Income inequality explained in a cartoon

[winnipegjets]

Nobody is entitled to anything.

Really? Are we entitled to live? Think deep. Why are we not entitled to healthcare? Why are we not entitled to education?

If the stupid and lazy are given a middle class lifestyle that they don't earn through their own efforts then those who worked smart and/or hard are taxed excessively to subsidise the unworthy souls. Taxes should be for essential services like defence, police, street lightning, prevention and relief of natural and other disasters, etc. Taxes should not be levied to make transfer payments aka subsidise the sick care of those who don't take care of their health eg smokers, gluttons and the like.

Isn't health care essential? Isn't education essential?
Defence and security are necessary only to safeguard the rich. The poor can't be bothered - what is there to protect when you have nothing So, why should these services be deemed essential while the essentials of life and social mobility have to be paid by individuals?

Transfer payments are nothing but state confiscation of personal property. It is my hard earned money and I have the right to give it to a charity of my choice or save it for the rainy days my family may encounter in future or splurge it on luxuries. It is MY hard earned money. The gahrament should not be allowed to force me to help people that I don't feel like helping just because these people sell their votes in order to get subsidies for sick care, housing, pensions, etc which they cannot or will not earn through their own efforts. Giving the undeserving all these benefits will only disincentivise them from earning those things for themselves. It will also make it harder for me to achieve retirement, afford first class healthcare, etc for my family if I have to work from Jan to Apr to pay taxes to support the lifestyle of these Jiak Liao Bee STRANGERS.

You didn't make it on your own ...there is a society built with tax dollars that allowed to make it.
There are lots of jiak liao bee everywhere ...in corporations, in governments. Do you throw the babies out with the bathwater?
Taxes are essential to build a civil society so that everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living. Middle class lifestyle is attainable with the help of government. That does not stop those who want more to seek more. But don't be begrudge paying the share that will enable the society to be nicer for all. If you don't like to pay for a better society, there are other communities that would welcome you. And with your means, you have no problem moving there.

All that is required for a "civil society" is good education and that I am willing to subsidise - up to GCE "A" levels. Those who cannot afford uni can take out student loans and repay them from future salaries. It will be easier for these hardworking students to repay their student loans if their future salaries are not taxed at high rates to subsidise transfer payments to their primary and secondary school classmates who are too lazy and stupid to make it to uni and too inflexible to become middle class without uni - Li Ka Shing was born dirt poor and did not go to uni.

There are expenses in life that will make you work till you die. Is that what life is all about - work to survive?
Most people will not rise to the top of the pyramid. That's reality. Do we then decide that only the top 20 percent should live well and the 80 percent live like dogs?

The "level playing field" only requires equality of opportunities and not equality of results.

That's is a truism but the reality is that opportunities are not equal. The rich are able to provide more educational opportunities to their kids; that is already a significant headstart. The rich can send their kids to top universities. The children of the rich do not need to worry if they will have food on the table. The rich do not have to worry about paying healthcare bills. Do you think people choose to be sick?

A civil society does not mean encouraging slothful lifestyle. Most people want to work; work not only brings in the dough but also provide meaningful social interactions.
But to compel people to focus solely on work just to make ends meet is not betterment of life.

 

[hofmann]

So Winnie would rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich are less rich? This is what happens when you focus on the gap between the rich and the poor. The pie is not stagnant, it is growing. So the "poor" of today, even though they own only 3.8% or whatever of total wealth can afford to have 2 50inch LCD TVs at home, change to a new smartphone every 12 months and eat until they look like a mini Godzilla. Whereas, the poor of yesteryear, even though they own 8% or whatever of total wealth never had any of these luxuries. Margaret Thatcher was right about socialism:

What you said is right with one caveat:

There must be growth, or sufficient growth. Break this golden rule, then it's not ok for the poor to be poorer.

So if capitalism cannot deliver the required growth, then perhaps its time for the rich to be less rich. A gentle reallocation of resources via increased taxes is much preferable to outright change of government when the 80% get to dictate terms.

 

[Asterix]

Really? Are we entitled to live? Think deep. Why are we not entitled to healthcare? Why are we not entitled to education?

Think deep and you will realise that we human beings are not entitled to anything. If we are entitled to live then why are millions of people killed every year through natural disasters, accidents, etc. Even if you have a million bucks in cold hard cash and you are lost in the Sahara, you will die of thirst. That is your entitlement to healthcare.

Isn't health care essential? Isn't education essential?
Defence and security are necessary only to safeguard the rich. The poor can't be bothered - what is there to protect when you have nothing So, why should these services be deemed essential while the essentials of life and social mobility have to be paid by individuals?

The poor can't be bothered if their daughters are raped by enemy soldiers or by their ghetto neighbours??? Their ghetto neighbours will only steal cavier from the rich and can always be trusted not steal the poor's ikan bilis and Maggi instant noddles?

Why should sick care be essential if the sickness is not contagious? If it is, the rich will gladly subsidise such sick care if the illness is not self inflicted. If it is self inflicted, then just subsidise the guarantine and not the medical treatment. Vaccines for poor children can be subsidised - otherwise they might spread disease to other people. All other sick care services are not essential for society as a whole although they are for the individuals involved.

You didn't make it on your own ...there is a society built with tax dollars that allowed to make it.

The society only subsidised my education. The rest I did it on my own and along the way there are a few people who helped me and a LOT of people who hindered me. Actually the intellectual part of the work is not that difficult, but dealing with the scums that hindered me is another matter. I do not feel the need to be charitable to STRANGERS for whom my only expectation is that they don't stand in my way but very often they do.

Taxes are essential to build a civil society so that everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living. Middle class lifestyle is attainable with the help of government. That does not stop those who want more to seek more.

Indiscrminate transfer payments to unworthy STRANGERS will not make a civil society.

Middle class lifestyle is attainable without government assistance with average IQ, hard work and disciple. On the other hand, making transfer payments to the unworthy to help them achieve middle class lifestyle will only create a population of parasites and leeches aka Jiak Liao Bees. The low SES people will have no incentive to improve themselves since they can always demand and protest for universal this and that.

That's is a truism but the reality is that opportunities are not equal. The rich are able to provide more educational opportunities to their kids; that is already a significant headstart. The rich can send their kids to top universities. The children of the rich do not need to worry if they will have food on the table. The rich do not have to worry about paying healthcare bills. Do you think people choose to be sick?

