I tried warning them to do some research before they started blabbing about Hong Kong, but just like everything else: you can't tell liberals anything they don't already agree with.
Class Warfare!!
- Thread starter Mensch1351
- Start date
If they come up with a product that the public wants, say pro-footbal, and they can sell it to them, then the business owners should get whatever people are willing to pay. It is grossly dishonest and dishonorable to wait until they're successful then demand a "fair" share. If you didn't contribute you deserve nothing. Absolutely, 100%, NOTHING. There is no "social contract" that I signed. I was born here, I didn't have a choice, and I have a right to make my way; whether you and your president acknowledge it or not.
I noticed where you left the rest of her communist propaganda speech out. That woman is a maniac and it is every liberty-minded persons urgent goal to make sure she NEVER gets those greedy ideals into the mainstream. Raw, putrid greed.
You adapt. People have been doing it for centuries. In fact, those who adapt the fastest are the most in demand.
Thanks for repeating, verbatim, the socialist line put out by the president. I would also like you to define "fair share". It seems to change dramatically. Not only that if you look at someone making over $1/mil they are paying 100x+ the taxes somebody making $35k is, yet they get the exact same services. For hundreds of times the price they get the same schools, the same defense, fire, police, access to food programs (which they aren't eligible for), roads, ect. Yet they have to pay hundreds of times more. That isn't even remotely fair. (In the world of putrid hate/greed class warfare it is, isn't it?)
Less than? Show me somebody paying less than those earning "far less than them."
Paying relatively little? Thats is utter nonsense. The top 1%, who earn 19% of the income pay 37% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% who earn 13% of the income pay ....3%. Again. relative to what? Compared to me Warren Buffett paid a kings ransom in taxes. I paid almost nothing, yet I get the exact same country he gets. That is bullshit.
First, the federal income tax pays for few jobs that "we all rely on." Teachers, firefighters and police are all paid out of state/local taxes. Same goes for our "crumbling infrastructure" (this is another verbatim Obama line used to wage class war).
Second, lets not forget the unbelievable inefficiency with which the government goes about its business. A great example was the "public good" known as the Capitol Hill Visitor Center. Its projected cost was $265/mil (waaay too much) and was scheduled to open in 2005. Well, guess what, moral hazard set in and the cost rose to $645/mil and it finally opened in 2008. Kennedy Space Center Parking lot: cost (1998) $28/mil, cost (2003) $88mil. There are a million of these, tragicaly.
Three, people who "need" money "need" to get to work. They wont so long as they get a check from the government for sitting on their ass. This is a fact. Further, stealing the money from rich people and giving it to poor people accomplishes almost nothing. What do these evil/awful/horrid rich people/corporations do with their money? "well, they stuff it in a mattress and sit on it." No. You're wrong. You have only a few options as a person with money.
1) Invest
2) Save
Lets take these one at a time: Invest- when you invest money you put it into the marketplace. You find the best opportunity that provides the best cost-benefit ratio and you stick with it. What provides a good cost-benefit ratio? Business that will provides a new service or good that would be an improvement over existing goods/services, or an existing good or service at a lower price or higher quality. The investor will watch this like a hawk, unlike the politicians (think Solyndra). Some people like to spread their money around, others like to invest only in things they know. If you don't invest your money it will ultimately become worthless because of inflation. Investment is a far superior method of "redistribution" than having the politicians steal it and then blow it on worthless items. Corporations invest in themselves. A company that I work for just hired several software developers so they can develop an entirely new product, in your world we would have taxed that money away from them so we could give it to people who would use it to sit on their ass.
Savings- When you put your money in the bank, a savings account, the bank doesn't just keep it in the safe. They invest it, then pay you a portion (tiny) of the proceeds. Banks make all kinds of loans: home, car, business, ect. The bank ensures that their investment is as sound as they can expect (offset by interest) and they follow up on their money. This certainly can't be said of politicians.
