" (which is some minuscule fraction of 1% of the work police actually do) were paid for by tax dollars that originated from rich people.

The military which "protects Walmart from Mexico" (this one made me laugh out loud!) were paid for by tax dollars that originated from rich people. And again, not just tax dollars for "protecting Walmart from Mexico" (as if that's some real concern) but the military for EVERYONE from real intruders and foreign enemies.

By the way, these are the type of absurd arguments libs have to stretch to in order to try to make their point. Walmart would gladly - in a heartbeat - give up any and all "military protection against Mexico" if it would cut their tax rate by 5%. They could hire their own private security (and already do) for pennies on the dollar.

A little thought experiment for Laurence...

Say that you build a factory and want to connect the local highway to it. You're off the beaten path and want the local town or county to add a connector road to your area. What are your choices? (I have some first-hand knowledge of this issue) You have two options:

1) Build it yourself at your own expense as a private road, buying the land itself and paying for the development

2) Have the local town or county design it as an expansion project of the existing grid that - guess what? - YOU have to pay for.

There is no local town or county in existence that will pay for infrastructure on behalf of a business unless the local town or county shares in profit deals (such as when a sports arena is built). And in that case, they usually sell bonds to pay for it which doesn't come out of tax revenues.

Why not? I thought businesses and rich people were profiting from all those roads that were built? Nope. CONSUMERS benefit vastly more and it is CONSUMPTION that drives economic growth, not income earning.

I could go on here, but I doubt there'd be any ROI. It's not that liberals can't see the big picture in terms of wealth creation. They don't WANT to. Hating the rich guy is cool.

PS. This was truly hilarious: "If these services were provided by private entities you would still pay for them. Only you would pay more, for less." Thanks for the good laugh. In fact, nearly ever case of privatization shows a cost savings to the taxpayer and an increase in service. But go ahead - keep quoting Krugman and company.

Patience said:

"You are right that roads and bridges help the economy. The Erie Canal helped grow America's economy. The Eisenhower expressway system helped grow our economy"

The problem with conceding that is that libs run away with that argument without consider the next level down. 'The economy' is a big concept. Who specifically was helped the most?

The government can't invent jobs to give to people and then invent money to pay them with. It all washes out - either inflation or collapse.

The fact that (very very very few) infrastructure projects helped the economy does not mean that the wealthy were helped more than the poor or that the wealth "owe something" to society for those projects.

Well, that's the kicker, lfon. There were rich people in America before the Erie Canal was built, and there were rich people after. There were poor people before and after also. The rich people afterwards were richer than the rich people before, and the poor people afterwards were richer than the poor people before.

BUT the poor people were MUCH MUCH richer afterwards. Proportionately, they benefitted way more than the rich people did.

Patience,

Exactly right. Every time libs talk about public infrastructure, they totally forget that it is the POOR (or at least those without good jobs) that benefit. Not the wealthy. The wealthy were already wealthy.

I don't hate rich guys, I look forward to the day when I am amongst their number. I have no liberal college education or professors, just speaking my own opinion, formulated by looking at the evidence.

"If I want to grow my business form 200k to 300k, I need PROFITS from previous years or previous endeavors to invest so that I can get there. You can't snap your figures and magically grow. Capitalism requires capital. If the government decides to, progressively, confiscate more and more of my profits, my retained earnings are less for future growth."

yes you need profits.
If you are not earning profits, you can't grow. I agree. what's your point?
Taxation does not take all your profits, if your business is good, you will have enough money. If not you sink. Capitalism bitches!
think of taxes as your rent, for living and working in the USA. Can't pay your rent? Tough luck, why should you get special treatment? If your business sucks so bad you can't pay your taxes, your just wasting valuable space that so other, better, entrepreneur could use. You're essentially like poor people looking for state handouts and benefits (in the form of tax breaks). Oh but I'm so special, I create jobs, I create wealth, I shouldn't have to pay for my rent. If you create so much wealth, pay your taxes. Thats what it comes down to here. You ate the meal, now pay the bill.

Now you're just being obtuse.

You're totally ignoring the argument to keep hammering home the same cliches.

Scroll up and re-read.

