CONFIRMED!: Rich People DO Create the Jobs

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah......but the one percenters make almost all of their money off of capital gains.

Wow...All I have to do is say "economic dilettante" and look what happens.

Most of the "1%-ers" are small business operators who work for and pay taxes on profits.

Maybe you can even see a few of them from your tent in the park.

Yet those weren't the people whining in your OP and not the ones he was referring to....the people in your op are not small business owners and are more than likely paying 15% only.

Actually, most of the 1 percenters AREN'T "small business operators", they are actually CEO's and Wall St. types who make most of their money in capital gains.

 

[cbirch2]

How DARE more people become wealthy!!!! Quick! Stop them!!!

This is the idiocy of the republican party and the conservative ideology. Is that how simple this is? Really?

Why didnt we have this disparity from the 40's through the 70's? What changes happened to create it? What was so wrong with the policies that existed before it?

If policies existed in the 50's that everyone agreed were fair, and in the 80's those policies were changed and this is the result, what would be so bad about going back to the previous policies?

But its ok, conservatives always pull bullshit like this. Anytime a liberal wants to revert back to policies of the last 50 years its heresy and socialism, but when paul wants to repeal half the laws of the 20th century its patriotic. Go back to clinton era tax rates? Nothing short of Bolshevism!

Its nuts.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why didnt we have this disparity from the 40's through the 70's?

There are two eras here. The 40's and 50's are dealing with post war industrial booms and expanded workforce because women were finding their place. Consumer demand was high based on war bond savings as well, plus the new technology from the war put to civilian use. This caused a run of prosperity, not SOCIAL PROGRAMS or wealth redistribution. If any social program helped it was WAR BONDS being paid out.

Then we fucked the lot with social insanity of the 1960's and 70's with social spending to 'help the poor'. Compassion overwhelmed our good sense because we had so much money to spend and be charitable with. But we mistook the job of government to include charity, which it can never be used for safely because someone will always find a way ( and 50 years of this abuse have proven this to be true) to equate compassion for need and use the force of government to make sure THEIR compassion is inflicted on those who disagree. This is not charity, because charity involves willful giving, not taxation and force.

If policies existed in the 50's that everyone agreed were fair

You assume that 'everyone agreed' they WERE 'fair'. Secondly, other than say, Social Security, most of the rest of the social safety hammock did not exist. No Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, School Lunch and DOZENS of redundant welfare programs for individuals and corporations did not exist. But we also had a very regressive tax rate cumulative over 80% when consumption, income and state taxes are included.

You know, I'd be interested in reverting almost all our government policies back to sayyyyy.... 1951, when the Dept of Transportation was created by Ike and eliminate ALL the rest created after that, especially HHS, Ed, Energy, HUD, DHS and others. I think this would be an interesting tradeoff.

Anytime a liberal wants to revert back to policies of the last 50 years its heresy and socialism

I've yet to see ANY liberal want to reverse on Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare or any other social spending programs. I'd LOVE to see that level of sanity from a liberal. But alas, what do they want to cut? Military. I can't conceive of any other program they want to cut.

Go back to clinton era tax rates?

Sure? Maybe we do the original levels when the Income Tax came into being: 1% on millionaires. I've never seen a liberal promote such things.

Its nuts.

Yes, liberalism is.

 

[cbirch2]

Why didnt we have this disparity from the 40's through the 70's?

There are two eras here. The 40's and 50's are dealing with post war industrial booms and expanded workforce because women were finding their place. Consumer demand was high based on war bond savings as well, plus the new technology from the war put to civilian use. This caused a run of prosperity, not SOCIAL PROGRAMS or wealth redistribution. If any social program helped it was WAR BONDS being paid out.

Then we fucked the lot with social insanity of the 1960's and 70's with social spending to 'help the poor'. Compassion overwhelmed our good sense because we had so much money to spend and be charitable with. But we mistook the job of government to include charity, which it can never be used for safely because someone will always find a way ( and 50 years of this abuse have proven this to be true) to equate compassion for need and use the force of government to make sure THEIR compassion is inflicted on those who disagree. This is not charity, because charity involves willful giving, not taxation and force.