So, your scenario where you get to steal the money (while claiming moral right) would actually deprive those most suited and capable of creating jobs and improving society of their capital. I'll tell you, as a small business owner, capitalization is extremely important and currently (thanks to your president/ideology) hard to secure; demands on ownership, control, or rate of return are absurd. Why? Because of the instability created by telling those with money banks/corpations/investment managers/rich people that tomorrow the president may just take all their money.
Roseanne Barr recently called for the execution of those who were unwilling to give up their money.
Roseanne Barr: Behead Bankers, Rich Who Won't Give Up Wealth | RealClearPolitics
Roseanne Barr: Behead Bankers, Rich Who Won't Give Up Wealth | RealClearPolitics
From Upperdown: "So, your scenario where you get to steal the money (while claiming moral right) would actually deprive those most suited and capable of creating jobs and improving society of their capital. I'll tell you, as a small business owner, capitalization is extremely important and currently (thanks to your president/ideology) hard to secure; demands on ownership, control, or rate of return are absurd. Why? Because of the instability created by telling those with money banks/corpations/investment managers/rich people that tomorrow the president may just take all their money."
I would like you to give hard hard statistics that support your pre-supposition that those at the top HAVE indeed proven themselves to be job "CREATORS" since they began receiving the Bush Tax cuts 10 years ago. The statics I have read say simply: FEW jobs have actually been created as a result of this cut. Over the Bush years 40%+ of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. Businesses (large & small) keep "downsizing" in order to increase profits. I believe recently, the Koch Brothers wealth increased by $10 Billion all the while their company actually laid people off during these past 10 years. And the last part of your statement is absolutely ludicrous. "Tomorrow the President may just take all your money!"????? So Today I'm worth $2 billion -- tomorrow I may only be worth $1 billion because I HAD to pay 50% in taxes for the benefit of the country! .................and you want the rest of us to feel sorry because someone is STILL worth $1 billion??? Me thinks you really have little idea as to how those working damn hard on minimum wage (or even those making $50-$75 grand a year) just to stay afloat have little sympathy for their billionaire bosses who moan about how tough they just "may" have it! Keep building those $300K homes. Someday NO-ONE will be able to afford them!
And while I'm on it. Just what kind of economic future do you project we in this country are going to have over the next 10 years if they are a repeat of the last 10? Just WHEN are the wealthy going to say, "I think we CAN have a great future because WE are just the people who can make it happen!"??? Or is this "uncertainty" going to go on and on and on for the pitful excuse it really is?
I would like you to give hard hard statistics that support your pre-supposition that those at the top HAVE indeed proven themselves to be job "CREATORS" since they began receiving the Bush Tax cuts 10 years ago. The statics I have read say simply: FEW jobs have actually been created as a result of this cut. Over the Bush years 40%+ of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. Businesses (large & small) keep "downsizing" in order to increase profits. I believe recently, the Koch Brothers wealth increased by $10 Billion all the while their company actually laid people off during these past 10 years. And the last part of your statement is absolutely ludicrous. "Tomorrow the President may just take all your money!"????? So Today I'm worth $2 billion -- tomorrow I may only be worth $1 billion because I HAD to pay 50% in taxes for the benefit of the country! .................and you want the rest of us to feel sorry because someone is STILL worth $1 billion??? Me thinks you really have little idea as to how those working damn hard on minimum wage (or even those making $50-$75 grand a year) just to stay afloat have little sympathy for their billionaire bosses who moan about how tough they just "may" have it! Keep building those $300K homes. Someday NO-ONE will be able to afford them!
And while I'm on it. Just what kind of economic future do you project we in this country are going to have over the next 10 years if they are a repeat of the last 10? Just WHEN are the wealthy going to say, "I think we CAN have a great future because WE are just the people who can make it happen!"??? Or is this "uncertainty" going to go on and on and on for the pitful excuse it really is?
I say: good effort but, you just repeated to me the standard Democrat line. Not only that, you proved zero of your claims, you just laid them out there as though they were credible by you saying them.
Claims I would love a source on:
- The Koch Brothers (as though they are some litmus test for how rich the evil are getting) made anything, or laid anyone off.
-Few jobs have been created because of Bush Tax Cuts.
