Slashdot Mirror
Gov't Computers Used to Find Info on "Joe the Plumber"
After Joe Wurzelbacher of Ohio gained fame as "Joe the Plumber" in the course of the current presidential campaign, it seems that he's drawn more than idle curiosity from people with access to what should probably be confidential information. An anonymous reader writes with a story from The Columbus Dispatch that "government insiders accessed Joe the Plumber's records soon after the McCain-Obama debate. 'Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate. Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.' Welcome to 1984."
This stuff isn't just happening in the UK.
Anybody? I'd think that the personal data of just about any news figure is combed over. This is certainly unfortunate but hardly surprising.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
....as JoeTheAnonymousCoward. Average Joe said over a cup of Joe today that he learnt about AC too late, but that maybe others could learn from his mistake.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Welcome to 1984, or welcome to a world (just like 2007, 2006, and 2005) where curious people with access to confidential information sometimes abuse it without meaning harm?
I don't think there's any reason to assume malice here, I think stupidity is good enough. This kind of thing happens all the time when famous people check into hospitals and medical residents think it would be clever to pull their file.
This seems more likely to be plain old stupidity than it does evil government influence.
Did they find Simon the Invisible Unicorn? (if you don't know the reference, watch the SNL spoof)
I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll
This is what happens when you "speak truth to power" to a Republican. Oh wait, never mind...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
That those who would have afforded the Bush administration total power would suddenly wince when that power is used against them.
This is my sig.
As interesting (and also not surprising at all) is the quote from the article,
The LEADS system also can be used to check for warrants and criminal histories, but such checks would not be reflected on the records obtained by The Dispatch
Why anyone would trust any online system with anything that could cost them a job, impact their credit, prevent them from receiving health insurance, prevent them from being considered from a job, put-your-privacy-concern-here, etc.... is beyond me.
Sure it will be secure, sure it will....
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
The 34-year-old from the Toledo suburb of Holland is held out by McCain as an example of an American who would be harmed by Obama's tax proposals.
I still don't understand why they keep bringing this guy up. He lied in his question to Obama about being in a position to buy his boss' company. His boss' company also doesn't make the level of income that would trigger a new tax under Obama's plan. Joe himself would get a tax cut under Obama's plan. Joe owes back taxes as it is. He's against Social Security. He's not a licensed plumber. Oh, and did I mention his first name isn't even Joe?
"Joe the Plumber" is kind of a lie on a lie. Joe has a fantasy about himself as Mr. Up-And-Coming-Businessman (he's not) being held down by the Man (he's not) who will get screwed by Obama (he won't). And that self-deception has been magnified by McCain into yet another mass Republican Cognitive Dissonance(TM)-- a national party lie standing on the shoulders of one small man's lie.
Good luck in November, guys.
Did Joe the Plumber make over 250k last year? Will Obama be giving him a tax break, totally invalidating McCain's point about Obama raising JoeThePlumber's taxes?
That wasn't the point of Joe's question. Joe stated he wanted to buy a business and hoped that his hard work would bring in more than 250K. Obama stated that he wanted to take that success and spread it to people that made less than Joe hoped to make with his business acquisition and hard work.
It's one thing to say you want to "tax the rich" to fund the government, it's another when you want to do it to give other people the money, i.e., "Spread the Wealth".
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Seriously, this insanely stupid "It's against our freedoms to be taxed" idea is insane.
You live in a country that has a government that provides services. Roads, schools, hospitals etc. etc.
These things need to be funded. The people who benefit from said things should fund them with some of their earnings because they are able to earn the money in the first place due to the services provided by said country.
And don't start that 'Well I don't use X or Y services, so why should I have to pay for it?' bullshit. If only the people who used X service paid for it when they used it, well... how the hell would social security work? You can't well pay for that when you need it, because you don't have the money in the first place.
People like you, and Joe the Plumber are either seriously selfish and don't see the common good in everyone being helped in a prosperous nation, or seriously dense in that you just don't get how it's fair, and instead just see the simpleton's equation of: I earn money, it's mine, not yours.
Or both.
Seriously, grow up, stop saying anything you don't like is 'Infringing on your freedoms', because it's not, you're just being selfish.