Many upper middle class people came from poor families. Gahbrament cannot change reality so if one is too stupid to make it to uni without special tuition classes and one's parents can't afford those than too bad. One can always take night classes after work. The state cannot be expected to help those who are not motivated. If one is not willing to make sacrifices to achieve a goal, then one deserves to stay poor. It is not the fault of the rich that they can give better opportunities to their kids. Isn't this one reason why the poor want to be rich?

A civil society does not mean encouraging slothful lifestyle. Most people want to work; work not only brings in the dough but also provide meaningful social interactions.
But to compel people to focus solely on work just to make ends meet is not betterment of life.

Then one should stop complaining and learn how to work smart instead of just hard.

 

[winnipegjets]

The upper middle class mostly earned their money the old fashioned way - work hard, save and invest. They do not take anything from anybody. On the other hand, the "poor" are takers since they receive more transfer payments than they pay in taxes. Hell, most of them don't even pay any taxes! The other type of takers are those who inherit vast wealth from their families. This can be solved by imposing high rates of inheritance tax aka estate duty. And who voted for the party that abolished estate duty in SG? Yes, the ignorant and stupid "poor" aka the 69.9%.

If the rich is that ethical, then the share of income going to workers would be growing. The reality is far from your belief. The rich seeks more and if they can, they will always squeeze their employees to work for pittance. You can't grow your profits by charging more because your customer can walk. But you can squeeze your employees because they fear losing their jobs.
I speak for a general perspective, not based solely on SINKapore context.
Low taxes do not benefit the 80 percent that significantly. They will be better off if the everyone pays a little bit more and the additional revenue is used to provide expensive services such as healthcare and education. The rich has no problem paying for healthcare ...that cannot be said for the 80 percent. All the hard earn savings from decades could be easily wiped out with a medical condition.

Sharing is for family members and friends only. Strangers are not entitled to ask me to share anything with them, even if they happen to be born in the same country as me which by the way is purely accidental.

Paying your dues to live in a country where everyone can have a decent existence (eg. Sweden, Denmark) will create an environment where people respect each other, regardless of their position in life or occupation, and allow people to truly live. Living is more than earning money to pay the bills and save to pay more future bills. What kind of existence is that?

 

[winnipegjets]

Think deep and you will realise that we human beings are not entitled to anything. If we are entitled to live then why are millions of people killed every year through natural disasters, accidents, etc. Even if you have a million bucks in cold hard cash and you are lost in the Sahara, you will die of thirst. That is your entitlement to healthcare.

We are entitled to live ...that's why we rescue people who are caught in natural disasters. If you are lost in outbacks of USA and the authorities are notified, they come out to look for you.

The poor can't be bothered if their daughters are raped by enemy soldiers or by their ghetto neighbours??? Their ghetto neighbours will only steal cavier from the rich and can always be trusted not steal the poor's ikan bilis and Maggi instant noddles?

The poor are more cooperative than the rich ...they appreciate their status in life and they work together to better the conditions of existence. Yes, there will be a few unhinged ones and they will be dealt with by the group. The poor wants to live without constant worries on the next meal, how to pay for their kids' education so that they can move up the socio-economic ladder and to provide other basic needs for the family.

Why should sick care be essential if the sickness is not contagious? If it is, the rich will gladly subsidise such sick care if the illness is not self inflicted. If it is self inflicted, then just subsidise the guarantine and not the medical treatment. Vaccines for poor children can be subsidised - otherwise they might spread disease to other people. All other sick care services are not essential for society as a whole although they are for the individuals involved.

If you are struggling financially, you eat the cheapest food which is often not nutritious. Illness is a consequence of poverty. Is that self-inflicted?
When you work two or three jobs and suffer healthwise, is that self-inflicted?

The society only subsidised my education. The rest I did it on my own and along the way there are a few people who helped me and a LOT of people who hindered me. Actually the intellectual part of the work is not that difficult, but dealing with the scums that hindered me is another matter. I do not feel the need to be charitable to STRANGERS for whom my only expectation is that they don't stand in my way but very often they do.

That's it? Vaccination, cheap public transport, affordable housing (then, not now) ...someone paid for these services.

Indiscrminate transfer payments to unworthy STRANGERS will not make a civil society.

The more you try to hang on to every cent of your income, the more likely you will lose lots more. There is a larger group out there that have every right to have a decent existence. They are not asking to be rich but just to be able to provide for the family and that their offsprings, through education, can climb the socio-economic ladder. Let the major expenses in life be paid for with tax dollars so that people can be unburdened with heavy financial burdens.

Middle class lifestyle is attainable without government assistance with average IQ, hard work and disciple. On the other hand, making transfer payments to the unworthy to help them achieve middle class lifestyle will only create a population of parasites and leeches aka Jiak Liao Bees. The low SES people will have no incentive to improve themselves since they can always demand and protest for universal this and that.

Everyone should have access to affordable healthcare, education and pension. There is nothing to stop the rich from getting better healthcare, education and bigger pension. When you earn more, you pay more to be part of a civil community. There are other communities that the law of the jungle is the norm. That is for those who don't believe in sharing a common destiny. If everyone is to themselves, the outcome of such society is obvious.

Many upper middle class people came from poor families. Gahbrament cannot change reality so if one is too stupid to make it to uni without special tuition classes and one's parents can't afford those than too bad. One can always take night classes after work. The state cannot be expected to help those who are not motivated. If one is not willing to make sacrifices to achieve a goal, then one deserves to stay poor. It is not the fault of the rich that they can give better opportunities to their kids. Isn't this one reason why the poor want to be rich?

Wealth create wealth. The children of the rich are more likely to be rich than be broke. The rich has the means while the 80 percent don't. The government ensures high quality education available to all - the rich can access that too. Why limit high quality education only to those who can afford it?
The poor wants to move up but not necessarily be rich. Most people would be happy to have a middle class existence ...a balanced life.
If people don't have to worry about paying for the kids' education, make poor by healthcare cost and saving enough for retirement, life would be a bliss. People will be happier and kinder to each other. Society does not need to be a dog-eat-dog environment.

Then one should stop complaining and learn how to work smart instead of just hard.

If everyone is capable to work smart, then there will be equality. What is the baseline standard of living that people should have?

