United States



Canada

Me making random personal attacks is for the lulz. In this thread, no... there was no trolling

please, be specific. what government policies make it harder for companies to compete?




no one is being taxed over half of their assets. for example, income tax only reaches 35% in the highest brackets. and, even than, deductions and exemptions usually push that percentage down. and, even than, those being taxed 35% are still making more money than anyone needs, more money than any dozen people need - - after taxation.




the government paid for the roads that lead to their shop, they subsidize the television broadcasting that sends out their commercials. etc. etc. if you don't think they owe anything to society, than perhaps they should stop participating in society.



1. i don't think building tickle-me elmo's is productive.
2. i don't think selling tobacco is productive.
3. redistributing wealth increases social health, less crime, less poverty, less hunger, less problems. it makes society a greater place, that's a worthwhile cause.
4. for all your moralizing, you seem to fail to see that people are in trouble in this society, and that people work very very hard and get no where; redistribution of wealth, and putting ownership into the hands of the proletariat can take this civilization out of corporate stagnation. the incentive of profit margin isn't moving society, it is forcing it into a slave state of exploitative labor, money worshiping, and consumerist nightmares. society is sick, and the capitalist system, that operates purely on profit motive, is largely to blame. socialism moves the emphasis to utility, capitalism does not have that power. worst of all, those who were privileged with money (power) to begin with, in a capitalist system, are likely to maintain that privilege and to pass it on within their bloodline. this creates a society ruled by a select few families, running a select few corporations - - this causes stagnation and a tremendous waste of time and resources.



1. no one is having half of their earnings taken from them. not even close.
2. are you dense? do you not understand wealth? serfs were f*cking poor, who cares if they even kept all of their money - - they would still have insanely less than the average american. if you have a lot of money, you can lose a lot of it, and still be swimming in it - get it?
3. the government taxes its citizens and than they build roads, they give us public education, they create an army to protect us, and they help us when we can't afford to eat, and receive medicine at the same time. government is supposed to be for the people and by the people... we, as a people, want these public services, we use them and value them. they are important. for all your moralizing, you seem to forget that without public services, america would be even more class divided, even less developed; imagine the literacy rates.



nothing could be more monolithic than the system we already have. it would be cheaper. it's simply a reality, a single payer is a more fiscally efficient system.



government policy and regulation wouldn't let that happen. of course, consumer review and quality standards would exist.



only for profit motive though... my primary argument is maintained:
capitalism puts emphasis on profit, this hurts society.
socialism puts emphasis on utility, this helps society.



we still had taxation before the 16th amendment. in fact, we have always had taxation. who do you propose build the roads? or teach our children?

For one, minimum wage.



Because federal income tax is the only tax right? Oh wait, think about that for a second.

What gives you the right to say those people don't deserve the money based on the arbitrary criteria of it's more than they need? In fact, by that definition, anyone that is able to put money aside for savings or investments has more money than they need.

Should we punish people for being responsible and saving/investing? Oh wait, we already do, via inflationary policies and capital gains taxes.



I'm missing the part where they have to pay for people's healthcare.



Millions of soccer moms begged to differ at Wal-Marts around the country on Black Friday. Millions of smokers disagree.



More like makes the poor dependent on the welfare state, violate the citizen's right to property and increases the burden on society's most productive members to the point where they say f*ck it all and pack their bags.



People voluntarily working for companies (and being paid while doing so) is moving towards a slave state... Yet you don't think that healthcare workers being FORCED to work by the government isn't?

Show me an example of a true free market dystopia, and I'll show you 5 socialist dystopias.



1. once again, income tax isn't the only tax we have you dolt.
2. are YOU dense? it's almost laughable that a highschool dropout has the audacity to tell the most productive members of society that they don't deserve their wealth.
3. again, didn't we have these things before the 16th amendment? end the federal income tax.



All the while making services more costly and inefficient. Doctor's offices will be spending more time filing paperwork than actually treating patients. And that's after our medical schools will have all time lows in enrollment because everyone will realize it's not worth going to school for 10 years to become a slave to the healthcare system.



Profit is not evil. The pursuit of profit is only evil when you undertake evil deeds in order to obtain it.

The same thing applies for socialism. It doesn't matter that you're helping poor people get healthcare, the fact that you are taking wealth from people by force in order to do so makes it wrong.



The point you missed was that the federal government grew tremendously after the federal income tax was enstated. Look at the parallel between income tax growth and the growth of the military industrial complex. Government involvement should be limited to protecting people's rights, not creating new ones out of thin air.

so you're saying that minimum wage is forcing businesses to jack up the prices of their goods and services so that they can collect records profits because...? i'm really not following this. i think you're grasping at straws here.

