Poverty @ MindSay 
poor
(a) More money in the pockets of the public means more consumption, which leads to more surplus production realized as profit, this leads to more production of surplus value, more jobs, more income, more consumption, and so on.
Allow income to be bottled up at the top and you retard economic growth. What capitalists perceive is good for them personally is actual bad for the capitalist economy. Self-interest behavior at the firm level leads to weak economic development at the system level. This is why capitalism needs state intervention.
(b) More taxes mean smaller budget deficits. Smaller budget deficits mean lower interest rates. Lower interest rates mean more borrowing and investing. More borrowing and investing means expanded economic activity and more jobs. This dovetails with (a) to grow the economy.
Every time this strategy is used it works. Every time taxes are cut for the wealthy and on capital the economy slows or contracts. This is why as a general empirical reality Democrats preside over better economic times than Republicans.
Republicans are good for a narrow range of capitalist interests - energy, for example - but Democrats are good for the overall capitalist system.
America does much better under Democrats than Republicans. It's a material fact. All you have to do is examine economic patterns over the past 50 years.
What I would do is raise top marginal rates to over 90 percent, raise corporate taxes and capitalist gains taxes, and implace an exit tax on corporations leaving the country. I would then reduce taxes on 90 percent of the population, eliminating taxes on everybody earned 60 thousand dollars or less and implace a negative tax on everybody earning 300 percent of poverty. I would start public infrastructure projects, especially environmental clean up, sufficient to soak up all surplus workers.
The economy would boom.
A final note to readers: Before you post, be sure to read through the post and consider your thoughts before leaving a comment. I will erase any irrelevant comments mercilessly. If I don't reply to a comment, but leave it posted, it's probably for a reason.
from chron.com
WACO — A 13-year-old boy who admitted stabbing a teenage friend to death this summer received a 15-year sentence Monday in a plea agreement.
State District Judge Alan Mayfield accepted the plea agreement after rejecting a 10-year proposal earlier this month.
The youth pleaded "true" to the first-degree murder charge. County officials have said the former Provident Heights Elementary School student is the youngest person in McLennan County ever charged in a murder.
Attorneys met at the Bill Logue Juvenile Justice Center, where the boy, who was 12 at the time of the June 6 stabbing, has been held since his arrest.
Authorities said the boy, whose name is not being released because of his age, stabbed 14-year-old Keith Dancer in the heart with a steak knife during a dispute.
Mayfield told the youth that if he continues to show good behavior, he could be released on parole in three years, the Waco Tribune-Herald reported Monday in its online edition.
His sentence will be carried out at a Texas Youth Commission facility.
The boy's mother, Babette Wilkerson, has said her son was attracted to the older boy and was upset that his feelings were not reciprocated.
Wilkerson said at the time of the murder that her son's father died in May and that the boy has been in and out of counseling all his life.
Anonymous said... Having more rich people = having fewer poor people. There can never be zero poor people unless you can guarantee they don't do the self destructive things that causes poverty. There is no such thing as economic rights. You have the right to work, the right not to work, or the right to hire others to work for you. No one is forcing you to do anything. For the most part, people that live in poverty year after year choose to do so, by not increasing the value of their labor in the labor market or not starting a business that offers a useful service or product that people are willing to pay for. You do nothing, you get nothing. You fail to serve society, it fails to reward you. You do not have a right to NOT live in poverty, only a free choice not to.
August 24, 2008 4:52 PM
Andrew Austin said... "There can never be zero poor people unless you can guarantee they don't do the self destructive things that causes poverty."
Of course we can eliminate poverty without blaming the poor for things they have no control over. You just need to make sure that everybody gets what s/he needs.
There were no poor people for most of human history because societies made sure everybody got what they needed. They made damn sure some didn't profit at the expense of everybody else.
"There is no such thing as economic rights."
Sure there is. Everybody has a right to a share of the social surplus sufficient to meet her/his needs for survival and leisure - just as each person has the responsibility to contribute to community productive if s/he is able-bodied. This is the original state of the human social system and the only basic arrangement in which everybody can be equally free.
If a group of people within a community create a situation where some are deprived of their share to and responsibility for the social surplus, then economic rights are being violated and the people are not equally free.
"No one is forcing you to do anything."
First off, force isn't inherently wrong. It depends on the circumstances. Nobody is a priori opposed to forcing people to do things.
If you attempt to harm others by depriving them of their share of the social surplus, then, in a just society, the community should use force to stop you. If it is a just society, we call this use of force "justice."
If, on the other hand, some individual or individuals use the force of the law - which is, of course, always backed up by physical force - and the force of structural arrangements (structural coercion) to monopolize the means of production and control those who are subjected to this monopolization, then the force being exercised represents injustice and is illegitimate. A different kind of force should be utilized to overthrow these illegitimate relations. We call that force "revolution."
Under capitalism, most people are forced to work for those who monopolize the means of production and the law perpetuates this status quo. Capitalism therefore represents an unjust form of social organization in which force is often illegitimately exercised by the authorities.
"For the most part, people that live in poverty year after year choose to do so, by not increasing the value of their labor in the labor market or not starting a business that offers a useful service or product that people are willing to pay for."
This is not how class systems work. Class systems work by depriving the majority of access to the means of production thereby forcing them to work for those who control these arrangements. This is why class systems are exploitative.
The poor are created by systems that permit the appropriation of the social surplus (and even sometimes to a degree the necessary labor product) by those who do little or no work, thereby impoverishing those who do work (slaves, peasants, workers).
Some systems have periodic fluctuations in the need for labor, which increases the size and depth of the poverty class. Generally, those who exploit the producer do not suffer during lean times. Exploiters have a share of the surplus that belongs to the community that they live off of while others suffer the downturn.
Some systems, like capitalism, can never put all labor into production at any given time and thus maintain not only working poor but a reserve army of labor. Without social provision, these persons suffer extreme deprivation.
"You do nothing, you get nothing."
Again, this is not the way class systems. Under slavery the slave master get almost everything, while the slave get almost nothing even though it's the slaves who do almost everything while the slave masters do almost nothing. The same pattern holds under capitalism, just replace the slave master and his whipping bosses with the capitalist and his managers.
"You fail to serve society, it fails to reward you."
Under capitalism, you are rewarded for serving yourself. That's the whole point. Capitalists have no interest in serving society. Their interest is in maximizing profit through the rational exploitation of labor power and intensification of control over those who own labor power. Capitalists are generously rewarded for only serving themselves.
"You do not have a right to NOT live in poverty, only a free choice not to."
Poverty means that a society is unjust. An unjust society is one in which one group is permitted to violate the rights of one or more other groups. A just society would be one in which there was no poverty. Everybody has a right to a share of community production sufficient to meet her/his needs for survival and leisure just as each person has the responsibility to contribute to community productive if s/he is able-bodied.
August 24, 2008 5:42 PM
I had the saddest thing happen last night. We were sitting in the living room, watching the Netflix (HBO) movie about John Adams, when someone came to our front door. My spouse answered and it turned out to be a man who said he lived here in town. He wanted to paint our house number out on the street, to earn money for his house, as he said he was losing it to foreclosure. We've been scammed so many times that my spouse told him (correctly) that we were living on a fixed income and that he was sorry, but we couldn't do it. Afterwards, I was really sorry I hadn't answered the door instead. This morning, it is still hitting me, hard...I feel so bad for him. Even if it had been a scam, so what.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]