-40% of manufacturing jobs have "gone over seas"....heres a source for you: Outsourcing Not the Culprit in Manufacturing Job Loss | Web Exclusive | Automation World
-Small business only downsize to create profits.
-How paying taxes is "for nationa benefit". I'm dying to hear this one.
You dont' have to feel sorry for anyone, the money isn't yours, it never was and it never will be. Your constant desire to steal is called "greed" and its unhealthy. If you were to half the effort into making your own forture that put into trying to steal theirs you may have something.
The fact is this: your basic understanding of how money works is flawed and simplistic. For starters you can't just "take" a billion dollars from someone who is worth two. They don't just have that money in a mattress. I can see you didn't comprehend one word of my last post. To take that you'd have to sieze assets, which isn't a new or novel idea: its called "nationalizing." And, its a scary fast way to make something valuable turn to shit. So, for the "people" (this is rhetorical-speak for the greedy liberals who want to steal) to take "a billion dollars" they would have to sieze and liquidate a business, thus killing jobs. It would be inconcievable, and historically unsupportable, that the government would then turn that money into more jobs that they originally had.
Further, nobody cares how little sympathy there is from your angelic, and propaganda worker. Just so happens that every "working man" is making minimum wage, slaving over a hot forge, day in and day out to make a pittance while the evil Koch brothers take their work product and make billions sitting on a yacht, explotation. Marx would be so proud of you.
Very soon a $300k house will be out of anyones reach. It will be considered greedy to have something like that. And people exactly like you will march up there and sieze their house (Cuba is a great example) for the "peopel" (see definition above).
Next 10 years? Well that depends. If we get more Obamanomics/Communism we're extremely screwed. I can't even begin to describe how absolutely fucked over a barrel this country is should that man, and the liberals, get re-elected. If, on the other hand, the Tea Party gains strenght within the Republican party, even the Democrat party, and they act on their beliefs, we will see a complete turn around in a 5 years, and give both India and China a run for their money will into the middle of the century. That is, if greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedy liberals like yourself don't get a chance to elect someone to steal others' money.
Um, that's not true. Farmland was taken from landowners in S.Africa and given to others. Now they're the forefront of Africa!:wink:
You think thats how that happened? 1) South Africa is no standard of success. Doing better than other countries in Africa is weak at best. 2) The raving success simply isn't there, of course leftist are in a flutter that their plan to nationalize/socialize can be seen as positive. The SA government forcing people off their land and giving it to others is a net wash at best. Consider the beaurucratic nightmare and logistics and its a net loss. 3) Those exactl liberal policies have brought SA an inflation rate equal to its rate of GDP growth. Meaning they are falling behind in the world.
Great example. I didn't have to do anything at all.
I wanted to share this: Remember how you said the evil Republicans are against consumer protections: News from The Associated Press
Your lord and savior wants to have bill collection methods that are illegal for the private sector bill collectors. Funny, not a single Republican asked him to do this, and they'll likely oppose it. Does that make Barack the anti-consumer protection advocate and the Republicans standing up for the consumer? I'll guarantee you'll chew on that until you can bash Republicans.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
Why should I give a shit about forbes, they can't even quote a story accurately? D'uh.
I know you wouldn't. If they keep publishing shit like this:
Table: The World's Happiest Countries - Forbes.com
The Chinese are not a happy bunch. 125 out of 155. Not good.
Then again Forbes isn't the only one:
Psychologist Produces The First-ever 'World Map Of Happiness'
China is still way down the list. WAY DOWN.
The Chinese are not a happy bunch. 125 out of 155. Not good.
Then again Forbes isn't the only one:
Psychologist Produces The First-ever 'World Map Of Happiness'
China is still way down the list. WAY DOWN.
I would agree qualitatively. The business, not just the owners, should get what people are willing to pay. Everyone who works at that business should get a fair wage for their contribution to the product/service. The owners should get the biggest chunk, for their investment, creativity, leadership, etc., but not so much that the employees are paid so little that they can't provide for their basic needs.
Everyone who can afford to pay taxes should pay taxes.
