The Global Elite: Rigging the Rules That Fuel Inequality

maineman said:
if you want to bitch about progressive income tax, I would suggest that that ship sailed long ago. It has been the law of the land through democratic and republican administrations for a century.
Click to expand...

Are you retarded? He was responding to your moronic rant about “adjusting the obscene inequity of the distribution of wealth in this country” you dishonest moron. What the fuck does that have to do with a progressive income tax dunce?

Damn you are one stupid MoFo.
 
Riggins said:
I don't advocate society wide joblessness, I just recognize we're on that path - somehow you don't, and I'm the idiot? :palm:
Click to expand...

I am not fool enough to think that what you claim is inevitable will happen in my lifetime, my children's lifetime or even my grandchildren's lifetime.

What you are advocating is the technological equivalent of James Watt (sec of Interior) saying we didn't need to worry about protecting the environment because God was going to end the world soon.
 
Riggins said:
It doesn't strictly have to be 90% - it could be 91% - or 93.5%. ;)

And why? To pay for a robust set of social programs, of course.

No, I don't own a business - which makes me perfectly qualified to comment on this since we don't want business owners deciding what their tax rate should or shouldn't be - that's for the rest of us to decide.
Click to expand...

You do not own a business and are clueless about what businesses do and have the economic acumen of a snail.

So who do you think pays these 90% taxes you want to assess on business?
 
maineman said:
if she charges too much rent, they will simply move. she obviously charges what the market allows.... every business does that.
Click to expand...

lol... not my point... Desh believes that corporations should just pay more and profit less out of the goodness of their hearts. The same market forces apply to their goods and services that do to Desh's rental homes. That was my point... she wants THEM to give up more of what THEY make... but she is not willing to do the same? Same principle... she simply refuses to do as she suggests they do.
 
Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post

So, are you going to go to your tenants and tell them you are going to accept less profit? Are you Desh?
maineman said:
if she charges too much rent, they will simply move. she obviously charges what the market allows.... every business does that.
Click to expand...

Dear moron; he was talking about her charging LESS, aka making less profit, not MORE, aka making more profit. You're special brand of stupid is on steroids today isn't it shit-for-brains?
 
Riggins said:
It's not punishment - it's helping foster a society of which we are all a part. If the goods and services a business is selling are not the necessities of life, they are by definition, frivolous. The jobs involved with manufacturing, shipping, and selling frivolous goods and services won't completely disappear, not for a while anyway - as long as there's crap to buy, people will buy it. And if they buy less of it, yes that means fewer jobs - in the long run the idea of a "job" is disappearing anyway - in the meantime, we should try to make that transition to complete, society-wide joblessness as painless as possible.
Click to expand...

Yeah; it's working great in Venezuela right now. I hear it did a bang up job in Cuba too!

Moron.
 
Riggins said:
If 90% of what Google brings in, in a set period of time, equals a billion dollars, then yes, that billion dollars would look great paying for various social programs - or maybe we could make an exemption for any company that speeds us toward full automation or increases human longevity or other key social indices.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with this idea is that you require the taking of private property by force in order to fund social programs that should be focused on helping people get off the gov't teat.

I'd be willing to bet you are pretty young.
 
maineman said:
that is not technically true... businesses can continue on ad infintum without making a profit.... just as long as they do not operate at a net loss.
Click to expand...

you do understand how businesses attract INVESTORS? The investors want to make money. They do not want their money sitting idly by. If they do not get a return, they pull their investment.
 
maineman said:
smart business owners consider their own compensation as one of the costs of doing business on their income statements... and many business do not pay dividends to their stockholders, and those stockholders consider the increase in share price as the return on their investment.
Click to expand...

LOL... a business owner pays out a dividend when the owner feels the investors can better utilize the capital elsewhere for a higher return. When the business owner feels that the investor can garner a higher return within the company (do to growth of said company) the earnings will be retained and be reflected in higher share prices.

Indefinite years of no profit will result in investment capital being put to use where it will grow.
 
WinterBorn said:
It makes sense only if you want an economic collapse. The small businesses will fold and the big corporations will relocate to other countries where the tax rate does not destroy them. All your scheme would do is decimate this nation's economy and make it a 3rd world country.

And yes, you COULD make the argument that computers, cell phones, and a broadband internet connection are necessities. But that claim would be bogus. Why not have more computers at the public library and increase public transportation? I have been to 3 different public libraries in the Atlanta area. I never had trouble getting access to a computer.

I guess it is handy for you that the unnecessary things in life are the ones you want to claim are "necessities". I enjoy hunting and fishing. I could make the claim that these activities increase my physical health and provide relaxation (necessary for good health). So let's make camo clothing and fly rods "necessities of life". A good friend of mine has a very stressful job. To relax he plays video games. You could make an argument that these games increase his hand-to-eye coordination and the relaxation he gets lowers his stress level, thereby cutting his chances of many life threatening illnesses. So let's make Playstations a "necessity of life".
Click to expand...

Again, it's not up to me to decide what a generally accepted set of necessities of life are - you've named a few you'd like to see included in that list - no idea if they would be accepted en masse or not.