 

[Leongsam]

This isn't communism ...it is common sense.
Right-wingers, when under threat, like to label their critics as communists. Right-wingers need to wake up the reality that they can't have it all ...if want it all, you will lose it all, unless you plan to subdue the masses with violence.

History has shown that the masses will always rise again when the balance it tilt too much in favour of the rich.

The super rich create wealth not just for themselves but for everyone. Take the Apple app store for example Apple paid out $70 BILLION in 2017. That's a whole lot of money for those who took advantage of the iPhone's reach to create wealth for themselves.

It's the same story with Youtube content creators. Google founders may be multi billionaires but they have created an eco system where the rest of us can make a ton of money too.

Wealth is not a zero sum game. When a multibillionaire earns his place in the rich list he does not do that by depriving others of money he does the opposite and creates huge opportunities for the rest of us.

 

[winnipegjets]

The super rich create wealth not just for themselves but for everyone. Take the Apple app store for example Apple paid out $70 BILLION in 2017. That's a whole lot of money for those who took advantage of the iPhone's reach to create wealth for themselves.

The $70 billion goes to the shareholders. And who are the shareholders? Top 20 percent.

It's the same story with Youtube content creators. Google founders may be multi billionaires but they have created an eco system where the rest of us can make a ton of money too.

And paying taxes shouldn't deter them from their entrepreneurial pursuits.

Wealth is not a zero sum game. When a multibillionaire earns his place in the rich list he does not do that by depriving others of money he does the opposite and creates huge opportunities for the rest of us.

It does not need to be a zero sum game but it does. When a business owner earns more profits, if the people who toil to make that happen enjoy a significant gain, then that is not a zero sum game. If the business owner decides to keep a sizeable chunk of the gain or all the gain, then this cause a major gap of rewards. Those who toil got little or nothing, while the capital owners reap all the rewards. Is capital more important than the contribution of labour?

 

[syed putra]

Nobody is entitled to anything. If the stupid and lazy are given a middle class lifestyle that they don't earn through their own efforts then those who worked smart and/or hard are taxed excessively to subsidise the unworthy souls. Taxes should be for essential services like defence, police, street lightning, prevention and relief of natural and other disasters, etc. Taxes should not be levied to make transfer payments aka subsidise the sick care of those who don't take care of their health eg smokers, gluttons and the like. Transfer payments are nothing but state confiscation of personal property. It is my hard earned money and I have the right to give it to a charity of my choice or save it for the rainy days my family may encounter in future or splurge it on luxuries. It is MY hard earned money. The gahrament should not be allowed to force me to help people that I don't feel like helping just because these people sell their votes in order to get subsidies for sick care, housing, pensions, etc which they cannot or will not earn through their own efforts. Giving the undeserving all these benefits will only disincentivise them from earning those things for themselves. It will also make it harder for me to achieve retirement, afford first class healthcare, etc for my family if I have to work from Jan to Apr to pay taxes to support the lifestyle of these Jiak Liao Bee STRANGERS.

All that is required for a "civil society" is good education and that I am willing to subsidise - up to GCE "A" levels. Those who cannot afford uni can take out student loans and repay them from future salaries. It will be easier for these hardworking students to repay their student loans if their future salaries are not taxed at high rates to subsidise transfer payments to their primary and secondary school classmates who are too lazy and stupid to make it to uni and too inflexible to become middle class without uni - Li Ka Shing was born dirt poor and did not go to uni.

The "level playing field" only requires equality of opportunities and not equality of results.

Taxes should be used on infrastructure also. Plus there are form of taxes that does not penalise the rich, but brings in immense returns, like gst.
A 20 year study at auckland university found that being successful is really in the behaviour of the individual. They tested several children, put them alone in a room with sweets, and told them not to touch the sweets.
20 years later, they found out, the ones that took the sweets became drop outs and addicts while those that did as told, became proffesionals.

 

[syed putra]

The $70 billion goes to the shareholders. And who are the shareholders? Top 20 percent.


And paying taxes shouldn't deter them from their entrepreneurial pursuits.


It does not need to be a zero sum game but it does. When a business owner earns more profits, if the people who toil to make that happen enjoy a significant gain, then that is not a zero sum game. If the business owner decides to keep a sizeable chunk of the gain or all the gain, then this cause a major gap of rewards. Those who toil got little or nothing, while the capital owners reap all the rewards. Is capital more important than the contribution of labour?

I think apple paid USD70 bil to app and game developers that uses apple platform.

 

[syed putra]

Typical socialist crap.

The poor will always be poor because they have inferior genes. Hand over money to the poor and they'll blow it all in six months no matter how much they get.

At the same time, if we neglect the poor, then crime may increase. Nordic countries gives those ftom the bottom 40 equal opportunity to succeed as the rich by investing in a top class free education system. So the poor have a better chance to attain success.

 

[Leongsam]

The $70 billion goes to the shareholders. And who are the shareholders? Top 20 percent.

You obviously don't understand how things work. $70 billion did not go to "shareholders". It went into the pockets of the app developers who in many cases are nothing more than enterprising individuals who took a bit of trouble to get a developer account and then started peddling their wares on the app store.

There are almost zero entry barriers anyone who has access to a computer can develop apps. A poor kid could become a millionaire using a school computer if he took the trouble to do the hard yards.

There are thousands of stories out there of kids younger than sixteen making good money. https://www.fastcompany.com/1621539/young-app-rentices-five-app-developers-ages-16-and-under-update

Without the likes of the mega rich like Steve Jobs these kids would never have had the same ready market for their skills. Billionaires create millionaires and hundreds of thousands of very well paying jobs.

 

[winnipegjets]

I think apple paid USD70 bil to app and game developers that uses apple platform.

Thanks for the clarification.

Trump gave US corporations a big break to bring home the cash that were stashed off shore. The right-wingers say that business will use these cash to create more jobs. The reality is that the cash was used for stock buybacks. Trickle-down economics and the belief that business creates jobs are bs. It is consumer that creates jobs. If consumers don't have the means to spend, the economy collapses. When the rich takes more away, leaving pittance for labour, it is a matter of time before the chicken comes home to roost.

 

[winnipegjets]

You obviously don't understand how things work. $70 billion did not go to "shareholders". It went into the pockets of the app developers who in many cases are nothing more than enterprising individuals who took a bit of trouble to get a developer account and then started peddling their wares on the app store.