Everyone should pay their fair share, not just those who are wealthy. The point is, under our current tax system, the wealthy aren't paying their fair share.
Very few people contribute nothing. Most people work hard. Americans are among the hardest working people in the world. As for those who don't, it's usually because they can't, due to illness, disability, lack of education, lack of available jobs, or just bad luck. I think the majority of Americans want and expect the government to take care of those people--that's a big part of what government is for. Unfortunately, fewer people expect and understand that the government needs money to do that, and that money comes from taxes.
Apparently you either aren't familiar with or not understand the concept of a "social contract," so I'm not going to address this point.
You're out of line. If you're going to accuse someone of promoting communist propaganda, you had damn well better defend that accusation. But we both know that you can't, because it's not true, so I suspect that your real purpose in bringing it up is just to dismiss my arguments. That's not going to fly. Stick to the issues and leave out the invective.
Warren's ideals are mainstream. You seem to be attempting to employ an oft-used tactic of the radical right to take a long-held American principal and characterizing as "greedy" and a radical attack on liberty. Warren and other like-minded individuals such as myself genuinely believe that is it the wealthy who are being greedy and refusing to pay their fair share. I hesitate to use the term "fair share" because you've already demonstrated that you will dismiss it as a liberal talking point, but I honestly believe that we need to pay taxes to support the society that we live in, that the rich aren't paying their fair share, and that our unfair tax laws are a significant cause of our society's economic problems. If you think I'm wrong, then explain it to me. I'm an open-minded, reasonably intelligent guy. I will consider what you have to say, but so far you've just repeated over and over again that taxation of the rich is "theft" (how so?) and that those that support reforming our tax policies to be more beneficial to society are "greedy."
Well, the underlying idea is that wealth is not entirely earned. I think few people really believe that wealthy people, particularly the wealthiest 1% of Americans, really work significantly harder than the rest of us (some of them don't work at all), or that the work that they do is that much more valuable. Our social and economic systems work in their favor, allowing them to use the labor provided by the rest of us to generate more wealth for themselves, and providing them with the power to control how much everyone gets paid for that labor. They can, and do, pay themselves exorbitant amounts of money while the vast majority of us struggle to make ends meet. In recognition of the fundamental inequality of this system, they should, at the very least, have to pay a higher percentage of their incomes to support the system which has served them so well.
The exact rate they should pay is open to debate.
It's more that that. They couldn't be wealthy if those services didn't exist. The need workers to make their products or provide their services. Most of those people get educated by the public school system. Roads are needed for employees to get to work and for businesses to ship their goods. Police and fire departments and public works departments (water, sewer, etc.) protect and provide for their offices, factories, and employees, making it possible for their business to operate. There are thousands of ways in which society supports businesses, so it's only fair that they should pay society back through taxes, and that their taxes should be proportionately more than what an individual should have to pay.
"Relatively" is the key word in what I wrote. I think I addressed your other points, albeit indirectly, in what I've already written, but let me know if you'd like me to clarify anything.
Government inefficiency is a separate issue from whether or not the rich should pay taxes. Inefficient or not, government is necessary so the rich must pay (yes, I'm going to say it again) their fair share for it.
I agree that the need to get work. But that can't happen if there's no work to be gotten. There won't be work without demand and there won't be demand without work. Why aren't all the "job creators," who are making record profits, creating jobs and stimulating demand?
Those government checks you are so upset about do stimulate demand, which in turn created jobs. I suggest you look at the following site and scroll down to "Unemployment Insurance as Economic Stimulus."
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1466\
No, in my world I would have closed the tax loopholes and raised the tax rate on the wealthy's personal income so that it wouldn't be worth it for them to pay their top executives exorbitant sums of money and fat bonuses. Then that money could be reinvested in growing their business.