Figure 7: CEOs' average pay, production workers' average pay, the S&P 500 Index, corporate profits, and the federal minimum wage, 1990-2005 (all figures adjusted for inflation)




even considering the highest taxes on property, social security, medicare, sale, trade, and income... no one is being taxed half of their assets. take notes, i never said that income tax is the "only tax." it's far and along the most significant tax, which is why i cited it.



again, you're not reading what i'm saying. you're just arguing against points i haven't made. i said that it was more than anyone needs, or any "dozen people," for that matter. i was simply demonstrating that they wouldn't be hurting to lose any money, they could be taxed on 90% of their wealth and still be richer than the majority of americans. nonetheless, "more than one needs" is not an arbitrary criteria, it's not like i just chose to say that for no reason. people need money, and some people don't have enough of it... and, arguably, some people have far too much of it. it would be a good thing if everyone could it, and, pragmatically, it's not a bad thing to have to take money from others, who can afford it, to feed those who can't.

still, and even further, when it comes to deserving money, i have a particular inclination that those who do the most work (i.e. physical labor), those who actually move this country, who put their lives on the line, and suffer a great deal of stress and sacrifice in their labor, deserve the most compensation. without laborers, there would be no profit for anyone. any single laborer for gm is more deserving of compensation than roger moore. who has done more work? who has actually created a product?

but, we find that the exact opposite is true. ceo salaries are skyrocketing and labor salaries aren't hardly moving @ all.



you're not going to actually argue that smoking cigarettes is productive? look, these things propagate merely because they are profitable. my point was to illustrate that profitable things are not inherent instrumental or of significant utility, rather the opposite is often true.




1. capitalism created the poor.
2. property rights existed only because they were intended for rich white people, the only people who once owned property.
3. the most productive members of society are laborers, not ceos.



after the slaves were emancipated, where did they go? they worked the fields. and now they were, in a sense, worse off. now that they had salaries, their employers were not obligated to provide food and shelter to them. they paid them only enough to keep them alive and mildly healthy, healthy enough to work. now that the slaves required a salary to survive, how voluntary would you consider their labor?




1. i know, you dolt. still, not half of anyone's wealth.
2. argumentum ad hominem. p.s. i never dropped out. i graduated. i now attend university.
3. we also had taxes before the 16th amendment? what the hell are you talking about? f*ck, we even had income tax before the 16th amendment.


All the while making services more costly and inefficient. Doctor's offices will be spending more time filing paperwork than actually treating patients. And that's after our medical schools will have all time lows in enrollment because everyone will realize it's not worth going to school for 10 years to become a slave to the healthcare system.
Profit is not evil. The pursuit of profit is only evil when you undertake evil deeds in order to obtain it.




i don't believe in your infantile shit morality.
not to mention, any reasonable dude would be like, "let people die or steal money from people who own golden helicopters...?" oh, i don't know, steal from the rich and give to the poor! if it's life and death, if it is the health of all of society... steal from the rich, for god's sake.

You prove my point perfectly. Minimum wage adds a price floor on labor, meaning that the business must raise the price of their goods/services in order to compensate. This makes it tougher for smaller businesses to compete, as they don't have as much money as larger corporations.

As such, the small businesses which are burdened by increased labor costs go out of businesses, reducing the number of competing products, which reduces the pressure to lower the prices of goods/services and/or raise the quality of goods/services.

So instead of throwing that money to R&D, or lowering their prices in order to stay competitive, the board is free to give themselves raises.



False. In fact, if the healthcare surtax goes through, 39 out of 50 states will have a top level tax of 50%.

Next time, try doing a little more research.





But it does hurt them. They are no longer able to use/save/reinvest their capital as they see fit. Again I ask, what gives you the right to deprive people of their property?




Again, anyone who is able to save/reinvest/buy nonessential items has by definition "too much money." I'd love for you to tell the mom and dad with the $20k a year income busting their ass to put aside money every year in order to send their kid to school that they have "too much money."



So according to you, banker sits on his ass all day in an air conditioned office lending money to people so that they can buy houses and starts businesses doesn't deserve his salary as much as the mexican dude that sweats his ass off mowing lawn.



See the first part of this post.



No, but producing cigarettes is productive.

[quote] look, these things propagate merely because they are profitable. my point was to illustrate that profitable things are not inherent instrumental or of significant utility, rather the opposite is often true.

Had to split up this post



False. We enter the world with no possessions, we leave with no possessions.



And yet they continued to exist after that had changed.



Really now, so the person who commands the most money, the one who can hire or fire thousands of laborers, are less of an asset to the economy than one laborer?



And the world was better of because of that. What are you complaining about here?



Proven false above.



Congrats on being older than everyone in your class.



I specifically singled out the federal income tax. There was a functional society prior to the 16th amendment. In fact, the main reason for it was to raise money to fund the war in which the most Americans died. Since then, the income tax has continued to be largely used to fund the United States war machine.