Either 1984 has become so diffuse that all it means is badness+database, or the summary is badly confused. 1984 was all about a scenario where the state had ubiquitous control(with force of law) over information, which was used against everybody all the time. The state in 1984 was oppressive, and not one I would consider legitimate; but it ran "by the book" as it were. In this case, we have a much more prosaic example of certain individuals illegally accessing a celebrity's records, against policy, on an ad-hoc basis.
Such situations are bad, and I hope the perps will be punished, and they are (yet another) reason to oppose the creation of Giant Exploitable Databases(tm); but they have very little to do with 1984. If you simply must have a dystopian cultural reference, try Brazil.
Your points regarding "Joe's" outright lies and inaccuracies born of his daydreams are to my experience very common among the self employed. They see the most successful among their business acquaintances, and see that as a realistic goal... if only were the local/state/government to stop regulating/taxing them at whatever level they're currently regulated/taxed.
Basically, they're harboring the same sort of dreams that keep hundreds of thousands of young men banging away at amateur sports, even though the odds of making the cut are similar. It's this sort of dream that has the positive result of driving working people to succeed, but also the mixed results from overwhelming supporting the national GOP, whose policy goals use - but do not help - these grassroots supporters.
Luke, help me take this mask off
because Mr. Wurzelbacher has his name misspelled in the Social Security database, it would be assumed that he misspelled his name on his voter registration form. In Ohio, people that misspell their names or addresses, or have lost their homes and failed to update, or list a place that does not qualify as a "legal residence" in legalese like a dormitory, may be sent provisional ballots. These usually are not counted in the general election.
The Supreme Court had ruled against Ohio GOP measures, but on technical grounds or something, and now the Attorney General of the Department of Justice is probing whether or not they should be sent those provisional ballots. It's sad that Mr. Wurzelbacher had his privacy invaded, but in reference to the Republican argument, he did have something to hide.
One would do well to actually read 1984 (as opposed to just scream its title every time the Right does something you don't like).
1984 was an comment by Orwell on the Communists. Orwell, himself a socilaist, learned to hate and fear the Communists after the Spanish Civil War.
Big Brother was an obvious stand-in for "Uncle Joe" Stalin.
In 1984 you will see: ... with a life penalty?) and University speech codes (University "Free Speech Zones" are a wonderful example of NewSpeak, DoubleThink, and ThoughtCrime wrapped into one)
* The Ministry of Truth, the media manipulation of news and history (ala the recent Reugter's Photoshopping of pictures from the Israel/Lebanon war; Dan Rather's falsification of documents)
* NewSpeak, the changing of language to make certain thoughts impossible (ala the politically correct language redefinition we experienced in the 70s/80s e.g. "differently abled" for "handicapped", in Sweden "husmor" replaced by "hemmafru" or their English cognates "housewife" with "stay-at-home-mom")
* DoubleThink, the simultaneous holding of two or more mutually exclusive ideas (e.g. "homosexuality is something you are born with" and "homosexuality is a personal and private decision"; or "racism is always wrong" and "affirmative action is the right thing to do")
* ThoughtCrime, making the mere ability of thinking something a crime. You see this all the time in Hate Crime legislation (what murder wasn't already a crime
* also the breakdown of the family and sexual relationships (which has less obvious parallels but "PolPot & the child turns their parents in" (like Winston's neighbor) would be an example)
* furthermore the mild anti-semitism, the hatred of Goldsteinism, today you see this all the time however this is mostly thinly veiled as an attack on "Zionism"
We really shouldn't be surprised by the EU and The Left's fascination with this kind of behaviour. Orwell saw and predicted it nearly 50 years ago.
Records show it was a "test account" assigned to the information technology section of the attorney general's office, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Thomas Hunter.
Brindisi later said investigators have confirmed that Wurzelbacher's information was not accessed within the attorney general's office. She declined to provide details. The office's test accounts are shared with and used by other law enforcement-related agencies, she said.
"IT Test account". Shared by a bunch of different offices. Looks like whoever did the search was smart enough to muddy the waters a bit.
It's one thing to say you want to "tax the rich" to fund the government, it's another when you want to do it to give other people the money, i.e., "Spread the Wealth".
"Funding the government" does "spread the wealth"; it's not like the government throws money in holes. The money goes to gov't employees, contracts, social security, medicare, farming subsidies, corporate bailouts, etc. All of which "spread the wealth" to some segment of the population; it's just a question of what part of the population and under what guise the money is spent.