Savings- When you put your money in the bank, a savings account, the bank doesn't just keep it in the safe. They invest it, then pay you a portion (tiny) of the proceeds. Banks make all kinds of loans: home, car, business, ect. The bank ensures that their investment is as sound as they can expect (offset by interest) and they follow up on their money. This certainly can't be said of politicians. [/QUOTE]
I don't dispute that banks contribute in their own way to the economy, but there are people who have more money than they could ever possibly spend sitting in bank accounts, often outside the U.S., that would be better spent on growing their businesses, hiring more workers, increasing wages and benefits, etc. Some of that money would still end up in bank accounts, but much of it would be spent, further stimulating the economy.
No, it would "deprive" them only of a fraction of the money that they aren't already spending/investing. They'd still have more than they could ever possibly need.
I seriously doubt that. The claim that the people/entities with money are being held back by such instability is so absurd I don't even know how to begin addressing it.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
You are too dumb.
"The percentage of thriving individuals in each country determined our rankings"
Well that's Forbes for you. You can sort by the Daily Experience, which is a better indicator of contentment. You drop to around 60th and China is above you. :biggrin1:
I have lived on less that $500/mo before. For quite while. I would have gladly taken a job at $5/hr but it was illegal. That would have covered all my expenses. Is $5/hr enough?
If an employee agrees to work for minimum wage, then they have decided that it is fair. If they don't think its fair then they need to move on. Taking the job at minimum wage then demanding more pay is dishonest and dishonorable.
Again, define fair share. Somebody like Warren Buffett pays hundreds if not thousands of times more than his secretary yet gets the exact same service. For most rich peolple they not only pay more, but pay a higher percentage. There is absolutely nothing showing what "fair" is, but it sure as hell cant be paying hundreds of times more for the same goods and services.
[qote]Very few people contribute nothing. Most people work hard. Americans are among the hardest working people in the world. As for those who don't, it's usually because they can't, due to illness, disability, lack of education, lack of available jobs, or just bad luck. I think the majority of Americans want and expect the government to take care of those people--that's a big part of what government is for. Unfortunately, fewer people expect and understand that the government needs money to do that, and that money comes from taxes.[/quote] You're right, many actually have negative contributions.
Culprit #1 for why people can't work: government. They regulate, create monopolies, and play favorites until there is massive throngs of unemployed.
I disagree entirely, the goverment is not here to 'take care' of people. It is this line of reasoning that gets us to where we are.
We would be far better off if people could write off the entire amount of a charitable contribution. That way we could have those services provided by capable and efficient non-profits and charities that would care where the money went.
I am very familiar with the social contract. Its very existence is debatable. I don't agree it exists. I think its used when people lack authority to demand actions on the behalf of another.
No, she is out of line. She is a hardcore communist that is hell bent on destroying all the prosperity in this country so she can say "see, I told you all that hard work was worthless." Bringing it up to dismiss issues? She flat out started a rant that might as well have been straight from Marx. You can say that doesn't matter, I say it does.
Everybodies ideas are mainstream somewhere, I guess.
You can characterize my statement any way you wish, the fact is this: she was spewing communist propaganda. Fact.
"fair share" is a liberal talking point. The president can't open his mouth without saying it. Its currently the backbone of the full court push to get all the socialism he/liberals can get before 2012.
Look how you frame these issues "reforming" "beneficial to society" "fair share" this is all nonsense. No society can tax itself to prosperity, not one. If it could happen it sure as hell would have by now, its been tried over and over and over. Yet here we are with our rhetorical bombs ready to try again.
So they stole it or exploited the system. Guys like Steve Jobs are extremely smart and in tune with their industry. They don't necessarily work 15 hour days hauling sacks of flour, they work smarter than everyone else. They are faced with seemingly impossible decisions on a daily basis and make a decision. As a small business owner I'll tell you: thinking through the issues is FAR hard than doing the labor. Not only that, these very rich individuals are not replacable. The guy working the counter at McDonalds, replaceable. Warren Buffett, critical. If you did replace him you couldn't pay that person median income. It doesn't work like that. You would pay a lot of money to lure an extremely capable individual, and to buy loyalty. I know this for a fact, liberals have no idea how valuable what these people do is, as they have never done it. Its ignorance, really.
