redistribution of wealth

[bripat9643]

Get a job loser

Is that your recommendation for the unemployed?

No

For you

So then you admit you're a hypocrite.

 

[bripat9643]

Unless an employee has it set up in his hire package about getting some of the profit no they do not earn any of it. The profit goes back to the company to keep the employee working. If a company gave it profits to the employee the company would not be able to stay in business and keep the employee gainfully employed.

You really don't know what "earn" means, do you?

"Earn" means to acquire through voluntary transaction. If your employer hasn't agreed to it, then you haven't earned it.

 

[theHawk]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

Curious, if people are "poor", exactly what "wealth" is being transferred from them?

The wealth they give up is their chance at the American dream. high energy costs, crippling healthcare bills, transportation costs, education

All rising at much higher rates than their salaries

Kind of what the OWS people are protesting

OK so if a corporation is ripping people off by jacking up the cost of their product/service, why doesn't somebody else offer that service for cheaper?

Oh thats right, because our government has made it increasingly difficult for people to start their own business and to stay in business with increases in regulations and taxes.

The more government increases opertating costs of businesses, the more those businesses have to increase their cost of their product/service. And the more people have to pay for them, the less money they get to keep. A win-win situation for Democrats, fewer businesses and jobs, more people unemployed and poor.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you think quoting a goosestepping "progressive" socialist like Roosevelt is supposed to prove? You might as well go straight to the source of such ideas and quote Karl Marx.

Our 'Conservatives' are sad little minds that haven't the slightest inkling of history.

Eighth Annual Message to Congress by Theodore Roosevelt

It is very earnestly to be wished that our people, through their representatives, should act in this matter. It is hard to say whether most damage to the country at large would come from entire failure on the part of the public to supervise and control the actions of the great corporations, of from the exercise of the necessary governmental power in a way which would do injustice and wrong to the corporations. Both the preachers of an unrestricted individualism, and the preachers of an oppression which would deny to able men of business the just reward of their intuitive and business sagacity, are advocating policies that would be fraught with the greatest harm to the whole country. To permit every lawless capitalist, every law-defying corporation, to take any action, no matter how iniquitous, in the effort to secure an improper profit and to build up privilege, would be ruinous to the Republic and would mark the abandonment of the effort to secure in the industrial world, the spirit of democratic fair dealing. On the other hand, to attach these wrongs in that sprit of demagogy, which can see wrong only when committed by the man of wealth, and ins dumb and blind in the presence of wrong committed against men of property or by men of no property, is exactly as evil as corruptly to defend the wrong — doing of men of wealth. The war we wage must be waged against misconduct, against wrong-doing wherever it is found; and we must stand heartily for the rights of every decent man, whether he be a man of great wealth or a man who earns his livelihood as a wage-worker or as a tiller of the soil.

The major portion of the present concentration of wealth is due to those that run the corperations taking the money off the top for exorbent salaries, tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, at the cost of the shareholders and the people on the factory floor that actually produce the good. This must be changed for the good of our nation.

 

[Dragon]

Wealth in the hands of those who earn it is the correct thing.

But that would invalidate the entire capitalist system, which is predicated on ensuring that wealth concentrates OUT of the hands that earn it and INTO the hands of those that OWN the businesses in which those who earn it work.

 

[bripat9643]

Wealth in the hands of those who earn it is the correct thing.

But that would invalidate the entire capitalist system, which is predicated on ensuring that wealth concentrates OUT of the hands that earn it and INTO the hands of those that OWN the businesses in which those who earn it work.

You're confused about the definition of the term "earned." You have "earned" only what you and your employer have agreed to, not what some sleazy demagogue claims you are entitled to.

The whole Marxian rumble-bumble is based on the idea that people are entitled to things that no one ever agreed to give them. It's the fundamental axiom used to justify plunder and looting.

 

[JoeB131]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

I think that has more to do with economic tides than gravity.

First law of business- jobs do not exist to provide working folks with a living. they exist to create a product or service. And the one who can provide that product or service for the least amount of money wins.

The problem is, we all bemoan the fact that those jobs went to China, but do we refuse to buy the Chinese made crap?

And you expect government to be the agent to make it right? Really?

The problem with government redistribution, is that it subsidizes and enables the wrong behavior. It isn't about changing the balance between the employee and the stockholder as to the division of profits, it's about taking those profits and giving them to people who did very little to start with.

"Have a bunch of babies out of wedlock? Here's a bag of money!"
"On Drugs? Here's a bag of money?"
"Work hard every day at a thankless job? Fuck you. We're going to tax your booze, your cigarettes, your car, your house, and all your creature comforts".

And if you are under any delusion that the rich haven't bought and paid for both parties, then I'm not sure if there's a point talking to you.

Instead of looking to government for solutions, we need to look to ourselves. The Union movement that started the middle class did it with very little help from Government. Sure, a few laws got passed, but it was workers and consumers getting on the same side.

When I was growing up in the oldie days, when there was a business that was under a strike, you didn't do business there.

Now labor only pickets for a day or two for the show, and things go right on as normal.