This is clearly the work of the union, posing as a government employee. They found out he wasn't a member and have initiated a smear campaign against him. The most insidious thing is that they're blaming the democrats for it!
Fact: The plumber unions secretly run the stonecutters guild, which in turn secretly runs the world.
My toilet is overflowing, they're onto me...
I'm a small business owner, and while we do well over $250K/year in revenue, I don't make more then $100K/yr. I don't believe I should be paid any more then my highest paid employee. Let's assume though that I did take more than $250K out of the business a year (which is what you'd have to do to hit the $250K limit Obama talks about). I have no problem with a higher tax rate kicking in above $250K/yr of my income, as long as the money is spent properly (i.e. NOT on bailouts, wars, etc).
It's reasonable to assume the purpose of these unauthorized accesses were to try and dig up dirt on Joe. Since Joe's comments have noticeably harmed Obama and/or helped McCain, it's reasonable to assume those doing so were Obama supporters or surrogates hoping to find evidence with which to smear Joe. Joe supports McCain, thus I don't expect any public outcry at all over this at all.
Now if the tables were turned and it was an Obama supporter who was having his/her info illegally accessed...well, I don't have to describe the media orgy that would occur, do I?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I have no problem with a higher tax rate kicking in above $250K/yr of my income, as long as the money is spent properly (i.e. NOT on bailouts, wars, etc).
Furthermore, it is a marginal tax increase. That means it doesn't apply to any of the $250K that you took as income in order to get to the $250K point. At roughly 3% it really is quite minor in absolute dollars for anything under $300K or so - roughly $1,500 extra taxes on $300K than now.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Say what? I'm a small business owner, and I don't have *any* visibility into my employee's tax burden beyond the W-2 I send them. I also don't recall being able to vary their pay on the basis of their tax burden. A tax break for my employees doesn't benefit me at all.
Were I to try to lower my employees' pay on the basis of their receipt of a tax break, wouldn't I be transferring their break to me? I would expect every one of them to quit should I pull such a stunt. With all due respect, you have your head up your ass.
I've always been a believer in opt-in economy. Just mark huge swaths of land as "government-free" counties. No government means: no roads, bridges, water treatment, fire stations, EMTs, hospitals, or regulated utilities. You buy the land, you move there, you're on your own.
Then, all of the libertarians declaring that government is intrinsically evil can negotiate with utility companies to run power lines, open restaurants without any health inspections, and do their work without OSHA or fire regulations. After a few decades you would find that they had done something remarkable, and that is formed their own government with exactly the same rules.
A kid dies from salmonella poisoning from the burger joint - now health inspections are mandatory. Four men die in a fire in a building that had no fire suppression system, and now that's a requirement. The company firehouse is done away with because they bungled their badging system, and let someone's business burn to the ground who was actually a member. A local court system developed after blood feuds threatened to throw the whole county into chaos, and it's now illegal to conceal firearms after a judge was assassinated. Voting regulations have been established after the banker buys four consecutive elections, which resulted in all road construction projects benefitting his new housing development... I could elaborate, but you probably get the point.
Government is a necessary evil, but not all governments are evil. The only thing that turns a state into a negative entity is when concentrated power, economic chaos, or external military invasion takes the power away from the population, which does occur much of the time. The solution is not to take the resources of the nation place it outside the grasp of it's population, but exactly the opposite. In my experience, I've had much better relationships with local (albeit small) government utilities than I have with AT&T or any other large corporation, mainly because the top of the chain ends within a few miles of my business - I can go talk to (or berate) the person in charge. The top of the chain of any large corporation is simply unreachable, and the AT&T rep doesn't really care if my phone service is reliable or not - where else am I going to go? And if we have four phone companies running lines, how long before three are swallowed by the one with the most money? And if you regulate the monopolies, what's the difference between local governmental control (notice I didn't say federal) besides greasing the pockets of useless executive boards?
People like Joe the Plumber don't understand that part of the infrastructure of the united states is the working population. If those workers have a safe neighborhood, reasonable pay, and voluntarily pay extra taxes to socialize industries that perform poorly under free markets, the whole economy is better for it. Not only because the basics of the western world will be less expensive, but because entrepreneurs will be incentivized to tackle new ideas, instead of swindling money out of decades old problems that have already been solved. If corporations weren't busy creating inefficient markets for the sake of making more money, we'd still have many things that europe has kept - functioning mass transit systems, lots of investment in education, low poverty rates, more equal distribution of wealth -- that is a measure of the health of an economy, by the way -- and the right to organize in unions.