We've entered the gates of Straw Man City, I see. No surprise. That's how Obama plays the game too. I don't believe anyone on this thread has ever said that the government taxes unprofitable enterprises. Lawerence is debating alone in teh corner on that particular point.

And BTW people don't 'create' wealth, they accumulate it and they don't redistribute it or give it away, they exchange it for services, for labour, which in turn make the wealthier. The government provides services which help with the accumulation of wealth, they should get paid.

And.... wrong again!

The government does not provide anything.

The government only assumes the RESPONSIBILITY of providing something. Then, in order to meet that responsibility, it takes money from taxpayers to pay PEOPLE who actually provide the service. Individuals, and sometimes private businesses, provide the actual service.

You need a total reset on your view of government. You've swallowed liberal lies without bothering to think them all the way through.

The best education you could get would be to actually start a business. Not a hobby, a real business with the upfront goal of paying for your own wages entirely. Try that, and we'll see how your view changes in a few short months. Of course, you actually have to have a skill or good idea first.

DING DING DING! We've identified the Communist Fallacy -

"People don't 'create' wealth."

Bullpuckey. Are we more wealthy now than in the days of the cavemen? If so, where the heck did it come from? Martians? OF COURSE people created it - that's the whole point of capitalism, to create wealth that was not there before through the application of human ingenuity applied to the natural environment in which we find ourselves.

"The government provides services which help with the accumulation of wealth, they should get paid."

Ever been at a red light in a bad part of a major city, and some bum dumps a bucket of water on your windshield, squeegees it off, and demands payment for cleaning your window? But you didn't ASK him to do it for you! How can he create an obligation out of nothing? He can't.

We do agree that there are certain things that government ought to do for all of us, and that general taxation is an appropriate way of paying for them. The trouble is that government is doing a LOUSY job of doing those things, and is also attempting to do all manner of other things that it has no business doing, mostly to do with taking away people's freedom. Why should we have to pay for that, and why shouldn't we do whatever we can to stop it?

--> "And BTW people don't 'create' wealth" <--

Laurence just lost the argument.

We've entered the gates of Straw Man City, I see. No surprise. That's how Obama plays the game too. I don't believe anyone on this thread has ever said that the government taxes unprofitable enterprises. Lawerence is debating alone in teh corner on that particular point.

"I'm sorry, Laurence, but that's idiotic. Of course businesses go broke because of taxation."

"Businesses go broke from taxes and excessive regulations (which can be looked as a type of tax) ALL. THE. TIME."

only businesses that don't make enough money go broke right? and if taxation is pushing them over the edge......they must be close to the edge to start with, ergo they must be unprofitable, at least in my opinion.
sorry for being obtuse earlier, it was not my intention.

You really can't see the difference between these two statements?

"government taxes unprofitable enterprises"

"businesses go broke because of taxation"

Those aren't the same thing.

I can, what I cant see is how taxation of a healthy, thriving business can send it under? Maybe I'm dense but I really don't get it.

--> "And BTW people don't 'create' wealth" <--

Laurence just lost the argument.

Really? Show me someone who is not a bank that created some money that wasn't there before. Accumulating wealth is not creating it, nor is brining investment to a region or town. only banks 'create' wealth.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Think about a business that is profitable. Then taxes go up. Now it's no longer profitable, so it goes out of business.

There are many businesses that operate on a very slim profit margin. Grocery stores, for example, regularly operate on a 1% margin.

In fact, isn't that what you WANT? If a store was making 30% profits, wouldn't you the customer feel ripped off? If you found a business that was making 30% profits, wouldn't you want to start a competing business taking, say, 25% profits, and clean house?

Of course, then somebody else will lower their prices to 20% profit, then 15, and so on down the line. There are not many businesses with large profit margins anymore; thanks to modern communications and the Internet, competition is just too fierce. We all benefit from this as shoppers.

So no, businesses do not have "plenty of money to pay higher taxes." Either YOU will be paying the taxes through higher prices, or the business will shut down and not pay any taxes at all.

And about creating money, once again you are so fundamentally ill-informed that it's very difficult to sensibly discuss the matter. Try reading about the "velocity of money" and you'll see how wealth can be created without there being any more actual money printed.

The business world is dynamic. You're constantly having to adjust to changes around you - either from competition or changes in technology or whatever.