I don't follow AAPL like you ....I hate AAPL. So, pardon my confusion. I am sure you are aware of how AAPL use the cash they brought back. Just in case, you don't ...https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...returning-100-billion-shareholders/570991002/

AAPL takes 30 percent from every purchase and renewals. Now, why can't the rich from AAPL afford to pay a bit more taxes?

The Silicon Valley folks actually are progressive on taxes; it is the right-wing billionaires like the Koch Brothers, Mercer, Wynn, Adelson etc that are the ones to con the American people that taxes are bad. While these rich people are enjoying the good life, the majority of people who work for them are taking the crap wages.

There are almost zero entry barriers anyone who has access to a computer can develop apps. A poor kid could become a millionaire using a school computer if he took the trouble to do the hard yards.

There are thousands of stories out there of kids younger than sixteen making good money. https://www.fastcompany.com/1621539/young-app-rentices-five-app-developers-ages-16-and-under-update

Without the likes of the mega rich like Steve Jobs these kids would never have had the same ready market for their skills. Billionaires create millionaires and hundreds of thousands of very well paying jobs.

No denying that the barriers to entry for high tech jobs are lower or none. But it is not an industry for the masses.

 

[Asterix]

We are entitled to live ...that's why we rescue people who are caught in natural disasters. If you are lost in outbacks of USA and the authorities are notified, they come out to look for you.

They look for me when I'm lost in the outbacks because it is part of government services paid for by taxes. I'm entitled to live and so are the civil servants who come to my rescue while being paid to do a job. If it is too dangerous or costly, they will not attempt the rescue and I will die. So much for your "entitlement to live". I and the rescuers are also entitled as human beings in a civil society to not have unreasonable burdens placed on me because of the stupidity and laziness of STRANGERS. So, those who want to have a middle class lifestyle jolly well be prepared to WORK for it or get lost.

The poor are more cooperative than the rich ...they appreciate their status in life and they work together to better the conditions of existence. Yes, there will be a few unhinged ones and they will be dealt with by the group. The poor wants to live without constant worries on the next meal, how to pay for their kids' education so that they can move up the socio-economic ladder and to provide other basic needs for the family.

You watch too much TV. If the poor are "cooperative" then the ghettos will be crime free, but the truth of the matter is that in all countries the most crime infested areas are also the areas where the poor congregate. How will the unhinged ones be "dealt with by the group"? They will be lynched without a fair trial? Isn't that your much dreaded "law of the jungle"? Whatever any human being wants, whether he be rich or poor, he has to strive to get it. Even the rich have to strive for happiness as everyone knows that money alone does not buy happiness.

If you are struggling financially, you eat the cheapest food which is often not nutritious. Illness is a consequence of poverty. Is that self-inflicted?
When you work two or three jobs and suffer healthwise, is that self-inflicted?

If you are struggling financially, you will eat leftovers from other people's rubbish bin and then kenna food poisoning and blame other people? One can buy nasi lemak for $2.20 in Woodlands Interchange - rice, fried chicken wing, fried egg and ikan bilis with peanuts plus belachan. Isn't that sufficiently nutritious? Drinks? No need lah if you are truly poor - tap water is safe to drink in SG. A typical hospital cleaner can earn $1,200 per month - illiterate also never mind, just need to be able to use a mop. Is it that difficult to earn a living in SG?

That's it? Vaccination, cheap public transport, affordable housing (then, not now) ...someone paid for these services.

Housing is not subsidised in SG. The HDB still makes money from selling flats - a lot of money. The land was compulsorily acquired at unfairly cheap prices from the towkays of old and then when the gahrament transfers the land to HDB it is deemed sold at fair market prices.

I was told that in the 1960s, when some dead ah pek's salary was $50 per month, a 3 room HDB flat could be bought for $6,200 - equivalent to 10 years' annual salary. Today, the median household income is $8,800. 10 years' annual salary is $1,056,000, much more than the cost of a 3 room HDB flat at current market value! Even if only husband works (in 1960s it was rare as most women were housewives), 10 years' annual salary is still $528,000 - much more than the cost of a 3 room HDB flat.

They vaccinated me as a child not because of charity but because they do not want me to spread diseases to other people and vaccinated every kid not just me.

The more you try to hang on to every cent of your income, the more likely you will lose lots more. There is a larger group out there that have every right to have a decent existence. They are not asking to be rich but just to be able to provide for the family and that their offsprings, through education, can climb the socio-economic ladder. Let the major expenses in life be paid for with tax dollars so that people can be unburdened with heavy financial burdens.

They want their major expenses in life to be paid for by taxpayers aka me? Then it must necessarily mean that I will have less resources to pay for my and my family's major expenses in life. Who is more important to me as a human being? My family or STRANGERS?

Everyone should have access to affordable healthcare, education and pension. There is nothing to stop the rich from getting better healthcare, education and bigger pension. When you earn more, you pay more to be part of a civil community. There are other communities that the law of the jungle is the norm. That is for those who don't believe in sharing a common destiny. If everyone is to themselves, the outcome of such society is obvious.

Everyone should know that in life, regardless of whether you're temporarily rich or poor, nobody owes you anything PERIOD. We're not talking about billionaires here. There is of course nothing to stop the billionaires from splurging their wealth on anything they want or need. We're talking about average middle class people who became middle class through the dint of their own efforts. People making say US$100,000 per year. Why should they be subsidising the lazy and stupid through 35% income taxes when 10% will do just fine if one cuts out all the unnecessary transfer payments? $25,000 per year for say 30 years average working life is $750,000 in unnecessary taxes!!! Isn't it the law of the jungle if the lazy and stupid are allowed to extort money from the ordinary hardworking citizens in the name of "social harmony"?

Wealth create wealth. The children of the rich are more likely to be rich than be broke. The rich has the means while the 80 percent don't. The government ensures high quality education available to all - the rich can access that too. Why limit high quality education only to those who can afford it?
The poor wants to move up but not necessarily be rich. Most people would be happy to have a middle class existence ...a balanced life.
If people don't have to worry about paying for the kids' education, make poor by healthcare cost and saving enough for retirement, life would be a bliss. People will be happier and kinder to each other. Society does not need to be a dog-eat-dog environment.