Or, you can be concerned by paying an extra 4% of tax, only on money earned over 250,000 per year.
By the way, where is Fred the Accountant, asking McCain why he supported Roe v. Wade in 2000? Or why he wants the Federal Government to legislate what marriage is? Or why Falwell was no longer an agent of intolerance? Or why he said in 04 that taxing the wealthy a bit more was okay? The truth is, Joe the Plumber wouldn't be able to get close enough to ask McCain or Palin a question. Anyone perceived as someone other than a die hard supporter is turned away, or threatened with arrest for carrying signs that say: "McCain = Bush."
I was working on a project where I had to be given access to a state's law enforcement computer system, which was the access point for their Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the US National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and several other systems. I had to watch a videotape and read and sign a document promising all sorts of hell if I ever abused my access by, say, running someone without cause. One real-life example was a cop who would notice an attractive woman go by on the road and run her license plate to get her home address, where he would subsequently show up. I was glad to see that they had such strict policies. Anyone who uses their access privileges to stalk or attempt to dig up info on someone should be prosecuted.
I find that impressive, that they're keeping an audit trail of everybody who accesses a record in the DMV database.
We have this thing called the Data Protection Act, which the US does not have.
In fact, not only does the US have data privacy laws, it has had them since the 1970's. It took the UK nearly a quarter of a century to catch up.
Joe was basically a miracle for McCain, resurrecting his campaign in a way McCain's people couldn't have done, putting a face on the people Obama's higher taxes would hurt.
Obama's already dismissed Joe ("I don't know any plumbers who make $250K"), trying to make people forget Joe's whole point (he wants to make $250K but is afraid of doing it because of how he'll be taxed). It isn't working.
I think Obama's minions are trying to get some dirt on Joe to discredit him, just like they tried with Sarah Palin's emails, and failed.
"Joe" was a plant. I have little sympathy for him. He was brought up by McCain to try to be the example he couldn't actually find for some 'small guy' being screwed over by Obama's plan.
He was not a plant. Obama showed up at his house for crissakes. How dare Joe walk outside to see what all the fuss is about, and ask questions about Obama's tax plans, that the media should, but isn't asking. Like, how can you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when nowhere near 95% of Americans actually pay net taxes?
Don't you think it's just a tiny bit strange that the one person McCain uses as an example in the last presidential campaign, someone he brings up over and over, lied about everything about his situation?
I think it's strange that the media has done more digging on a plumber (oh my, he doesn't have a permit to be a plumber - oh noes!) than on the presidential candidate the plumber asked a question of. Every fucking story reporting this - other than Fox News, of course - was attacking Joe for not having a permit/license (a revenue-raising device by greedy cities), for owing taxes, rather than actually addressing the merits of the question Joe had the temerity to ask. Real journalism there, don't ask Obama, "yeah, what about your tax plan hurting small businesses?" Instead, the media defends Obama and shoots the messenger!
Obama has been running for president for two years, and some plumber asks a more digging question than any mainstream media reporter has asked the whole time. No wonder you got suspicious. After all, this is supposed to be a coronation, not an actual election.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
You don't mind giving up a larger portion of YOUR property if you had over X amount. Thanks for speaking for everyone else by approving of tax to redistribute wealth.
Here's an idea, if you like higher taxes but don't want to fund things you don't believe in: support a charity or philanthropic organization you DO support. That's your right, since it's your property.
My property is mine. I've been endowed with certain inalienable rights...namely life, liberty and property. Don't sign me up for YOUR redistribution plan.
You know...the world is organized pretty well already. If you like communism (the government deciding what IS yours), there are communist countries. If you like free enterprise, there are free market countries where you can live. Why must Obama and all the leftists insist on spreading socialism worldwide? Because "a communist is someone who has nothing and is eager to share it with you." (Churchill).
Ps. I'm a guy that makes about 11 bucks an hour. I'll succeed and fail on my own hard work, initiative, and ambition. I don't want your entitlements now, and I don't want to compulsorily pay for someone else's entitlements later.
THL phish sticks
What Obama supporters (of which I count myself one) don't seem to get is that this Joe guy is the issue. He's not. Tear him down as much as you want, it doesn't help your case one bit.