I don't advocate an economic collapse, nor do I promote the idea of living in the third world - I just see the forest for the trees. You say my ideas would cause small businesses to fold and big businesses to move offshore to escape onerous taxation thus decimating the economy and making us into a third world nation - I say, we're already headed there. Small businesses ARE folding. Big businesses ARE moving offshore. The economy IS decimated. Unemployment IS getting out of hand. This is all happening, but what you have to keep in mind is that another large part of this is automation. Automation is growing and will continue to exponentially grow. All those jobs lost - all the unemployment we currently experience - it's not something that's going to improve, those jobs aren't coming back.

Corporations, big businesses - they're getting leaner all the time, they're increasing their profit margins and decreasing labor costs - as automation grows, human labor disappears - eventually it's all automated, all offshore - low taxes, no labor costs - and everyone else (i.e. most of us) with little social safety net to fall back on become destitute. That's where we're headed. But, we don't have to.

The automation horse is out of the barn, it ain't coming back. So, let's tax the big businesses heavily while we can, build up the coffers and try to weather the storm as best we can - it's a transition we've been in for a decade or more, the hardest part is to come, as automation drives up the unemployment rate to unprecedented levels we can try and smooth our way through.

Easy? No. Possible? Uncertain. Worth considering? Definitely.
 
WinterBorn said:
And who will develop the technologies necessary to create this automated utopia? The gov't? lol The companies who develop technologies do it for the profits involved. The researchers do it for the paychecks they receive (and the other benefits).

And we will never be a fully automated society. There will always be jobs that need people. If that is not the case, we are many, many years from this utopia you seek. And if it ever arrives, it will spell the doom of mankind. No challenges? Nothing but leisure time and no responsibilities? Yeah, that will create a healthy society.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking for an automated utopia - I'm saying we ought to encourage any company that could speed us through the current transition to the apparent outcome we're already headed toward, thus negating much of the pain we're going to experience in moving more slowly. This utopia you're talking about is not inevitable, it may not even be possible - but full automation is where we're headed, the transition will be tough, and what will we and our society look like on the other side? No one knows - it's all guess work, in the meantime there's no sense in denying the existence of progress right before it steamrolls right over you.
 
WinterBorn said:
I am not fool enough to think that what you claim is inevitable will happen in my lifetime, my children's lifetime or even my grandchildren's lifetime.

What you are advocating is the technological equivalent of James Watt (sec of Interior) saying we didn't need to worry about protecting the environment because God was going to end the world soon.
Click to expand...

You are guessing that the roughest parts of this transition will not occur in even your grandchildren's lifetime - but that's the point, it's all guesswork, no one knows definitively what will happen. But increases in automation ARE happening, that's not a guess, that's apparent. No it does not mean full automation is "inevitable" but it does mean we are currently on the path toward it - you can see evidence of that all around you.

Given that, it only makes sense to try and smooth the transition as best we can instead of burying our heads in the sand hoping the trend reverses on its own. The transition toward full automation is already happening, and will get more and more rough as we move through it - I don't advocate this, I just recognize it's obvious existence, and advocate figuring out a way to make it as painless as possible, for as many people as possible.
 
Riggins said:
I'm not looking for an automated utopia - I'm saying we ought to encourage any company that could speed us through the current transition to the apparent outcome we're already headed toward, thus negating much of the pain we're going to experience in moving more slowly. This utopia you're talking about is not inevitable, it may not even be possible - but full automation is where we're headed, the transition will be tough, and what will we and our society look like on the other side? No one knows - it's all guess work, in the meantime there's no sense in denying the existence of progress right before it steamrolls right over you.
Click to expand...

So your answer is to strangle the private sector and make the gov't a 'for profit' enterprise? (you advocate filling the coffers with over-inflated taxes)

The gov't is probably the worst example of efficiency ever known. Our federal debt has topped $17 TRILLION dollars. And you think by taking all the profits from private corporations, you will help our future?

Who developed virtually ALL the technology that is taking us towards this automated world? The government or private industry?
Who has shown themselves to be more efficient? The government or private industry?
Of the most automated and technologically advanced nations, which are totally run by the gov't?
 
Riggins said:
You are guessing that the roughest parts of this transition will not occur in even your grandchildren's lifetime - but that's the point, it's all guesswork, no one knows definitively what will happen. But increases in automation ARE happening, that's not a guess, that's apparent. No it does not mean full automation is "inevitable" but it does mean we are currently on the path toward it - you can see evidence of that all around you.

Given that, it only makes sense to try and smooth the transition as best we can instead of burying our heads in the sand hoping the trend reverses on its own. The transition toward full automation is already happening, and will get more and more rough as we move through it - I don't advocate this, I just recognize it's obvious existence, and advocate figuring out a way to make it as painless as possible, for as many people as possible.
Click to expand...

Even if (and it's a big "IF") this will happen in my grandchildren's lifetime, do you really want to trust the development of the technology and the transition to the bureaucratic nightmare that is our federal gov't?? How can you possibly think the gov't will do a better job developing the technology than the private sector?

Show me one area that the gov't has taken over that has gotten better or more efficient? Do that, then we can discuss this further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top