It would be nice if you could just run at steady profitability for years and years on end, without investing in the business, but it doesn't work that way. Even in small towns with limited competition, it doesn't work that way.

It's very much Sink Or Swim. Either you're investing in new product/expansion ideas, new partnerships, paying off mistakes you made (bad employee hires, unprofitable advertising campaigns) or trying to knock off competitors in some way. If you just rest on your current profitability (which is a very hard to get to to begin with) you'll drown. You have to keep swimming.

As a small business, it only takes a very small bad investment to push you under water which means you REALLY need as much of last year's profits as possible to weather the upcoming storms.

This is to say nothing of if you want to grow from small to mid or mid to large. Bigger investments means needing bigger profits (or outside capital). I'm just referring to staying healthy for 10 or 15 years within your current tier.

Look at Wall Street. A company can be thoroughly profitable and yet have a drop in stock value if their earnings is the exact same as it was in the same quarter of the previous year. I just read this morning that Netflix, just announced that their growth was not as strong as expected (even though they did grow!) and their stock took a hit.

So no, businesses do not have "plenty of money to pay higher taxes." Either YOU will be paying the taxes through higher prices, or the business will shut down and not pay any taxes at all. I never said they did have plenty of money, not once.Just that business should pay taxes.
But if the tax rate goes up, it goes up for everybody, including the competition, so you are not at risk of being undercut are you. If you are making an after tax profit with x% tax rate, you will still make a profit with x+y% tax rate. Fact.

And I am not talking about PRINTING money, as 95% of the money is digital. and it can only be created by banking institutions, not individual people. Explain to me how an entrepreneur can create wealth that did not exist before him?
surely reinvestment in the bushiness happens pre tax, therefore you don't pay tax on it?

And I thought we were talking about small businesses, not the fortune 500

Because wealth, in the most abstract sense, is nothing more than an idea -an idea that is turned into goods and services.

People can create wealth because people can create ideas.

Now, that's not to say that merely dreaming up ideas guarantees wealth creation. There's a long and strenuous road between dreaming up the idea and getting other people to give up their valuable money (or some other item) in exchange for it. That's where profits come in - businesses need profits in order to keep staying in business and keep iterating on their ideas.

"Why then" you ask "cannot the government dream up ideas, create goods and services and create wealth too?"

Because the government doesn't produce profits; it only has losses. It can operate indefinitely on losses alone because it taxes the citizenry to cover each loss. It has unlimited power to tax.

That leads to the question: IF the government produced profits, could it create wealth by turning ideas into goods and services? Yes and no. It could in theory, but it would be highly unlikely because in reality it is PEOPLE that turn ideas into goods and services. A "business" is merely a legal entity in which multiple people can collaborate and share resources/profits. So while technically it could in theory, it would never work out in practice because the incentives wouldn't exist.

Consider any given "new idea" that was a big deal at the time. For instance, the idea by Edison to get filaments to a point where they could could burn for more than a couple of hours. The combustion engine by Diesel. Film by Kodak. There are countless others.

Before these ideas (and their subsequent products) existed, there were no light bulb, auto or camera/film industries whatsoever.

No universities taught the engineering required to make them work because no one knew the theories. The idea didn't exist previously.

None of their corollary industries, like rubber tire factories, existed because again no one knew that the main idea existed.

AFTER however, it all sprang into place. Businesses sprang up to meet demand, people started refining and iterating on the ideas. There was an explosion of new new money created by the supply/demand of these products.

The OLD jobs these people WOULD have been working at, had these ideas never come about, still existed and other people worked there. If the old jobs couldn't hire anyone, they raised their rates and benefits until they had demand. Unemployment dropped, the standard of living increased and consumption skyrocketed.

Wealth is not abstract it is a finite thing!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wealth
There is nothing abstract about it!
Government can create ideas, goods and service, but as you said, this has inherent risk, it is much more reliable to let private entities absorb the risk and make the money, then tax them (at least from the point of view of a government accountable to an electorate). For every business that thrives, 10 fall by the wayside, and no public body can withstand that sort of failure rate, that is politics. But this is besides the point. The governments job is not to create wealth, but to protect its people from whatever threats may exist. Taxes is how we pay for that protection. Businesses benefit from this protection, just like everybody else, so they should pay taxes.