The thing is, the only reason why the Right grabbed onto this was not Joe's question, but Obama's answer. That "Spread the wealth around" soundbite has been a goldmine republicans trying to invoke scary images of Karl Marx. And to be fair I think this was a major gaffe on Obama's part. Personally, I don't want to spread the wealth just for the sake of it. People that work hard to acquire their wealth under a fair system shouldn't be punished for being wealthy. But it needs to be a fair system.
Obviously Obama misspoke - I don't think he intends to implement marxism. But that's the perception that some people had and that perception is what needs to be attacted by the Obama camp.
This effort to vilify and discredit "Joe the Plumber" is disgraceful. The man asked a damn question. Obama should have done a better job answering it. Period.
Hate to break it to you, but that's not redistributing wealth. That's basically known as paying one's fair share, The wealthy pay more in taxes yes, but they also get more benefit as well. They stand to lose far more than I do were civil disorder to break out and all possessions be smashed.
Silly argument. Yes, this is the reason government was formed - to protect one's shit. But obviously the role of government has evolved into much different role - an opposite role, to be exact - actually taking your shit away and giving it to someone else. This would be called stealing, but not when the government does it. This is now the government's chief function, considering that of its $3T budget, 60% of its expenditures are on entitlements. So the US government's chief role is now redistribution of wealth. Obama just wants to make it worse.
So while hypothetically government "protects" the wealthy, I'd imagine they'd lose a lot less money by taking their chances with no government stealing from them and building a moat. Meanwhile, the "working poor" take $8 in services for every dollar paid (Heritage Foundation - you want a source, you Google it). So no, the wealthy do not get more for their tax dollar. They get a lot less.
"Fair share" is everyone paying the same flat rate (the poor and middle class would still pay less, but the same proportion). But when the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3.6% of the taxes, there is something very unfair about that. At some point, people in the bottom third not only pay no taxes, but get net checks from the government. Is this still fair by your world view? At what point does it get unfair?
At some point, a huge portion of the country doesn't pay taxes, and becomes a "gimme" class instead of a "do something for your country class." Too many in the wagon, not enough pulling. I think all citizens, unless *temporarily* out of work, need to be invested enough in the country that they are outside if the wagon, pulling, and being contributing citizens to the state. Otherwise, they are not fully participating in being citizens.
If you've got more wealth, property etc., you're getting more for your tax dollars and as such should be paying more.
You're getting more because you earned it, not because the government took it from someone else and gave it to you. That's like saying rapists get more sex than married guys. Yeah, technically true, but...
And it would be nice if you didn't go mischaracterizing mr. Buffett's comment. He's well known to oppose the sort of careless tax policies you're advocating. He has definitively stated that he doesn't believe he should be paying a lower tax rate than his employees do.
Buffett might be a good investor, but he is being foolish for his clients and being dishonest about his income. First off, doubling the capital gains rate, as Obama wants to do, would dramatically hurt his clients (both by stifling economic growth, and thus hurting BH's share price, and personally for his clients on tax day). If I owned Berkshire Hathaway at $30K+ per share, I'd be furious Buffett said this.
Secondly, Buffett is rich because he holds stock in his own investment fund. In other words, he doesn't even pay himself a salary. So while it is unlikely, it is possible he could pay less income taxes than his secretary - even while he likely paid tens or hundreds of millions in capital gains taxes. And his income tax rate is higher than his secretary. He just doesn't earn income - he earns capital gains. Nice subterfuge though.
The reality is that businesses are flocking to Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate one half that as the US. Now that's a careless tax policy.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The best part about a democracy is you get your opinion and I get mine. We'll see who wins on the 4th. Best of luck to your viewpoint, but I think there are far more people who are tired of getting fucked then those who make 11 bucks an hour and prefer your view of things.
Besides, Obama will be raising everyone's taxes. He admits as much. He wants to repeal all the tax cuts put in place over the last eight years. When he says he won't be raising taxes on the 95% of the public, he's referring to any increases above and beyond that increase.
That is why he says you "won't be paying any more than you were under Clinton." We are currently ALL paying less than we were under Clinton. I know I may be modded down for saying something negative about Obama, but it's true... go look it up.
Utter nonsense that's been debunked over and over. Quotes are false, info's bad, and you're just hoping that enough people don't bother to look at all and just take what you say at face value. You even threw in the old "I'll get modded down for saying the truth!". Unfortunately for you, it seems more likely you'll get modded down for being full of shit.