I would not send my kid to a neighbourhood school even if it is subsidised to the extent of being totally FOC. Education is not just ABC, or even knowledge. Character is more important. And kids will be infected with the bad or good character of other kids and also the character of their teachers and public school teachers' standards are very low. The taxes that I don't have to pay if unnecessary transfer payments to unworthy STRANGERS are eliminated - i.e. the $750,000 over a lifetime as in the above example - can better used to send my kids to good private schools. If I want to use part of the $750,000 I saved for charitable purposes, then that is my choice and I should be entitled to choose which charities I want to donate to. For sure unworthy Sinkie STRANGERS will get ZERO from me. Do you see Bill Gates donating billions to help the poor in developed countries? No, he focuses his charitable works on the truly poor in undeveloped countries like Africa. This entitlement should not be limited to billionaires, ordinary Joes earning $100,000 per year should also be allowed to choose which charities they want to support with their hard earned money or simply splurge the money on luxuries for themselves or save up for a rainy day or invest in their OWN children.

If people don't have to work for what they want then society will go down the tubes - like Communist USSR and China. The poor can always want this and want that PROVIDED they know and understand that they will NOT get whatever it is they want unless they STRIVE for it with their own efforts.

Reaping what you sow is a basic law of nature. If people are truly educated i.e. character and not just ABC, it will not be a dog-eat-dog world. And all that is required to prevent a dog eat dog world is a good and efficient police force, easily affordable with a flat 10% income tax on everyone. Capitalism is NOT a dog eat dog doctrine. All that is required to prevent monopolies is an effective Anti-Monopoly Commission - again easily affordable with a flat 10% income tax on everyone.

If everyone is capable to work smart, then there will be equality. What is the baseline standard of living that people should have?

The bottom line is that the world doesn't owe anybody, rich or poor, anything. If you want something, whether it be tangible or intangible, you have to STRIVE for it PERIOD. The sooner the "poor" understand that the better it is for them.

 

[winnipegjets]

They look for me when I'm lost in the outbacks because it is part of government services paid for by taxes. I'm entitled to live and so are the civil servants who come to my rescue while being paid to do a job. If it is too dangerous or costly, they will not attempt the rescue and I will die. So much for your "entitlement to live". I and the rescuers are also entitled as human beings in a civil society to not have unreasonable burdens placed on me because of the stupidity and laziness of STRANGERS. So, those who want to have a middle class lifestyle jolly well be prepared to WORK for it or get lost.

LOL. You are entitled while the 80 percent are not entitled. Isn't that arrogance of the rich?
Lots of people work and work hard ...yet they don't earn enough to pay for all the services that could be delivered cheaply by government.
You succeeded not through just hard work.

You watch too much TV. If the poor are "cooperative" then the ghettos will be crime free, but the truth of the matter is that in all countries the most crime infested areas are also the areas where the poor congregate. How will the unhinged ones be "dealt with by the group"? They will be lynched without a fair trial? Isn't that your much dreaded "law of the jungle"? Whatever any human being wants, whether he be rich or poor, he has to strive to get it. Even the rich have to strive for happiness as everyone knows that money alone does not buy happiness.

Yeah, I watch too much Scandiavian TV that I envy how their societies have brought true happiness to the people.

If you are struggling financially, you will eat leftovers from other people's rubbish bin and then kenna food poisoning and blame other people? One can buy nasi lemak for $2.20 in Woodlands Interchange - rice, fried chicken wing, fried egg and ikan bilis with peanuts plus belachan. Isn't that sufficiently nutritious? Drinks? No need lah if you are truly poor - tap water is safe to drink in SG. A typical hospital cleaner can earn $1,200 per month - illiterate also never mind, just need to be able to use a mop. Is it that difficult to earn a living in SG?

So, you conclude $1200 salary is good enough for sinkees to live on?

Housing is not subsidised in SG. The HDB still makes money from selling flats - a lot of money. The land was compulsorily acquired at unfairly cheap prices from the towkays of old and then when the gahrament transfers the land to HDB it is deemed sold at fair market prices.

I was told that in the 1960s, when some dead ah pek's salary was $50 per month, a 3 room HDB flat could be bought for $6,200 - equivalent to 10 years' annual salary. Today, the median household income is $8,800. 10 years' annual salary is $1,056,000, much more than the cost of a 3 room HDB flat at current market value! Even if only husband works (in 1960s it was rare as most women were housewives), 10 years' annual salary is still $528,000 - much more than the cost of a 3 room HDB flat.

I agree there is no true subsidy for HDB flats but it remains the most affordable housing for sinkees. Paying for it consumes a big chunk of money that should have been invested for retirement. That's why government use tax dollars to provide pensions to citizens.
People don't need to own but they do need to be able to rent affordable housing.

They vaccinated me as a child not because of charity but because they do not want me to spread diseases to other people and vaccinated every kid not just me.

Well, tax dollars funded mass vaccinations so that you as a kid had the chance to live a healthy life.

They want their major expenses in life to be paid for by taxpayers aka me? Then it must necessarily mean that I will have less resources to pay for my and my family's major expenses in life. Who is more important to me as a human being? My family or STRANGERS?

You have exactly the same access to those services. It is a baseline provision. Since you are a smart and capable man and want more, you have the earning capacity to provide more for your family. There is nothing to stop you.

Everyone should know that in life, regardless of whether you're temporarily rich or poor, nobody owes you anything PERIOD. We're not talking about billionaires here. There is of course nothing to stop the billionaires from splurging their wealth on anything they want or need. We're talking about average middle class people who became middle class through the dint of their own efforts. People making say US$100,000 per year. Why should they be subsidising the lazy and stupid through 35% income taxes when 10% will do just fine if one cuts out all the unnecessary transfer payments? $25,000 per year for say 30 years average working life is $750,000 in unnecessary taxes!!! Isn't it the law of the jungle if the lazy and stupid are allowed to extort money from the ordinary hardworking citizens in the name of "social harmony"?

Using your logic, we should gas those who are do not earn enough to maintain minimum standard of living. Then you will need to pay even lower taxes. Maybe all babies who are born with defects should be killed immediately unless the parents can show that they have the funds to take care of them.
Most people work hard than lazy and struggles to pay the major expenses in life. That's why there is the craze to find short cuts to make more money, totally disregarding the harm they imposed on others. We don't need to turn every human into animals.