If policies existed in the 50's that everyone agreed were fair

You assume that 'everyone agreed' they WERE 'fair'. Secondly, other than say, Social Security, most of the rest of the social safety hammock did not exist. No Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, School Lunch and DOZENS of redundant welfare programs for individuals and corporations did not exist. But we also had a very regressive tax rate cumulative over 80% when consumption, income and state taxes are included.

You know, I'd be interested in reverting almost all our government policies back to sayyyyy.... 1951, when the Dept of Transportation was created by Ike and eliminate ALL the rest created after that, especially HHS, Ed, Energy, HUD, DHS and others. I think this would be an interesting tradeoff.



I've yet to see ANY liberal want to reverse on Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare or any other social spending programs. I'd LOVE to see that level of sanity from a liberal. But alas, what do they want to cut? Military. I can't conceive of any other program they want to cut.

Go back to clinton era tax rates?

Sure? Maybe we do the original levels when the Income Tax came into being: 1% on millionaires. I've never seen a liberal promote such things.

Its nuts.

Yes, liberalism is.

Lol awesome rebuttal. Im less than impressed.

The interesting point is that throughout all of those policies the income distribution remained fairly static until Reaganomics started. All the current trends start then.

And id like to roll back a lot of the policies of the last 10 years, thats what id like to do.

As for what to cut, are you serious??? How is the military not the first thing that people want cut? Why do we still have like 50,000 troops in germany, and what does that cost? If your looking for waste, there is no section of the budget with more.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why didnt we have this disparity from the 40's through the 70's?

There are two eras here. The 40's and 50's are dealing with post war industrial booms and expanded workforce because women were finding their place. Consumer demand was high based on war bond savings as well, plus the new technology from the war put to civilian use. This caused a run of prosperity, not SOCIAL PROGRAMS or wealth redistribution. If any social program helped it was WAR BONDS being paid out.

Then we fucked the lot with social insanity of the 1960's and 70's with social spending to 'help the poor'. Compassion overwhelmed our good sense because we had so much money to spend and be charitable with. But we mistook the job of government to include charity, which it can never be used for safely because someone will always find a way ( and 50 years of this abuse have proven this to be true) to equate compassion for need and use the force of government to make sure THEIR compassion is inflicted on those who disagree. This is not charity, because charity involves willful giving, not taxation and force.

You assume that 'everyone agreed' they WERE 'fair'. Secondly, other than say, Social Security, most of the rest of the social safety hammock did not exist. No Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, School Lunch and DOZENS of redundant welfare programs for individuals and corporations did not exist. But we also had a very regressive tax rate cumulative over 80% when consumption, income and state taxes are included.

You know, I'd be interested in reverting almost all our government policies back to sayyyyy.... 1951, when the Dept of Transportation was created by Ike and eliminate ALL the rest created after that, especially HHS, Ed, Energy, HUD, DHS and others. I think this would be an interesting tradeoff.



I've yet to see ANY liberal want to reverse on Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare or any other social spending programs. I'd LOVE to see that level of sanity from a liberal. But alas, what do they want to cut? Military. I can't conceive of any other program they want to cut.

Sure? Maybe we do the original levels when the Income Tax came into being: 1% on millionaires. I've never seen a liberal promote such things.

Its nuts.

Yes, liberalism is.

Lol awesome rebuttal. Im less than impressed.

The interesting point is that throughout all of those policies the income distribution remained fairly static until Reaganomics started. All the current trends start then.

And id like to roll back a lot of the policies of the last 10 years, thats what id like to do.

As for what to cut, are you serious??? How is the military not the first thing that people want cut? Why do we still have like 50,000 troops in germany, and what does that cost? If your looking for waste, there is no section of the budget with more.