Karma: Contrapositive
You do know a government is in place for the benefit of the people
Lets go down the list of the biggest socialist regimes in history. The Soviet Union...check. Their nationalization of all private property and gov't distribution of everything from jobs, to schools, to health care, to cars places them at the leftest of the leftists. And the communist party was for the benefit of the people? Ok.
North Korea....oh, check. Kim Jung-Ill gives a fuck about his people? Or does he just like being in charge? His collective farm system works SO WELL that NK needs regular shipments of...everything?
Communist China (before they moved to the more profitable fascism). Mao "benefitted" over 45 million Chinese into the ground.
We can keep going. The truth is: In capitalism, man exploits man, and in communism it is the exact opposite. The difference is I have some choices and property in capitalism and a chance to change my station in life with enough hard work.
I agree with you that corporate welfare is a problem. I dislike government-owned corporations as much as i dislike corporation-owned governments. If Jefferson where here he'd probably mention a "wall of separation" between corp and state.
And yes, the world IS organized pretty well. You can choose from every form of government you can think of. You can even join a hippy commune and have your own. But you leftists seek to homogenize the world into 1 class, the poor. And that my friend is an absurd attempt to remake the world.
THL phish sticks
There is so much wrong with this post. I'll start with Joe.
Joe really IS a plumber. He does not have a license to be a plumber, but he doesn't need one because the company he works for has the license. Saying he is not a plumber is lying, because he IS a plumber. So stick it up your pipe!
Next, the question was not about if Joe would receive a tax break now. The question was if Joe would get boned if he made more than $250K. Sure, Joe's not rich, but he wasn't planning on buying the company to stay poor. Obama said he would take Joe's money and "spread it around". Can you tell me the difference between that and stealing? Better yet, why don't we simply have the police bus poor people to "rich" neighborhoods and let them decide what they want to take directly? What's the difference between that and Obama's plan?
In our capitalist system, the government does a tremendous amount to help those who have wealth, get more. It's so basic to the system we rarely think about it, but how much concentration of wealth would there be without government-issued corporate charters, land and resource deeds, copyrights, and patents? Not to mention a reserve banking system that lets privately owned banks make money out of thin air, and an economic policy that uses the DJIA as a measure of economic success.
WRONG. You assume that the purpose of the government is to keep rich people rich. That's not the purpose. Let's say, for example, that the purpose is to bring jobs to a community that needs it. That community may give tax breaks to a company to try to entice it to move to a factory or whatever to this particular community. Now, remember, that the purpose is to generate local jobs. However, the owner of the company stands to make more money. So what does he do, he takes the offer and the town gets the factory and a lower unemployment rate. Was the purpose to make the owner rich? NO. Would he have moved his factory to this particular town if he didn't stand to make more money? NO. So him getting richer was an INCENTIVE to moving to this town that needed the jobs, not the purpose.
These government actions and policies are so successful at concentrating wealth that the top 20 percent own 90% of all financial wealth [ucsc.edu]. And it stays in the family; the U.S. has lower intergenerational mobility than France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway or Denmark [americanprogress.org]
First, consider the source. Next, if you believe that life is better in those countries, you are free to move there. I live here because I like it here. I like knowing that I stand a chance of getting rich one day without having the government steal it from me. That's why I'm here. If I wanted something different, I'd move. Which makes me wonder, assuming you are in the US, WHY? If Denmark or Norway is so much better, MOVE THERE! You can live there and be happy, and I can stay here and be happy. Why must you try to change my country to something else when you can simply go to that someplace else and leave my country the hell alone! I'm not saying "love it or leave it". I'm saying, go to where you are happy. I like Toyota cars, but I'm not going to try to force everyone around me to drive one.
Of course, I'm assuming that 1) you live here 2) you like the way things are in the countries you listed and 3) you are bringing the up to make us more like them. If I'm wrong on these three, disregard :-)
The small effects of progressive taxation and social spending - spreading around the wealth that other government policies helped concentrate - act as a (small and inadequate) governor on the machinery of state capitalism.
Now, I would rather get rid of that machinery entirely, but I think that unlikely, at least in the near term. If we're going to have it, I'm all for decreasing the power of the government to help the wealthy become wealthier by adding some negative feedback to the
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.