I would not send my kid to a neighbourhood school even if it is subsidised to the extent of being totally FOC. Education is not just ABC, or even knowledge. Character is more important. And kids will be infected with the bad or good character of other kids and also the character of their teachers and public school teachers' standards are very low. The taxes that I don't have to pay if unnecessary transfer payments to unworthy STRANGERS are eliminated - i.e. the $750,000 over a lifetime as in the above example - can better used to send my kids to good private schools. If I want to use part of the $750,000 I saved for charitable purposes, then that is my choice and I should be entitled to choose which charities I want to donate to. For sure unworthy Sinkie STRANGERS will get ZERO from me. Do you see Bill Gates donating billions to help the poor in developed countries? No, he focuses his charitable works on the truly poor in undeveloped countries like Africa. This entitlement should not be limited to billionaires, ordinary Joes earning $100,000 per year should also be allowed to choose which charities they want to support with their hard earned money or simply splurge the money on luxuries for themselves or save up for a rainy day or invest in their OWN children.

What is wrong to spend the money to make all schools, including neighbourhood schools, great for sinkees children to be groomed for success in their lives. Given your line of thinking, the implementation of India's caste system in sinkapore will have your utmost support.

If people don't have to work for what they want then society will go down the tubes - like Communist USSR and China. The poor can always want this and want that PROVIDED they know and understand that they will get whatever it is they want unless they STRIVE for it with their own efforts.
Reaping what you sow is a basic law of nature. If people are truly educated i.e. character and not just ABC, it will not be a dog-eat-dog world. Capitalism is NOT a dog eat dog doctrine.

Why do you think that people are lazy by nature? Heard of the working poor?
Look at the middle class ...do you think they have the financial resources to kids' education, HDB flat, saving for retirement and saving for healthcare? Retirement and healthcare savings are usually sacrificed since they are not pressing need. But these expenses will come home to roost eventually.
A better society is when people have those major expenses taken care of by the state through taxation. Then people can live with less stress.




The bottom line is that the world doesn't owe anybody, rich or poor, anything. If you want something, whether it be tangible or intangible, you have to STRIVE for it PERIOD. The sooner the "poor" understand that the better it is for them.[/QUOTE]

 

[Asterix]

LOL. You are entitled while the 80 percent are not entitled. Isn't that arrogance of the rich?
Lots of people work and work hard ...yet they don't earn enough to pay for all the services that could be delivered cheaply by government.
You succeeded not through just hard work.

I think you missed the point altogether!

My point is the civil servants will come to rescue me if I'm lost in the outbacks because their salaries and equipment are paid for by taxpayers' money. They will also come to rescue a poor and penniless bum from the Streets of Harlem. However, regardless of whether is the "victim" is rich or poor, they will not do the rescue if it is too dangerous or costly. That is what I meant when I say that no one is allowed to imposed unreasonable burdens on others. The civil servants are also "entitled to live". If they die while rescuing me or the poor bum from Harlem, their families will suffer. If a middle class Joe earning USD100,000 per year is taxed 35% to fund unnecessary transfer payments to strangers, then his family will suffer. You are the arrogant one who believes that you are entitled to demand that I pay higher taxes so that you can have middle class lifestyle ahem have major life expenses paid for by taxpayers without your having the need to work for it through your own efforts.

Yeah, I watch too much Scandiavian TV that I envy how their societies have brought true happiness to the people.


So, you conclude $1200 salary is good enough for sinkees to live on?

Your Scandinavian "paradise" is very very EXPENSIVE:

https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/

Top income tax rate in Denmark is 60% and you pay this rate once your income is 1.2 times the national average! Assuming average salary in SG is now $4,000 per month, if this system is adopted, you will have to pay 60% income tax once your salary hits $4,800 per month! Your take home pay will be $1,920 only. BTW, in most developed countries, salaries are paid monthly or weekly after tax has been deducted and NOT at the end of each year like in SG and HK.

No, I conclude that if one wants to have a better life - say earn more than $1,200 per month - then one has to get it through his OWN efforts. If one earns only $1,200 per month, he is "poor" by SG standards but upper middle class on a global basis and you certainly will not be malnourished since you can always go to Woodlands Interchange or other HDB "heartlands" and find similar cheap food like the $2.20 highly nutritious nasi lemak! Welfare for the poor encourages "squalour of behaviour" in people who are already lazy and stupid.

Well, tax dollars funded mass vaccinations so that you as a kid had the chance to live a healthy life.

My point is mass vaccinations are CHEAP and can be easily be funded with a flat 10% income tax for everyone with lots of money left over for soldiers, police, infrastructure, schools, etc. Transfer payments so that lazy bums can have a middle class lifestyle without working for it will cost a LOT more - like 60% income tax rate of Denmark.

You have exactly the same access to those services. It is a baseline provision. Since you are a smart and capable man and want more, you have the earning capacity to provide more for your family. There is nothing to stop you.

So what if I can have access to services that every Ah Pig and Ah Cow can have because they are SG Shitizens and will cause riots in the streets if their middle class lifestyle is not subsidised with other people's money! I had been to Class C wards in both SG and HK as a visitor and as an outpatient and I will never go to those places if I need a major operation and have to stay there for a few days. The environment is so unpleasant and it is solely because of those low SES patients who use these facilities because that is what they can afford. Guaranteed my kidney or whatever will be saved but my blood pressure will rise to stratospheric levels from having to be stuck with these low SES shitholes who will cough like thunder without covering their orifices, talk loudly, clear throat like tornado, blah, blah, blah.

I will end up subsidising these low SES people's sick care and when it comes time for me to use these "services" I will not use them because it is unbearable to be in the same room as these shitholes.

There is no guarantee in this world. The world doesn't owe the lazy and stupid a living and it also does not necessarily reward the smart and capable for their efforts. That is why everyone needs to save for a rainy day and I need to save more because I need to stay in Class A ward, eat in food court instead of kopi tiam, etc, etc in order to avoid those low SES shitholes who will irritate me and cause my blood pressure to rise for nothing.

There is nothing wrong with asking these people who aspire to a middle class lifestyle to WORK for it through their OWN efforts and not expect rob me through taxes to subsidise their exorbitant demands. This is not "civil society" but law of the jungle if Ah Pigs and Ah Cows are allowed to sell their votes to rob hardworking ordinary citizens of their hard earned money to subsidise their dream of a blissful middle class lifestyle without having to work for it.

What is wrong to spend the money to make all schools, including neighbourhood schools, great for sinkees children to be groomed for success in their lives. Given your line of thinking, the implementation of India's caste system in sinkapore will have your utmost support.