As for wealth creation, I see what you are saying, but I still maintain that the people you mention did not create wealth, they simply redistributed it. (I am not saying this is a bad thing, it isn't) Edison's increased light bulb sales would take money from the lamp oil industry, Diesels from the mule feed industry, Kodak from whatever industry. Whatever money people spent on these things is money not spent on something else. Admittedly the industries can be a catalyst for the creation of wealth, but its the banks that do the actual creation of new wealth, in the form of loans, mortgages etc.

I didn't say wealth, itself, was abstract. Stop cherry-picking the debate and read what I actually said!

I said the CREATION of wealth was abstract since the creation of wealth is rooted in the ability to create new ideas.

Wealth is finite in whatever state it's in AT THE MOMENT but is subjective to a wide variety of things. In a sense, wealth is merely having more comfort and convenience than those around you, relative to the current average.

Consider a man that has 100 tons of gold. Is he "wealthy"? Well right now, yes. How about after a nuclear Armageddon in which he is one of 100 people left alive on earth? Does his 100 tons of gold still make him "wealthy"? No. At that point, it's worthless.

What about a man who has a billion US dollars? What if the US implodes and the dollars loses its value?

This is a rabbit trail though since we were talking about the CREATION of wealth which is a different topic.

Wealth can absolutely be created (or destroyed) and it is constantly happening all the time.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could really not believe that. Look around - think about the ground you're standing on 1,000 years ago. The cars, houses, electronics, comfort, convenience, access to information, etc. You're saying that all existed in the same amount of "wealth" 1,000 years ago?

"Ah" you say "but the same minerals, oils, natural gas, etc that the current wealth came from was still here under the ground"

Yes, that's true, but it wasn't WEALTH then because it had NO VALUE. Wealth is only wealth if it has value. Goods and services must be able to be exchanged for other goods and services.

1,000 years ago, oil and natural gas and other things that we now considerable "valuable" were nothing because no one had come up with the IDEA (there's that word again) to use them to make people's lives better. It is the IDEA that creates wealth.

I agree that "we should pay taxes" and never said otherwise. But WE PEOPLE ought to pay them, and pay them on consumption, not through income. Taxing income penalize growth in income. It it much better (and much more fair from a philisophical basis) to tax and penalize consumption.

When you have a spare hour, read through this research:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=view_research

The FAIR tax is truly the only national tax anyone should ever pay, assuming there needs to be a national tax at all which is highly debatable.

Wealth can absolutely be created (or destroyed) and it is constantly happening all the time.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could really not believe that.

I do not dispute that wealth creation is possible - read MY posts ;)
All I am saying is that it is banks that create the wealth. People can come up with ideas and products, and the market can assign those ideas and products a value, but if the banks do not issue wealth (in the form of loans, to businesses, individuals and governments) then there is no wealth creation, only redistribution.

And taxing income does not penalise income growth (I have been assuming that like me you mean by penalise 'to disincentivise' (not a real word I know, but you know what I mean!) one is not punished for making more, bacause you pay tax anyway if you see what I mean?)

There is not one single person who says 'I do not want to earn more money because I would have to pay more tax'. Its idiotic! No business ever said, 'we are not going to expand and increase profits, because we would pay more tax',
because even if you pay more tax you are STILL BETTER OFF! This is the point I was making earlier in our conversation. Even if your earnings go into a higher tax bracket, even if you only take home 65k out of every 100 instead of 67k or 72k, you are still much much much much better off earning that extra 100k than if you did not. Only the most petty, spiteful childish person in the world would say no, I don't want to earn an extra 100k 'coz I'd have to give the government and extra 2 or even 8 grand of it. Think about it.

I did not read you article yet, Though I surely will, but you say tax consumption not income? but then business will complain that prices are higher, sales are down, profits are down.
And taxing consumption will disproportionally hit poorer people, who don't pay much income tax, and so wouldn't see much extra cash in their accounts, but who would see the price of everything hike up massively. As the vast majority of Americans are not wealthy, this would reduce the spending power of a massive portion of the country. That would hurt small businesses and the country as a whole far more than an income tax. That WOULD inhibit growth and wealth creation.

