The three classes of society a five car train
Many have an incorrect view of the classes in society. I think the 3 class society can be viewed as a five car train containing an engine, a caboose and 3 passenger cars. The engine represents opportunity and determination that provide the ability to advance econimically while the caboose represents dragging factors that hold back economically. The 3 cars are the 3 classes rich, middle and poor.
The proper view of the 3 cars is that they are attached. As the rich car advances so does the middle and poor class. Also, by working hard a person in the poor car could advance to the middle car or from the middle car to the rich car.
Those who engage in class warfare want this to be different. Their first preference is for there only to be one passenger car even if that one car is the poor car. They bristle against the advancement of the rich car even though being connected it advances the middle and poor cars. Even though the situation of the poor and middle cars is better, it is evil because the rich car is still better than the other two.
For most people in the US, which car you are in is the result of hard work and making proper choices. There is a good luck and bad luck factor for sure. Some inherit wealth without working for it. If that is the wishes of the parents who worked for the wealth, then who has the right to deny them what they want to do with their wealth. Some drop to the lower cars due to random catastrophe. Some are born with handicaps preventing opportunity.
It would be Xanadu if we could assimilate the poor and middle cars into the rich car. This is not likely to happen. So a society should work to set up an environment where the lower cars keep pace with the rich cars. Society should not cut the connection to the poor car and take off. Society should not keep people out of the middle or rich cars based on discriminitory reasons. Society should not expand the connection to the poor car so it gets farther and farther away. Simplistic thinking such as wealth transfers contribute to this.
Society should have a carefully constructed safety net for those who do not have the ability to make the right choices or work hard, but not for those who are able bodied and able minded. Society may have a temporary safety net for those who may make the wrong choices, but need a temporary hand up to make better choices. Society should not resent or penalize those in the rich car who worked hard and made good, legal, ethical choices to get there. As for the argument that the rich used the US infrastructure to get wealthy, all able bodied and able minded have the same opportunity to use the US infrastructure. Those who choose to do so should not be punished for doing so.
The proper view of the 3 cars is that they are attached. As the rich car advances so does the middle and poor class. Also, by working hard a person in the poor car could advance to the middle car or from the middle car to the rich car.
Those who engage in class warfare want this to be different. Their first preference is for there only to be one passenger car even if that one car is the poor car. They bristle against the advancement of the rich car even though being connected it advances the middle and poor cars. Even though the situation of the poor and middle cars is better, it is evil because the rich car is still better than the other two.
For most people in the US, which car you are in is the result of hard work and making proper choices. There is a good luck and bad luck factor for sure. Some inherit wealth without working for it. If that is the wishes of the parents who worked for the wealth, then who has the right to deny them what they want to do with their wealth. Some drop to the lower cars due to random catastrophe. Some are born with handicaps preventing opportunity.
It would be Xanadu if we could assimilate the poor and middle cars into the rich car. This is not likely to happen. So a society should work to set up an environment where the lower cars keep pace with the rich cars. Society should not cut the connection to the poor car and take off. Society should not keep people out of the middle or rich cars based on discriminitory reasons. Society should not expand the connection to the poor car so it gets farther and farther away. Simplistic thinking such as wealth transfers contribute to this.
Society should have a carefully constructed safety net for those who do not have the ability to make the right choices or work hard, but not for those who are able bodied and able minded. Society may have a temporary safety net for those who may make the wrong choices, but need a temporary hand up to make better choices. Society should not resent or penalize those in the rich car who worked hard and made good, legal, ethical choices to get there. As for the argument that the rich used the US infrastructure to get wealthy, all able bodied and able minded have the same opportunity to use the US infrastructure. Those who choose to do so should not be punished for doing so.
posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 9:51 PM
8 Comments:
At 10:58 PM,
Anonymous said…
Very appreciated, thank you a see you site is good.
Dora
At 11:21 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
Thanks Dora :)
At 3:35 PM,
Anonymous said…
"As for the argument that the rich used the US infrastructure to get wealthy, all able bodied and able minded have the same opportunity to use the US infrastructure."