I said I support subsidised education up to GCE A levels, but I will not send my kids to neighbourhood schools. 10% flat income tax for everyone will pay for a lot of deserving things once we cut out all the unnecessary transfer payments.

I do not support a caste system for its own sake but because I know from experience that in this world there are the good, the bad and the ugly. I strive to live and work together with the good and totally avoid the bad and the ugly and I will help my kids achieve that to the best of my ability. Not all low SES people are bad and ugly but most of them are, so it is best to avoid them. Sama sama - not all Ah Nehs are smelly but most are - so if you see an empty MRT seat next to an Ah Neh, best not to sit there and find some other place to rest your bum. India's caste system is set in stone i.e. once a dalit forever a dalit. A flexible caste system has my support - those dalits who that they are willing and capable of rising above their low birth status can and should be promptly promoted to a higher caste - all the way to brahmin status in short time if that is what they deserve.

Why do you think that people are lazy by nature? Heard of the working poor?
Look at the middle class ...do you think they have the financial resources to kids' education, HDB flat, saving for retirement and saving for healthcare? Retirement and healthcare savings are usually sacrificed since they are not pressing need. But these expenses will come home to roost eventually.
A better society is when people have those major expenses taken care of by the state through taxation. Then people can live with less stress.

Those who want a cosy middle class lifestyle but are not willing to STRIVE for it through their own efforts are lazy PERIOD. Working "poor" in developed countries is equivalent to upper middle class income in many other countries around the world - just watch the above video.

Scandinavian style social welfare comes at the HUGH cost of 60% income tax for practically everyone. Therefore, each working individual has less savings for the things that he personally wants to do because 60% of his monthly income is used to subsidise other people. The average household savings rate in Denmark is only 7.29% whereas in SG it is 42%. In Finland, where they tried and aborted the attempt to guarantee everyone a basic income, the average household savings rate is 1.4%

https://www.google.com.hk/search?ei...j0i13j0i13i30j0i13i5i30j0i8i13i30.1AxIDFmSMa0

https://www.google.com.hk/search?ei...0j0i13i5i30j0i8i13i30j33i22i29i30.JXFuizQ99jU

 

[winnipegjets]

I think you missed the point altogether!

My point is the civil servants will come to rescue me if I'm lost in the outbacks because their salaries and equipment are paid for by taxpayers' money. They will also come to rescue a poor and penniless bum from the Streets of Harlem. However, regardless of whether is the "victim" is rich or poor, they will not do the rescue if it is too dangerous or costly. That is what I meant when I say that no one is allowed to imposed unreasonable burdens on others. The civil servants are also "entitled to live". If they die while rescuing me or the poor bum from Harlem, their families will suffer. If a middle class Joe earning USD100,000 per year is taxed 35% to fund unnecessary transfer payments to strangers, then his family will suffer. You are the arrogant one who believes that you are entitled to demand that I pay higher taxes so that you can have middle class lifestyle ahem have major life expenses paid for by taxpayers without your having the need to work for it through your own efforts.

Joe pays 35 pct tax but he gets free education for his kids (so, he doesn't have to worry about saving for that unless he wants to send them to Harvard), free healthcare (he doesn't need to worry that the next cancer will make him broke) and he gets a pension (that covers 50 percent of his income up to a limit) when he retires. Because of the pooling of tax dollars, those services can be provided at a lower cost than individuals buying those services. Everyone is better off ...Joe who wants more and earns more, has the means to do more for himself. The price for him to remain part of this community is that he pays his dues.

Your Scandinavian "paradise" is very very EXPENSIVE:

https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/

Top income tax rate in Denmark is 60% and you pay this rate once your income is 1.2 times the national average! Assuming average salary in SG is now $4,000 per month, if this system is adopted, you will have to pay 60% income tax once your salary hits $4,800 per month! Your take home pay will be $1,920 only. BTW, in most developed countries, salaries are paid monthly or weekly after tax has been deducted and NOT at the end of each year like in SG and HK.

Expensive relative to ???? You save money for your kids education - how much will that add up to? You save for healthcare expense. You save for retirement. Don't forget about inflation as well. The state also helps you out if you are out of work ...up to two years. Childcare is also taken care. These are the major expenses in life and I will gladly that kind of taxes to have them all taken care of so that I can have a peaceful sleep. My take home pay is truly a disposable income. I can choose to save or just spend it all.
When you get your pay weekly, it means you can put your money to work sooner. And paying your taxes with each pay cheque means you don't get to worry about paying up comes tax time. You get a refund if you overpay.

No, I conclude that if one wants to have a better life - say earn more than $1,200 per month - then one has to get it through his OWN efforts. If one earns only $1,200 per month, he is "poor" by SG standards but upper middle class on a global basis and you certainly will not be malnourished since you can always go to Woodlands Interchange or other HDB "heartlands" and find similar cheap food like the $2.20 highly nutritious nasi lemak! Welfare for the poor encourages "squalour of behaviour" in people who are already lazy and stupid.

This is our divergence can not be bridged - you think people are lazy while I think most people will want to work. Making life easier for people just brings out the best in human beings. Yes, there will be a few bad apples but not such a big lot that will upset the system.

My point is mass vaccinations are CHEAP and can be easily be funded with a flat 10% income tax for everyone with lots of money left over for soldiers, police, infrastructure, schools, etc. Transfer payments so that lazy bums can have a middle class lifestyle without working for it will cost a LOT more - like 60% income tax rate of Denmark.

10 percent flat tax to cover all government expenses? I don't think it is doable.

So what if I can have access to services that every Ah Pig and Ah Cow can have because they are SG Shitizens and will cause riots in the streets if their middle class lifestyle is not subsidised with other people's money! I had been to Class C wards in both SG and HK as a visitor and as an outpatient and I will never go to those places if I need a major operation and have to stay there for a few days. The environment is so unpleasant and it is solely because of those low SES patients who use these facilities because that is what they can afford. Guaranteed my kidney or whatever will be saved but my blood pressure will rise to stratospheric levels from having to be stuck with these low SES shitholes who will cough like thunder without covering their orifices, talk loudly, clear throat like tornado, blah, blah, blah.

If the government had more revenues, those hospitals would have better quality environment. Since you had the means, why didn't you opt for private hospitals which are abundant in HK and SG?

I will end up subsidising these low SES people's sick care and when it comes time for me to use these "services" I will not use them because it is unbearable to be in the same room as these shitholes.