"And taxing consumption will disproportionally hit poorer people, who don't pay much income tax"

Which is a huge part of the problem.

The bottom half - HALF! - of taxpayers pay $0 in taxes. You think it's okay that in a modern democratic society, half of the voters put nothing in the pot but still get every bit as much of the public services that everyone else does? And in fact get far MORE than most other people do.

Read this:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak

The problem with poverty in the US is that it's too easy. We incentivize it. If people were allowed to suffer more, they'd pull themselves up and stop being poor. When you really truly don't know where your next meal is coming from (instead of knowing that a welfare/WIC/SUI check is right around the corner) it REALLY lights a fire under your rear end to go make some money. When you know that kids are expensive and no one is going to send you a check for having them, it REALLY makes you think twice about sleeping around and letting the father off scot-free.

But we're digressing quickly into a bunch of other rabbit trails.

Taxation in the US is totally screwed up, Laurence, because the top end pays _WAY_ too much and gets few if anything in return for it. Your view of what business get and what they owe is totally backwards.

In terms of the negative effects of taxing consumption, yes it will hurt consumption but taxes have to hurt something. The question is - which is worse, that or income. Read through the FAIR website research and they cover all that. When consumer start out with their entire paycheck, how much it "hurts" consumption shifts quite a bit. Again, the FAIR site covers all that in their archives.

Here's a quick list of FAQs that answer most of the questions and myths about consumption taxes:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs

they'd pull themselves up and stop being poor

Ouch. Come on dude, you seem like an intelligent and well educated man, you can't really believe that poverty is proportional to laziness or work ethic?
I'll agree that there are those who don't want to work and contribute, but there are literally millions of American workers grinding their lives away at or near the poverty line. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. Not everyone can open a business. College is out of reach, and even if it wasn't a degree is worth less and less with each graduate! The economy needs workers my friend. Being poor is not easy, especially in the US. I agree that those on the bottom of the pile should contribute in taxes, but only according to their means - same as everyone else.

As for the benefits issue, hey the country is f**ked up, but it had to be said: If I work, full time, at ANY job, should all of my basic needs - food, rent, healthcare, education for my kids - should I not be able to meet them from my wages? If your telling me that I should work fulltime, and still not have one or more of these basic things coz I can't afford it, then guess what....

Well, see, Laurence, that's part of the underlying philosophical difference. You're making Karl Marx's argument: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

There are indeed fulltime jobs that don't provide enough money to take care of a family - e.g. a dishwasher in a restaurant.

I definitely agree that all full-time jobs should provide enough pay to cover the basic necessities of life FOR THE WORKER. And a dishwasher can indeed afford to buy food, a room in a flophouse somewhere, and clothes from Wal-Mart.

He certainly can't afford to provide for a family. So what? There is no right for him to have one and no obligation on the rest of us to pay for him to. Why should there be?

He may not be able to afford all types of medical care either. He can't pay for a heart transplant. This seems harsh, but it's common sense - there are only so many hearts and heart surgeons to go around. Should the doctor help the dishwasher, or instead spend his time helping Steve Jobs or Bill Gates who provide jobs for millions?

Everything in life is tradeoffs because of scarcity. There will never be enough of everything for everyone to have all they want of it. In a free society, we allocate resources by money; the only other way is to have them forcibly allocated by bureaucrats as in the Soviet Union, and we all see how well that worked.

At least in our system, rich and generous people have the resources and liberty to help needed unfortunate dishwashers with charity care. In the USSR even that was impossible.

"you can't really believe that poverty is proportional to laziness or work ethic"

Of course it is, and outside of the academic world, where people invent new reasons for old problems, every one knows it.

This isn't sub-Saharan Africa. You have every opportunity to create wealth for yourself NO MATTER who you are or how you started. For every poor person you show me who truly can't make it because of some physical or mental deficiency, I can show you 100 who can.

Have you ever worked with the poor? Worked at a church or non profit? Interacted and talked to them? I have. It is immediately self-evident that the majority of their problems come from within.

Have you ever seen who actually shops at thrift stores and makes use of clothes drives? Not the poor. When asked, they tell you that "they don't want that crap" and use the money they have to buy name brand clothes and shoes. I believe Scragged wrote an article about this phenomenon awhile back.