They can have slaves? No. They make a deal, "I will pay you $10 for every hour you spend sweeping the floor" and the worker says "I agree." If that worker wants Buffetts job, then go get it. The only thing stopping people is their laziness; sloth. It is extremely difficult to plan a business, get it off the ground, then grow it without destroying it. Just putting together a management team that can grow a business is a several year long task that takes endless adjustment. Out of everyone I know, including myself, I only know a small handful of people capable of doing that.
The worker controls what they get paid. If its too little they can leave.
Because they are wildly more valuable than the mass majority of people.
No, they should have to pay the exact same dollar amount as everyone else in society. The system is inherently fair and geared to reward the most productive and innovative individuals. Standing on a century of evidence proving capitalism right we hear Marx from his grave; he sounds EXACTLY like the liberals in the US.
I'll try to get to the rest later.
Upperdown "Claims I would love a source on:
- The Koch Brothers (as though they are some litmus test for how rich the evil are getting) made anything, or laid anyone off.
-Few jobs have been created because of Bush Tax Cuts.
-40% of manufacturing jobs have "gone over seas"....heres a source for you: Outsourcing Not the Culprit in Manufacturing Job Loss | Web Exclusive | Automation World
-Small business only downsize to create profits.
-How paying taxes is "for nationa benefit". I'm dying to hear this one."
Well............here's a start:
Koch Industries & Jobs:
http://asheham.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/koch-bros-enrichen-themselves-after-laying-off-2000-workers/
Perception of wealth gap in America -- Post-Gazette Nov 2010
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10318/1102841-109.stm
Widening gap between the richest & poorest Americans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/income-gap-widens-census-_n_741386.html
Google Page of articles on income
Google
Since you're just "dying" to hear how paying taxes is for the national benefit. How about this: When America declares WAR on a foreign Country like Iraq because of the "smoking gun that may turn into a mushroom cloud" weapons of Mass Destruction -------- I just guess "Somebody's" gotta PAY for it! And "national security" is just part of the benefit you get for your tax dollars.
GW created one of the largest beauracracies in modern times: The Department of Homeland Security! Hmmmm. Who PAYS for that?
Take down those signs that say, "Your Federal Tax Dollars at work" that you see on roads, bridges, etc.!"
Who collects national statistics? Who oversees crime? Who oversees the safety of our food/drugs? Who keeps track of our diseases? Who watches over our airlines?
To quote RAchel Maddow as she's standing in front of the Hoover Dam...
"You can't be the company that builds this. You can't be the State that builds this. You've gotta be the NATION that builds this!"
Even the Republicans know the wisdom of US Tax Dollars --- just check out all that Federal Money they appropriated to their own various State projects from 1998 to 2006!
:biggrin1:
- The Koch Brothers (as though they are some litmus test for how rich the evil are getting) made anything, or laid anyone off.
-Few jobs have been created because of Bush Tax Cuts.
-40% of manufacturing jobs have "gone over seas"....heres a source for you: Outsourcing Not the Culprit in Manufacturing Job Loss | Web Exclusive | Automation World
-Small business only downsize to create profits.
-How paying taxes is "for nationa benefit". I'm dying to hear this one."
Well............here's a start:
Koch Industries & Jobs:
http://asheham.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/koch-bros-enrichen-themselves-after-laying-off-2000-workers/
Perception of wealth gap in America -- Post-Gazette Nov 2010
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10318/1102841-109.stm
Widening gap between the richest & poorest Americans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/income-gap-widens-census-_n_741386.html
Google Page of articles on income
Since you're just "dying" to hear how paying taxes is for the national benefit. How about this: When America declares WAR on a foreign Country like Iraq because of the "smoking gun that may turn into a mushroom cloud" weapons of Mass Destruction -------- I just guess "Somebody's" gotta PAY for it! And "national security" is just part of the benefit you get for your tax dollars.
GW created one of the largest beauracracies in modern times: The Department of Homeland Security! Hmmmm. Who PAYS for that?
Take down those signs that say, "Your Federal Tax Dollars at work" that you see on roads, bridges, etc.!"
Who collects national statistics? Who oversees crime? Who oversees the safety of our food/drugs? Who keeps track of our diseases? Who watches over our airlines?