If you pay more taxes, those places would not be shitholes.

There is no guarantee in this world. The world doesn't owe the lazy and stupid a living and it also does not necessarily reward the smart and capable for their efforts. That is why everyone needs to save for a rainy day and I need to save more because I need to stay in Class A ward, eat in food court instead of kopi tiam, etc, etc in order to avoid those low SES shitholes who will irritate me and cause my blood pressure to rise for nothing.

Raise the standards to benefit all, instead of just yourself. The world would be a better place when we care more for each other.

There is nothing for these people who aspire to a middle class lifestyle to WORK for it through their OWN efforts and not expect rob me through taxes to subsidise their exorbitant demands. This is not "civil society" but law of the jungle if Ah Pigs and Ah Cows are allowed to sell their votes to rob hardworking ordinary citizens of their hard earned money to subsidise their dream of a blissful middle class lifestyle without having to work for it.

The voters who have the time to follow politics are the better off (the higher SES). Most people are too busy working to follow how their leaders are screwing them. In a social democratic society, there is no need to bribe the people to win votes. The only bribe that is used is to lower taxes; that's an appeal to selfishness. Fortunately, the majority in those countries still believe in the social aspect of their democracies although lately, the race card has been played since the lower tax bribe was not working.

I said I support subsidised education up to GCE A levels, but I will not send my kids to neighbourhood schools. 10% flat income tax for everyone will pay for a lot of deserving things once we cut out all the unnecessary transfer payments.

You can't achieve social mobility with only high school qualifications.

I do not support a caste system for its own sake but because I know from experience that in this world there are the good, the bad and the ugly. I strive to live and work together with the good and totally avoid the bad and the ugly and I will help my kids achieve that to the best of my ability. Not all low SES people are bad and ugly but most of them are, so it is best to avoid them. Sama sama - not all Ah Nehs are smelly but most are - so if you see an empty MRT seat next to an Ah Neh, best not to sit there and find some other place to rest your bum. India's caste system is set in stone i.e. once a dalit forever a dalit. A flexible caste system has my support - those dalits who that they are willing and capable of rising above their low birth status can and should be promptly promoted to a higher caste - all the way to brahmin status in short time if that is what they deserve.

If you think the majority of the poor are a bane to society, why not save society by eliminating them early on? You save money and resources.

Income gap is not a trivial matter to be ignored.

Scandinavian style social welfare comes at the HUGH cost of 60% income tax for practically everyone. Therefore, each working individual has less savings for the things that he personally wants to do because 60% of his monthly income is used to subsidise other people. The average household savings rate in Denmark is only 7.29% whereas in SG it is 42%. In Finland, where they tried and aborted the attempt to guarantee everyone a basic income, the average household savings rate is 1.4%

People in Scandinavian countries don't need to save because they have already paid for their major expenses in life. Sinkees, those who can afford it, have high savings. But those savings are depleted when kids go to university or health calamity hits. High savings that cannot cover the cost of major expenses is false sense of security. How many sinkees are retiring financially secure?[/quote]

 

[Asterix]

If you think the majority of the poor are a bane to society, why not save society by eliminating them early on? You save money and resources.

Income gap is not a trivial matter to be ignored.




People in Scandinavian countries don't need to save because they have already paid for their major expenses in life. Sinkees, those who can afford it, have high savings. But those savings are depleted when kids go to university or health calamity hits. High savings that cannot cover the cost of major expenses is false sense of security. How many sinkees are retiring financially secure?

[/QUOTE]

And you believed all the BS coming out of Bernie Sander's (BS) mouth?

 

[Asterix]

Expensive relative to ???? You save money for your kids education - how much will that add up to? You save for healthcare expense. You save for retirement. Don't forget about inflation as well. The state also helps you out if you are out of work ...up to two years. Childcare is also taken care. These are the major expenses in life and I will gladly that kind of taxes to have them all taken care of so that I can have a peaceful sleep. My take home pay is truly a disposable income. I can choose to save or just spend it all.
When you get your pay weekly, it means you can put your money to work sooner. And paying your taxes with each pay cheque means you don't get to worry about paying up comes tax time. You get a refund if you overpay.

If you will gladly pay that kind of taxes to have a peaceful sleep then is your personal choice but you have no right to impose your choice on other people. Please put your money where your mouth is and move to Denmark and pay 60% of your monthly paycheck to subsidise STRANGERS' middle class lifestyle!

If the government had more revenues, those hospitals would have better quality environment. Since you had the means, why didn't you opt for private hospitals which are abundant in HK and SG?

Didn't you just said that I had access to those subsidised services though I am not poor? So I decided to test what access to those services means in REALITY when I needed day surgery to remove a small cyst - and discovered that those services are not up to my standard. Subsequently, I went to Mount E at Novena for another outpatient matter and was very satisfied with the specialist who resolved the matter for 6 times the price of my previous visit to the public hospital but it was worth to pay the price. So I will not use substandard subsidised medical services again and will not pay excessive taxes to subsidise these services. Too bad I cannot demand a refund of the excessive taxes which I had already paid in the past to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If you pay more taxes, those places would not be shitholes.

Even if the Class C wards are gold plated throughout they will still be crap places because of the low SES shitholes that populate these places. No amount of taxes will turn bad people into good people.

The world would be a better place when we care more for each other.

Airy fairy BS. If this is true then Communism should have been a smashing success, but Communism is proven to be a total failure because it does not blend well with selfish nature of human beings.

You can't achieve social mobility with only high school qualifications.

Those who want to go uni but can't afford it can take out student loans and REPAY those loans from their salaries after graduation. Loan repayments will be tax deductible. The chief beneficiaries of uni education are the uni students themselves and they are capable of paying their own way with the help of LOANS which must be REPAID. Loan defaults will be heavily penalised - all banks in the country will be promptly notified and their ability to borrow in the future will be adversely affected. Not having to subsidise higher education will keep taxes low. 10% flat tax rate for everyone is doable if all unnecesary transfer payments are eliminated.

If you think the majority of the poor are a bane to society, why not save society by eliminating them early on? You save money and resources.

With the advent of AI and robots, this is definitely doable. Also advances in medical science and genetics will soon allow parents to have custom made babies, therefore no nèed to kill off defective ones since they will not be made in the first place as it will be compulsory to go for custom made babies.

 

[syed putra]

So we tax the rich, and pay the rich to run the country.