"there are literally millions of American workers grinding their lives away at or near the poverty line"

Not in any real sense. There are people who BELIEVE they are poor because (a) the media elite keep saying it's so, (b) they have no perspective of what real poverty is and (c) they have been lied to by liberals such as yourself about what the source of their problems are. Seeing no other choice, they're left enslaved to dependencies that people like you create for them.

"Being poor is not easy, especially in the US"

Travel to any other nation in the world and show me where it's any easier. America is the easiest place on earth to be poor by significant margin, not only because of various safety nets but because of the opportunity facing you at every turn.

Although to be fair, that opportunity is slowly being taken away by people like you who favor regulation, false incentives and political correctness.

When you're poor, the hardest thing that you face isn't how to find your next meal. It's trying to figure out a long term strategy out of poverty. In Obama's America - the world of "progressivism" - there is no long term strategy out of poverty. Obama's America reinforces poverty and forces the middle class downward.

So I guess you're half right. NOWADAYS, in Obama's America, it's not easy being poor.

The list of how wrong you are keeps growing with every word you write.

"healthcare, education for my kids"

These are NOT basic needs. You have been lied to. No one owes you healthcare or education.

No one died in the streets before national healthcare. The country wasn't overrun with illiterate waifs before public education.

On the contrary, the common man was BETTER educated (relative to the standard of his day) back before public education.

The problems with healthcare and education are precisely due to central management and regulation. Put them back at the local level, and get rid of any and all federal involvement, and you'll see an enormous improvement overnight.

Laurence, this just happened in the past 24 hours. Watch it all the way through:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/07/26/Congressmans-Anti-Big-Government-Rant-Gets-Standing-Ovation

I thought you'd enjoy that as it related to our discussion about regulation crushing business and business creating jobs.

Education Time: Laurence

"And I am not talking about PRINTING money, as 95% of the money is digital. and it can only be created by banking institutions, not individual people. Explain to me how an entrepreneur can create wealth that did not exist before him?"

Laurence,
There is no difference in printing or digital when it comes to money. You can exchange dollar bills or digital dollars for goods and services. What really matters is how many dollars are available for those goods and services.

How does a an entrepreneur create wealth? Well lets start a level one. There is a standard unit of value out there, gold. We can use other items but let's stick with gold for the time being. Why do we use gold as a standard of value. Because you cannot create gold, there is a finite quantity of gold. The only way to expand the amount of gold on hand is to mine gold. So let's take a very simple analogy of gold and how you create wealth among mortals. Let's say that gold is worth $1 an ounce and that a gallon of milk is worth $1. With this example we can buy a gallon for a dollar bill which is easier than getting an ounce of gold hence the reason that we need the paper currency as opposed to gold. The paper dollar however has to be backed up by the gold. We used to have that system here in the US, a paper dollar was backed up by an ounce of gold. Then the politicians got involved. They started printing paper dollars that were not backed up by an equal amount of gold. As inflation naturally increased that $1 gallon of milk cost $2 a gallon. It mattered little to the politicians because the people were making $20 a week instead of $10 a week. The people felt as though they were making progress because they were making more money and didn't take into account that the cost of living had risen. If that had been taught in schools the people would not have stood for that but that will have to be in another article. Back to creating wealth. This proliferation of printing dollars continued through the decades. After WWII we were the only country left intact with its manufacturing base. We were able to export to the world at our prices which were higher than they should have been. The unions and short sighted CEO's saw to it that they would bleed the rest of the world. People are not stupid, they will look after their own best interests. We'll use the Japanese as an example but their example is copied by the rest of the world. They produced better products at lower prices. Soon made in Japan became a symbol of excellence for autos and electronics.There we are here in the US with auto makers and electronic companies not being able to compete. Why you ask? Because they were no longer able to create wealth, their productivity had fallen and could no longer sell their products for a profit. The answer to creating wealth is through productivity and not through digital dollars, taxation, regulations or any other scheme that congress, both republican or democrat, can come up with. This is an economic reality that most people do not understand nor want to understand. Bottom line, you cannot repeal economic laws no matter how hard you try. This has always been a problem with union members. They want pay raises regardless of the output of the factory that they work in. If they were smart they would dump their union, they would work with the company on how to have a higher output which would be tied to profits rather than unions rules. Pay raises are useless with inflation. Inflation is what causes factories to close. I would rather make $10 a week and be able to buy that gallon of milk for $.80 than make $20 a week and have to pay $2 a gallon. Wealth comes from output and that is how you create wealth for all and not just the owner. Purchasing power is the real raise, not inflation.