Ah, the beauty of relativism.



i don't believe in your infantile shit morality. you can't define stealing as wrong, except when rich people are the victims. equal protection under the law?



No, the government's job (at least under the Constitution) is to make sure no one is infringing on your rights. The Constitution does not give the government the responsibility of babying our citizens.

your premise is false because minimum wage has been steadily decreasing while profits have been increasing.

secondly, you can't argue that fair compensation is what the free market creates when you're going to say that minimum wage is an unfair government regulation that hurts the economy. you can't have your cake and eat it too. either the free market works out fair compensation and gives workers what they deserve or we need regulations like minimum wage in order to give workers proper compensation for their work.



are you f*cking kidding me? you can't claim you're a good soccer player IF YOU MOVE THE GOAL POST INTO YOUR SHOTS. you said that people are being, currently, taxed half of their assets. i said that they weren't. i was right. you were wrong. you can't pretend you're right because, maybe, perhaps, sometime in the future, someone may be taxed over half of their assets.

LEARN TO HAVE A FAIR AND HONEST DEBATE. YOU JUST LOOK LIKE A DOUCHEBAG.



what the hell are you talking about? even when i try to correct you, it's as if you're f*cking illiterate.



is the banker white?




what the f*ck is this psycho-babel-bullshit? capitalism creates class divides which lead to institutionalized poverty. inheritance exits, and wealth is mostly hereditary. in other words, legitimate social mobility does not exist in america.



we don't need someone who doesn't know how to build a car, to tell someone, who knows how to build a car, to build a car. yes, a single laborer is more important.



you are f*cking dense. when the slaves were emancipated and began to earn salaries, do you think that they were being fairly compensated for their work?




it was functional because we had taxation.



the law is taxation. and, a tiered tax bracket at that -- those who earn more are obligated, under law, to contribute more.



i care about a progressive socio-economic world. because of this, i think that the government has an obligation to make society healthier, happier, and more fair. that's what the people want. if it is true that we own the government, than that is the democratic purpose of our state.

Decreasing? What world do you live in?

inb4 you bring up inflation as an excuse, which is largely caused by the government's inflationary policies.

You can't legislate prosperity. If you could, then I'd be all for setting the minimum wage to $1 million/hour so that we could all be rich.



How about you learn to read and do a little mental math, you simpleton. There is already a number of people being taxed over 50%. The link I posted simply stated that number will increase, which is PERFECTLY f*ckING RELEVANT considering it's in direct consequence to the issue of healthcare we are discussing.

You claim to have passed highschool, so I'm sure you can grasp the concept that if a tax claims 58% of someone's income as a result of the addition of a 5.4% surtax, they were already having more than 50% of their income being taken away from them prior to that surtax being added.

LEARN TO USE MORE THAN 2 OF YOUR BRAIN CELLS. YOU JUST SOUND LIKE A DUMBASS.



I'm talking about your shitty criteria, as anyone who is able to save/invest has excess wealth by definition since they are not consuming all their wealth. Your criteria punishes good behavior by discouraging savings and increased productivity.

I don't think you're illiterate, just unwilling to admit you're dead wrong.



Why does it matter?



Socialism creates class divides: there's the poor, and there's the State.



We need someone who owns capital to hire someone who they train to build a car. We need someone who owns capital to invest in research to create better cars.

We do not need to forfeit our property rights to a corrupt government that does not know how to run a business.



As long as honest contracts were being made, yes, they were being fairly compensated.



But not because of a FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Wow you are thick headed. You've gotta be kidding if you think taxes back then were anything like taxes now.



The law discriminates against the productive, and favors the unproductive.



Do we own the government, or does the government own us? If we surrender our property rights to the government, we are surrendering ourselves to the government.

doesn't matter what the hell it's caused by, you're argument is demonstratively wrong:
in 2005 & since 1990, minimum wage has decreased by 9.3% whereas ceo pay has increased by 298.2%. [1]

not to mention, minimum wage isn't what puts small business out to pasture. what does that is competition from big business. having to pay their employers a menial wage has very little to actually do with it.



if we redistributed wealth, we could probably make everyone in america a millionaire.



you're link was misleading. i only read the first few paragraphs in it. you should have clarified. nonetheless, i don't give a f*ck about taxation; i think it's a good thing.

p.s. note how these wealthy people aren't leaving america to escape "unfair" taxation. part of that is probably because with all of their reductions and deductions... they probably pay far less (which you know is true). another part is probably that they couldn't make the same wages anywhere else, quite as easily. that's why doctors come here to work, because they want six cars and two summer homes (i.e. things no one showed have).



i already clarified this like twice, my "criteria" is not "anyone who can do more than simply survive." i was simply drawing a comparison, saying that certain persons can easily EASILY afford to be taxed a significant sum of their wealth. others, obviously, cannot.