To be fair then, the degree to which each person uses the US infrastructure should be directly proportionate to what they should pay to support and maintain said infrastructure.
Why should I pay equal maintenance fees for public waterworks as the person who runs a laundromat and uses 800 times the water and wear on the piping and filtration system than I do?
Why should I pay equal maintenance fees in the form of road taxation as the person who has a trucking fleet that constantly wears down the roads with its 5-ton tractor trailers? Why should I have to pay for any roads as a subway rider while my neighbor commutes 20 miles on the highway every day?
Why should I pay equal communication infrastructure taxes as the person who operates a telemarketing company who has 300 operators on the phones 8 hours every day?
I should not have to pay for another person to get wealthy.
At 4:44 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
"Why should I pay equal maintenance fees in the form of road taxation as the person who has a trucking fleet that constantly wears down the roads with its 5-ton tractor trailers? Why should I have to pay for any roads as a subway rider while my neighbor commutes 20 miles on the highway every day?"
bkln (is that pronounced backline? just wondering)
The point you are missing is that the there is a symbiotic relationship between infrastructure and business. Yes a trucking company might use the roads more which results in more wear and tear than me driving my car. However, the goods delivered in that truck provide the government revenues through sales taxation, fee taxation and income taxation for the jobs those goods provide in the retail market. Because I don't have exact numbers I will keep the illustration simple if the truck causes $1 of wear and tear, gains $10 in profit and provides government revenue opportunities of $10 it is all good. Why punish them for making a profit and providing livelihood and tax revenues as well?
Sorry, your argument does not hold. You are only looking on the side that the business benefits. The government benefits as well.
At 7:09 PM,
Anonymous said…
" Yes a trucking company might use the roads more which results in more wear and tear than me driving my car."
Stands, you sound unsure of that statement. Are you thinking perhaps a trucking company might not use the roads more than you as an individual does?
There's a lot to respond to here, and that is pending. My argument will hold. Patience please. I'll be back.
At 7:45 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
blkn, I did not use the word "might" in the sense of uncertainty. It was more used to mitigate the contrast in order to put more focus on what came after. I don't see that as incorrect or uncommon, but have clarified.
At 2:53 PM,
Anonymous said…
I just don't see how what you are proposing is anything less than corporate welfare: making American citizens pay for infrastructure while corporations do not.
You posit that corporations shouldn't have to pay for infrastructure maintenance because their products provide tax revenue through sales tax and income tax revenue from workers. There are problems with this because (1) not all states have sales tax, and
(2) why on earth should a company's workers, whose real wages have decreased or stagnated over the last 30 years pay for an infrastructure system that - by comparison - they barely use??? A family of four versus a trucking fleet??? C'mon now! That is so blatantly unfair!
Here is an enlightening piece on corporate welfare.
More information here on the average American working family in it's relation to corporate America.
At 9:36 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
bkln, I do want to address the working poor issue you have brought up before. Just wanted you to know I am working on it. I will say that I don't believe an increase in working poor is at all related to the taxation of the rich or corporations.
As for corporation's liabilities to government I still claim you need to separate the container shell of corporation from the people who own and run a corporation. I get the sense you and other liberals attach some kind of 'evil' context to corporations. A similar analogy would be how some attach an evil context to guns. The gun is an inanimate object. It is the person using it that might be evil or the person might be good if he is protecting himself or you. Neither the gun or corporations are evil. They just exist.
You will recall I had a post that proposed all taxation be taken out of corporations. I am specifically talking about income taxation. If the company makes a dollar profit and passes that dollar profit to shareholders, then shareholders would be taxed on it.
You can reread the post at:
http://logiclifeline.blogspot.com/2005/10/raise-taxes-on-rich-on-one-condition.html
I do not however view this as an isolated event. In order to do this right we need to do a complete overhaul of the tax system. We need to make it simple, fair, and above all to take away the power of government to manipulate corporations by taxation. I don't have this all fully developed but like I said my premise is that a corporation is inanimate and it is ludicrous to treat it otherwise. More to come.
Post a Comment
<< Home