"you can't really believe that poverty is proportional to laziness or work ethic"

Of course it is, and outside of the academic world, where people invent new reasons for old problems, every one knows it.

This statement makes me suspect there may be no point continuing the discussion.

"Being poor is not easy, especially in the US"

Travel to any other nation in the world and show me where it's any easier. America is the easiest place on earth to be poor by significant margin, not only because of various safety nets but because of the opportunity facing you at every turn.

How about UK, France, Germany, Sweden,Iceland, Norway, Holland, Denmark, Egypt, Venezuela Azerby-f**king-jan

http://euwelfarestates.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/world-ranking-in-unemployment-benefit.html

And opportunity? Are you having a laugh?

"Laurence,
There is no difference in printing or digital when it comes to money. You can exchange dollar bills or digital dollars for goods and services. What really matters is how many dollars are available for those goods and services."
Yes, I know, I think you took my quote out of context. What I mean is this: Until the bank creates and issues money, it does not exist. This is basic economics. Its called the fractional reserve system, really I'm surprised you have not heard of it. No matter what you as a company produce or create, the money to purchase it comes from banks. They are the wealth creators. 2008 banking scandal. Banks stop issuing new loans, except to those with super credit ratings. Wealth creation ceases. Recession.

"healthcare, education for my kids"

These are NOT basic needs. You have been lied to. No one owes you healthcare or education.

Why? because you say say so? Because the founding fathers didn't write it in your constitution? are you saying that because it wasn't anticipated 300 years ago it isn't relevant today? People all other the world disagree with you. Nearly every country in the world has some sort of public education. every civilised country has healthcare. you need to think about your priorities my friend, not just spout what fox news tells you! actually think about what you are saying when you say that a society should let you die because you cannot afford healthcare.

Laurence,
You missed the point. Example, the Fed in QEII decided to buy bonds. Did they print the money? No, they digitized it. This is turn devalued the currency. As for the fractional reserve system you need a deeper understanding of how it works.

LOL!

Laurence's latest comment demonstrates very clearly why young parents should avoid public school at all cost, even if they have to do without in order to afford the alternative.

Public education teaches Group Think and Group Consensus above all else.

Decades ago, all the public school biology textbooks began changing "theory" wording to "fact" wording.

When you teach theories to young scientists, you have to teach them how to think so they can juxtapose theoretical conjecture with concrete observation. In the absence of teaching how to think, you get to insist that things are they way you say they are. It's much easier to teach facts over theories because theories can be debated.

The average public school kid has NO CLUE how to think for themselves or establish logical paths.

Let us consider the argument Laurence just placed before us.

He says, quoting the IMF figures, that the poor have a better time of it outside the US because the "replacement rates" of unemployment benefits have more purchasing power in those countries.

Let's assume that the IMF figures are correct, though they rarely are. Let's also assume that these figures apply to everyone evenly though they never do (small businessmen never get UI no matter how much they pay in).

A simple question comes to mind...

If the world's poor are treated better in so many other countries, why are they all flocking here in astronomical numbers?

Why have immigrants from Central and South America been pouring into our southern borders for decades?

Why not go to, say, the Netherlands or Sweden where they'd get 60-70% of their regular earnings? Don't like the cold - why not Italy? Why are US emmigration numbers lower than any other developed nation on earth?

A thinking man would smell a rat.

The public school kid doesn't think twice though because, after all, a blogger pointed out "replacement rates"!

LOL again.

Now let's consider WHY the poor flock to the US even though we only "replace" income at 27.5%

"Replacement rates" in benefits have nothing whatsoever to do with helping poverty and everything to do with reinforcing it.

For some reason, Laurence and his liberal friends cannot see that the only real benefit to those in poverty is to GET OUT OF POVERTY not worry about how many benefits are being "replaced".