 

[dblack]

Earn it is one thing. Earn it through oppression and manipulation is another. Let's see..for some reason derivatives and oil speculators come to mind.

...The rich manipulate the market and wages. sadly in a very selfish manner as witnessed by the OMB for the last few decades.

...So where the hell did they get it? Did they coerce already wealthy people to hand over the cash in masse?

So, here's what I don't get. The most common 'selling point' for wealth redistribution campaigns is the assumption that wealthy people have done something wrong - that they've coerced others or otherwise committed some injustice to amass their wealth. If this is, in fact, the case why are we content to simple return some of the money? Shouldn't these bastards be in jail?

It's like if there was some guy in your neighborhood who made a living burglarizing local residences. Would you be content with just making him give some the loot back once a year? That's what most of these attempts to redistribute wealth are doing. Worse yet, they aren't even trying to identify who the burglars are; They're simply doing a sweep and 'redistributing' from everyone who looks like they they might have too much stuff.

The wealthy never obtained their wealth by taking it from the poor and working class. All they did was ensure the rules were in place to enable them to gain and maintain wealth. Tax cuts, exemptions, subsidies, minimum wage restrictions, protective tariffs all enacted supposedly to "create jobs"
Reversing the trend does not involve taking money back from the wealthy but reducing those programs that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the working class

Exactly! And this takes real work. We need to look closely at the fundamental structure of corporate law, our convoluted tax code, and our regulatory morrass and clean in up. But we aren't likely to do that if we're distracted by phony redistribution schemes that merely mask the problem.

 

[rightwinger]

Earn it is one thing. Earn it through oppression and manipulation is another. Let's see..for some reason derivatives and oil speculators come to mind.

...The rich manipulate the market and wages. sadly in a very selfish manner as witnessed by the OMB for the last few decades.

...So where the hell did they get it? Did they coerce already wealthy people to hand over the cash in masse?

So, here's what I don't get. The most common 'selling point' for wealth redistribution campaigns is the assumption that wealthy people have done something wrong - that they've coerced others or otherwise committed some injustice to amass their wealth. If this is, in fact, the case why are we content to simple return some of the money? Shouldn't these bastards be in jail?

It's like if there was some guy in your neighborhood who made a living burglarizing local residences. Would you be content with just making him give some the loot back once a year? That's what most of these attempts to redistribute wealth are doing. Worse yet, they aren't even trying to identify who the burglars are; They're simply doing a sweep and 'redistributing' from everyone who looks like they they might have too much stuff.

The wealthy never obtained their wealth by taking it from the poor and working class. All they did was ensure the rules were in place to enable them to gain and maintain wealth. Tax cuts, exemptions, subsidies, minimum wage restrictions, protective tariffs all enacted supposedly to "create jobs"
Reversing the trend does not involve taking money back from the wealthy but reducing those programs that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the working class

Exactly! And this takes real work. We need to look closely at the fundamental structure of corporate law, our convoluted tax code, and our regulatory morrass and clean in up. But we aren't likely to do that if we're distracted by phony redistribution schemes that merely mask the problem.

It's not that the wealthy have done something wrong. In fact, they have done so much right that they no longer need help from the taxpayers

So why do Republicans keep throwing money at them?

 

[California Girl]

"Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with the poor is Poverty; what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness." George Bernard Shaw

The Conservative Nanny State and see Amazon.com: The United States since 1980 (The World Since 1980) (9780521677554): Dean Baker: Books



"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

Do you honestly think glibly quoting others makes you intelligent? Because it really doesn't. Just because someone said it does not make it fact.... you can be embarrassingly naive for someone who seems to want to appear well read.

Or maybe you just work for Amazon?

Twit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wealth in the hands of those who earn it is the correct thing.If you work for a person for a set amount of money that money is yours. You do this on the day you apply for a job. Nothing more nothing less. Anything else is theft

But that would invalidate the entire capitalist system, which is predicated on ensuring that wealth concentrates OUT of the hands that earn it and INTO the hands of those that OWN the businesses in which those who earn it work.

I don't care to much for how you cut half of what I said. So I fixed it.

 

[Full-Auto]

Of course not...

The manager that made him work for free deserves the profits

LOL Cute straw man guys. Maybe we should pass some laws that make the practice illegal.

You mean like labor laws?

Oh you caught on they are in place.

Still no cookie for you..............

 

[Katzndogz]

If you think that you are worth more money than you are paid, it's is simple, go work for someone who pays you more. If you think that you are priceless, start your own business. If you think that stock market executives make more money than you do, become one yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

"Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with the poor is Poverty; what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness." George Bernard Shaw

The Conservative Nanny State and see Amazon.com: The United States since 1980 (The World Since 1980) (9780521677554): Dean Baker: Books



"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

Do you honestly think glibly quoting others makes you intelligent? Because it really doesn't. Just because someone said it does not make it fact.... you can be embarrassingly naive for someone who seems to want to appear well read.

Or maybe you just work for Amazon?

Twit.