To quote RAchel Maddow as she's standing in front of the Hoover Dam...
"You can't be the company that builds this. You can't be the State that builds this. You've gotta be the NATION that builds this!"
Even the Republicans know the wisdom of US Tax Dollars --- just check out all that Federal Money they appropriated to their own various State projects from 1998 to 2006!
:biggrin1:
Quote:
Our social and economic systems work in their favor, allowing them to use the labor provided by the rest of us to generate more wealth for themselves
They can have slaves? No. They make a deal, "I will pay you $10 for every hour you spend sweeping the floor" and the worker says "I agree." If that worker wants Buffetts job, then go get it. The only thing stopping people is their laziness; sloth. It is extremely difficult to plan a business, get it off the ground, then grow it without destroying it. Just putting together a management team that can grow a business is a several year long task that takes endless adjustment. Out of everyone I know, including myself, I only know a small handful of people capable of doing that.
Quote:
and providing them with the power to control how much everyone gets paid for that labor.
The worker controls what they get paid. If its too little they can leave.
I guess the ongoing history of the American Labor Movement just hasn't gotten it's message across yet! But it will. Give me your address -- I'll send you a copy of the movie "9 to 5!"
Our social and economic systems work in their favor, allowing them to use the labor provided by the rest of us to generate more wealth for themselves
They can have slaves? No. They make a deal, "I will pay you $10 for every hour you spend sweeping the floor" and the worker says "I agree." If that worker wants Buffetts job, then go get it. The only thing stopping people is their laziness; sloth. It is extremely difficult to plan a business, get it off the ground, then grow it without destroying it. Just putting together a management team that can grow a business is a several year long task that takes endless adjustment. Out of everyone I know, including myself, I only know a small handful of people capable of doing that.
Quote:
and providing them with the power to control how much everyone gets paid for that labor.
The worker controls what they get paid. If its too little they can leave.
I guess the ongoing history of the American Labor Movement just hasn't gotten it's message across yet! But it will. Give me your address -- I'll send you a copy of the movie "9 to 5!"
..................and now for just a little history lesson:
West Virginia's Mine Wars
.......inspiration for Tennessee Ernie Ford's great song: Sixteen Tons!
........and --- here's a little information many might just not know about!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_labor_issues_and_events
Love the entry on July 3, 1835 -- CHILDREN strike FOR an 11 hour work day! Ahhhhh the pure generosity of the American Employer!
(and I would bet many of the Conservatives consider THIS the "good old days!")
West Virginia's Mine Wars
.......inspiration for Tennessee Ernie Ford's great song: Sixteen Tons!
........and --- here's a little information many might just not know about!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_labor_issues_and_events
Love the entry on July 3, 1835 -- CHILDREN strike FOR an 11 hour work day! Ahhhhh the pure generosity of the American Employer!
(and I would bet many of the Conservatives consider THIS the "good old days!")
Last edited:
Right. heroin dealing here we come.
Youre right. We should not be siezing drug dealers assets. Just tax them a fair share.
Oh dear, you really have missed the point. You are outnumbered in the US (if thats where you are) 300,000,000 to 1. Under democracy that means you do whatever the majority says you must do. Or if we scrap democracy, then the 300 million will just beat up on you and steal your money. Which sounds worse to me? If you dont like either choice, then emigrate. Thats how the US got started, with people who could not accept the majority where they lived.
Thats easy. I agree not to break your windows and terrorise your family, and you agree to pay taxes to keep me happy enough so I dont change my mind. That is what it comes down to. You want to break that agreement, then fine. Just see what happens.
You are saying the top 1 % get 19%, whereas if the the bottom 50% get 13% that amounts to 13/50 or about .2% of income per 1% population. So the top 1%'s income is about x100 greater per head than the bottom half of the population. Yet the top 1% is only paying x10 as much tax. Sounds like a pretty good deal for the rich.
what do you mean, 'moral hazard'? This means private companies tricking the government into paying much more than was originally quoted by hiring better lawyers than the government can afford? In the Uk the PFI initiative, whereby government building projects are run by private industry instead of directly by the government, is costing about x2 on each build. The idea was to get government out of the job to save money.