you don't know much about socialism.




who better than the proletariat himself? in a socialist system, the workers could own the means of production themselves.



alright, i just want to talk about this point. that's it. just this point.

there inherently no such thing as an "honest" or fair contract when you are considering an "agreement" between two vastly unequal parties. if a starving, desperate person comes to an exceptionally wealthy, and powerful individual and this desperate person wants work... any contract that person forms will be controlled by the person in a position of power. i'm going to ask you the same question again, were those former slaves fairly compensated for their work?





not if we own the government.

i don't get socialism i don't think. i don't get where the motivation is. if there is no profit, and no reason to succeed, and no competition. i don't see how it would work. it's never worked anywhere. people say that no where has ever established true socialism. well there has to be a reason for that doesn't there? what would make the US able to establish true socialism when no one else can? if capitalism is the devil then why do people want to come to america in the first place.


duno, i don't think i can even picture somewhere where everyone is equal, maybe that's my problem. everyone owns the means of production. we all have a dandy life and go about doing whatever we want with no incentive at all and only taking what we need. i don't get how we would even go about establishing something like this.


anyway does this mean you aren't in favor of what obama is doing nate? since you're in favor of a single payer system and obama has said he isn't in favor of a single payer system.

even i support a mixed economy.
but, you still seem to be a bit confused. if i were you, i would start here:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

click around. most of your questions should be answered.



a public option, in competition with the private industry, is better than nothing, but it's still rather sad. we need to have a single-payer system, like the rest of the world, it's just that certain fat cat's bank accounts can't handle it. if only everyone knew exactly how much money the private industry has put into lobbying the house and senate... perhaps we could all see much clearer than.

My argument is demonstratively wrong because big government thinks the solution to problems caused by big government is even more big government? Ok...

Clearly, people like Warren Buffet are more valuable to the economy than some pimply face kid who refills the drink machine at McD's.



If we murdered everyone who wasn't a millionaire, we could definitely make everyone in America a millionaire.

Murder is wrong. So is taking away vast sums of money by force.



translation: you were too dense to understand the first time around, so it was obviously trickery on my part that caused your mighty intellect to falter.



See what happens when you take away ALL of their wealth. Let's see how eager they are to stay. Let's see how eager doctors are to work in America when they are forced to work for well under the fair market value for their services.



Some people can easily survive a punch to the gut; doesn't mean I'm free to go around punching them.



You don't know much about much.



lol, we see the disastrous effect of what powerful unions do to certain industries, and you want to give the workers more power?

the consumer should be the person in position of power. Not the business. Not the worker.



The exceptionally wealthy person has no obligation to provide the starving person a job. The starving person should be thankful that an opportunity exists to feed himself. If he does not agree with the value the wealthy person has place on his labor, he can move on and look for someone else to hire him. Or, he can beg for food, feed himself and not be in quite a dire situation that he has to accept ANY job that comes his way. You act as if charity is nonexistant in capitalism. In fact, the opposite is so; charity is non existant in socialism. Charity is freely giving ones possessions to another one in need. Socialism is just a fancy word for stealing.

The beauty of capitalism is the ability to improve one's socioeconomic standing. This does not exist in socialism.

I have no idea if every single one of the former slaves engaged in lawful labor contracts post emancipation. But, I repeat myself, as long as both parties agreed to the terms of the labor, then yes, they were fairly compensated. The plantation owner offered a wage, and the emancipated slave agreed that his labor was worth that wage when he accepted the terms.



I don't know how you can be so naive. You don't own the government when you've just surrendered all your rights to it.

i don't think one can place value on a job purely on its physical labor. one can arguably say that CEOs work just as hard as any "laborer". the other side of that argument is that anyone can do blue collar work, whereas one would (generally) need to input time and money into education for a white collar job. this is especially true during these times, when anything less than a doctorate/masters can't even land people the jobs they used to get a decade ago.

i agree with kryo that CEOs are more valuable to the economy than a single laborer. you're quick to forget that if one person feels he isn't getting paid what he deserves, there's always someone else who's willing to do the same job for less. the person with capital is more important; the single laborer just doesn't have that much of an impact.

and if we distributed america's wealth so that everyone's a millionaire, i'd be putoff honestly. i, like so many other greedy americans, want a bigger house than my neighbors; i want a better car than they have, and i want to be able to buy more useless shit than they do. if i were a doctor, i wouldn't want the same wage as someone who didn't go through med school. if i were a top firm lawyer, i'd be annoyed if my secretary had the same size apartment i have. if i were a CEO, i would expect to have more cars than my employees. i don't think it's fair to establish what's "more than one needs". if a guy can afford 12 cars, he deserves to have them. if we start judging what people should and shouldn't have, what's stopping us from saying we shouldn't have tv, computers, or anything that's not necessary for human existance?