As I said twice already, America is the best place for the poor because of the OPPORTUNITY we offer to NOT be poor.

People who are poor don't want better "replacement rates"; they want to provide for themselves and get rich.

A phrase comes to mind as we attempt to educate Laurence:

"ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth"

If any one phrase could sum up public education. Which makes phrases like this one all the more amusing:

"not just spout what fox news tells you!"

Laurence, your link is unrelated to the discussion. Mentioning the ability to replace income in a country like "Azerby-f**king-jan" through unemployment benefits shows me that you have lived a good life and read too many blogs and are comparing quality of life from an American mindset. What is that unemployment insurance buy in the great country of Azerbaijan? I am Romanian and I noticed in that list that Romania is 18th way ahead of the US. Should I now assume that it must be really awesome to live in Romania based on that chart? If it was so, I would have never moved to the United States. However, I can guarantee you that lots of people in Romania still live in misery, and poverty there does not include amenities the "poor" can get in this country. As someone who has come from another country, I am a success story just like many others who have come here because we worked hard for it. You have no idea how many Americans I have met who did not study that hard in school and who wasted their time getting high or drinking instead of working on becoming successful. I understand that some fall victim to the system and some are just not that smart, but if there is a will there is way and most can succeed. I am an American dream come through, and the fact that my hard work as well as my wife's will be rewarded with higher tax brackets is punitive and unfair.

to expand upon my statemnent about lack of oppertunity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.economist.com/node/15908469

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/class-mobility_b_1676931.html

Good to see you back, Alin, and congratulation on your inspiring story! If you'd be interested in sharing more of your experiences with the audience here at Scragged, please contact me at petrarch [at] scragged.com.

Alin,

Thanks for sharing.

Libs like Laurence have no real perspective of what poverty is or the false incentives that keep people there.

I spent 6 months in some of the poorest parts of Mexico and the single biggest reason the poor there wanted to be in the US was because they could "set up their own shop without the government and gangs stealing everything". They didn't want better unemployment benefits. They wanted to be in a place where they could build wealth for themselves based on their own merits.

It's a shame that the millions of stories like yours are not part of American education.

Laurence and his friends are doing their best to strip the US of all its real value so that we can be like all those civilized countries in Europe - you know, the ones that are going bankrupt over and over again.

No, what id unfair is saying 'I have taken advantage of the the system, built by others, with their taxes, to get myself some success, but now I don't want to contribute towards the country I think is so great'

The study I quoted shows that for the first year on unemployment 30 countries look after their people better than the USA. Most of those countries have well developed and extensive unemployment benefits, challenging the notion that the USA is an awesome place to be poor.

"The study I quoted shows that for the first year on unemployment 30 countries look after their people better than the USA"

Better unemployment benefits isn't the goal, you dimwit! It's the PROBLEM.

You're so obtuse, it's silly.

One of my favorite quotes is "liberalism is a mental disorder". I think we have it here case in point.

The truth is you see my success story and most likely those of other successful people (and I am not even that successful) as somehow taking advantage of the system. We all have access to this system, so why don't the "poor" take advantage of it as well? And yes, it was built by other successful people who paid taxes (as opposed to bums who didn't) and now that I live the American dream I have to give credit where it's due, not to the government for allowing me in this country, but to the system that allows success to flourish. If people like you get your way and change the system, then there will be no more American dream. We will only have more government control like we did back in Communist Romania and there will be no more rich people only equally poor people. Except of course for the govt bureaucrats of course who regardless of where they are in the world always seem to be doing really well for themselves...yet people like you ask for more government which will only serve those in power and use you like a tool. What a foolish ideology!

"We all have access to this system, so why don't the "poor" take advantage of it as well?"

+1

Thank you Petrarch and lfon for your insight! :-)

"If people like you get your way and change the system, then there will be no more American dream"

Dude, I am arguing we should keep it as is, everybody else in this discussion wants to change it, to make their own lives slightly easier!

"We all have access to this system, so why don't the "poor" take advantage of it as well?"

maybe the system isn't as universal as you think it is? maybe it takes more than hard work and perseverance? maybe you need a bit of luck as well?