This is rubbish. yes, people will invest in whatever makes the best return. But very importantly, this frequently has absolutely nothing to do with industry making better goods. The finance industry, for example, entirely makes money by billing real manufacturing. It is a vast drain on development. Investing in shares makes not one whit of difference to the profitability of that company. It just buys you a cut of that company, which was doing its own thing by itself. You make money because you reckon to sell those shares to someone else eventually for more. You get their money. The company gets nothing. If one day there is no one willing to buy shares, then those holding pieces of paper, are left with pieces of paper.
So same as above, then.
Granted, the US lately has not been very interested in a balanced budget. The Uk Brown administration, however, followed exactly the same rules as bankers assessing the earning power of those repaying the debts it was running up in their name. The rules didnt work very well for the bankers, either.
Explain to me where I am wrong. How does this 'capital' actually get put to use? Whereas, if I personally hire a painter to work on my house, I have grown his business. Maybe he will hire an assistant. It is ordinary people spending money which puts capital into the hands of companies so they can invest and grow.
Bankers do not finance companies by simply using the cash from the rich to lend to those who need it. The money is recycled so that much much more is lent than actually exists. If it is lent to you, you do not just put it in a cupboard. You spend it on something, it ends up back in a bank and goes round again. It is the money YOU borrowed which gets lent to your neighbour, and when he puts it back in a bank gets lent to the next neighbour. It is not the rich who are financing industry but the poor. Giving extra cash to the rich is the wrong place to inject it into the system, because in the end it stays in their pockets. Give that cash to someone poor and it still gets into the bank system but it will be the poor who get the benefit of that initial injection instead of the rich.
Oh this is fun!I dont know what US minimum wage is, but assuming it is $10/hr, why didnt you take that job at $10/hr? I do not believe that because someone can afford to pay a gardener $10 they would instead agree to hire two gardeners at $5 for the same length of time. Minimum wage is not destroying jobs.
now a different point. The answer is that generally the employer is exploiting the desperation of the employee. The idea in a democracy is that the bulk of the people choose what is fair and impose it on the minoority who disagree. The poor might be forced to take that job but they also are able to vote in a politician who will force the employer to pay taxes to give them health benefits. If employers dont think this is fair, then they need to move to a different country (they are). Then the majority need to decide what to do about this, and the solution is to encourage employers willing to stay put. And if employers try to have it both ways by making their goods in China while living in the US, then damn right they should be taxed heavily.
So what is the purpose of government?
Read Dickens descriptions of London. Interestingly, at that time conditions in the US were much better. Because the US was a developing country, where there really were big opportunities just to walk out and sieze wealth. It is no longer true. You are asking for Dickens London.
Thats just it. They do not lack authority.
These ARE replaceable. The problem is we always choose to hire in someone already doing the same job instead of training someone new. In each individual situation companies choose what they see as the safe option, poaching someone from elsewhere by paying more. This works for each case, but for society it is disastrous. We desperately need to train more Buffets. Though of course if we did none of them could have the success a unique Buffet did. So stealing the boss of another company not only gets us a good man, but also puts them out of business. We win even more. Society loses even more.
But Buffet will not give it to him. And I doubt Buffet will be willing to train others to do his job either. For him, not telling others how to do it is a brilliant idea.
Like Rupert Murdoch's senior assistant groomed to replace him is James Murdoch, who coincidentally is his son? Very lucky his son just happened to be one of the most capable businessmen in the world, wasn't it? I wonder if his grandson will be too? I have no idea if he has a grandson, but whats the odds of this grandson also ending up as head of the company?
So typical. When the facts don't match the propaganda simply deny the facts and change the criteria. Kinda like the global warming deniers. Or when all else fails simply lie.
Sort this:
China's suicide rate 'among highest in world'
But hey you're a 'job creator'. Now I know what kinda of jobs you like to create. :jester:
Inside the Chinese suicide sweatshop where workers toil in 34-hour shifts to make your iPod