Someone is overly concerned with the intelligence of others and needs to spend more time actually adding intelligent responses on thread topics.

 

[dblack]

The whole Marxian rumble-bumble is based on the idea that people are entitled to things that no one ever agreed to give them. It's the fundamental axiom used to justify plunder and looting.

I don't think it is. From the Marxist point of view, it's the opposite. They believe that, under capitalism, owners of wealth are "entitled to things no one ever agreed to give them". And that belief is based on the perception that profit (income earned from investment or absentee ownership) is truly 'money for nothing' - that it's unearned and undeserved.

Advocates of capitalism and free markets have failed by letting this misconception go unchallenged. And supporters of the status quo have failed to recognize that, under the current setup, this assumption is far too often exactly the case.

 

[rightwinger]

If you think that you are worth more money than you are paid, it's is simple, go work for someone who pays you more. If you think that you are priceless, start your own business. If you think that stock market executives make more money than you do, become one yourself.

Better yet..

Why don't you get a political party to restrict your ability to unionize and collectively bargain?

 

[Againsheila]

Unless an employee has it set up in his hire package about getting some of the profit no they do not earn any of it. The profit goes back to the company to keep the employee working. If a company gave it profits to the employee the company would not be able to stay in business and keep the employee gainfully employed.

You really don't know what "earn" means, do you?

Apparently you don't. So give me your definition of earned?

When you work a steady job and do your best, you EARN a living wage. When you put in extra time to keep the company afloat during bad times, you EARN a share of the profits in good times When you have a company and you need employees, they EARN a share of your profits...this is mostly paid in a salary....but again, if one or more of your employees puts in extra time, without pay, or at a lower pay to keep YOUR company afloat, they EARN a share of the profits when your company does better, after all, without THEIR work, you would have lost your company.

EXAMPLE...Boeing employees who agree to no cost of living increase and no raises and take aways during bad times, deserve to have those cost of living increases and pay raises and those take aways given back during good times. Unfortunately, they've always had to go on strike for that to happen....crazy, isn't it?

In fact, as a percentage of profit...Boeing is paying less on wages than ever before in history.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You really don't know what "earn" means, do you?

Apparently you don't. So give me your definition of earned?

When you work a steady job and do your best, you EARN a living wage. When you put in extra time to keep the company afloat during bad times, you EARN a share of the profits in good times When you have a company and you need employees, they EARN a share of your profits...this is mostly paid in a salary....but again, if one or more of your employees puts in extra time, without pay, or at a lower pay to keep YOUR company afloat, they EARN a share of the profits when your company does better, after all, without THEIR work, you would have lost your company.

EXAMPLE...Boeing employees who agree to no cost of living increase and no raises and take aways during bad times, deserve to have those cost of living increases and pay raises and those take aways given back during good times. Unfortunately, they've always had to go on strike for that to happen....crazy, isn't it?

In fact, as a percentage of profit...Boeing is paying less on wages than ever before in history.

You put in extra time it's called overtime and get time and a half. unless you have an agreement with the people who hired you on the day you accepted the job that you get a share of the profits. You did not earn any profit you earned overtime pay.

 

[Againsheila]

Apparently you don't. So give me your definition of earned?

When you work a steady job and do your best, you EARN a living wage. When you put in extra time to keep the company afloat during bad times, you EARN a share of the profits in good times When you have a company and you need employees, they EARN a share of your profits...this is mostly paid in a salary....but again, if one or more of your employees puts in extra time, without pay, or at a lower pay to keep YOUR company afloat, they EARN a share of the profits when your company does better, after all, without THEIR work, you would have lost your company.

EXAMPLE...Boeing employees who agree to no cost of living increase and no raises and take aways during bad times, deserve to have those cost of living increases and pay raises and those take aways given back during good times. Unfortunately, they've always had to go on strike for that to happen....crazy, isn't it?

In fact, as a percentage of profit...Boeing is paying less on wages than ever before in history.

You put in extra time it's called overtime and get time and a half. unless you have an agreement with the people who hired you on the day you accepted the job that you get a share of the profits. You did not earn any profit you earned overtime pay.

You like slaves, don't you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When you work a steady job and do your best, you EARN a living wage. When you put in extra time to keep the company afloat during bad times, you EARN a share of the profits in good times When you have a company and you need employees, they EARN a share of your profits...this is mostly paid in a salary....but again, if one or more of your employees puts in extra time, without pay, or at a lower pay to keep YOUR company afloat, they EARN a share of the profits when your company does better, after all, without THEIR work, you would have lost your company.

EXAMPLE...Boeing employees who agree to no cost of living increase and no raises and take aways during bad times, deserve to have those cost of living increases and pay raises and those take aways given back during good times. Unfortunately, they've always had to go on strike for that to happen....crazy, isn't it?

In fact, as a percentage of profit...Boeing is paying less on wages than ever before in history.

You put in extra time it's called overtime and get time and a half. unless you have an agreement with the people who hired you on the day you accepted the job that you get a share of the profits. You did not earn any profit you earned overtime pay.

You like slaves, don't you?

No I am not union