Okay, I have no problem bringing back all foreign stationed troops. What's our exit strategy from WW1 anyway, or WW2 or Korea? I've no issue with ending our involvement in NATO, SEATO and every other strategic alliance we have and let the nations we protect with our force fend for themselves. **** em. Let them bear the true brunt of needing to train and supply their military adequately and we'll bring our troops home the same way we left Subic Bay in the Philippines.

You want real change? Fine, roll back the changes back to the 1950's like you were so psyched about doing before. Then roll back the MILITARY stance to PRE Teddy Roosevelt standards and the great ******* white fleet sticking it's nose in the rest of the world's business. You'll be sitting on so much idle money, you'd be forced to give it back to people and improve their lives by dropping the tax burden to a mere pittance.

BTW, the last time we tried to shut down Einhoven or any other European base, the host country FREAKED out at the lost revenue from our coffers in the form of capital spent there by the troops as well as the official wealth transfers for base rentals.

You want your cake and to eat it too. Once you can accept that as wrong, you'll be able to mature in your stance and understanding of liberalism. I don't care whether I impress an anonymous name and avatar on the interwebs who's a tad daft.

 

[expat_panama]

...income distribution remained fairly static until Reaganomics started. All the current trends start then. And id like to roll back a lot of the policies of the last 10 years, thats what id like to do...

Seriuouly, I'd be grateful if you'd please tell me your goal and your plan. Do you want to make incomes equal or do you want the state to control income distribution and keep disparity below 35%? Which programs are to be abolished to make it happen?

 

[Big Fitz]

Income is not distributed... it is earned. If you do not work, you cannot earn.

How come liberals cannot GET this concept?

 

[cbirch2]

...income distribution remained fairly static until Reaganomics started. All the current trends start then. And id like to roll back a lot of the policies of the last 10 years, thats what id like to do...

Seriuouly, I'd be grateful if you'd please tell me your goal and your plan. Do you want to make incomes equal or do you want the state to control income distribution and keep disparity below 35%? Which programs are to be abolished to make it happen?

Its almost like you think there is no middle ground between laissez faire and communism... No one, NO ONE, is saying we should just cap personal wealth, that there is a limit to how much someone should make, or anything like that. No one, its a massive fantasy.

Conservatives always claim liberals are attacking success, but were not at all. The problem with the conservative free market ideology is simple, you think everyone is paid exactly according to the value of their output. Where does that happen? No, rather than pay their workers rightful wages corporations would rather keep wages down and pocket some extra cash.

No, workers are not compensated fairly. That rise in hourly compensation even includes healthcare costs. The fact that compensation rises to meet rising healthcare costs doesnt make someone richer. When you subtract benefits, which are mostly just inflating in price and not giving people more value, real wages have been stagnant. Even the two decades before this graph the chart is pretty much the same.

I would just like corporations to pay people what they deserve. Having the government of a capitalist country accomplish that is tricky, admittedly. Some incentive structure could be created, although the best solution would probably have been to not break the unions in the 80's. But you seem to think liberals just want to dictate pay, like some communist regime. But we dont, and the repetitive insinuation that we do is totally at odds with reality.

Yet a better solution is to remove healthcare as compensation entirely, and pay for it a different way. "Obamacare" is actually a step in the right direction. Far too small a step, which should be expected since its basically republican free market healthcare reform, but a step in the right direction regardless.

But no one is just saying "once you get so rich were just going to take your money and give it to poor people". No one is saying that the government will come in and control wages. I'm all for success; I strive for success in my daily life. Each person should make their own path, and should accomplish all they can on their own. But an individual just doesnt have control over all the aspects of his life. If you arent being paid enough to move out of the shithole town you were born in and cant find another job no matter how much you try, is that your fault?

If medical bills send you into bankruptcy, is that your fault?

 

[kwc57]

Why didnt we have this disparity from the 40's through the 70's?

There are two eras here. The 40's and 50's are dealing with post war industrial booms and expanded workforce because women were finding their place. Consumer demand was high based on war bond savings as well, plus the new technology from the war put to civilian use. This caused a run of prosperity, not SOCIAL PROGRAMS or wealth redistribution. If any social program helped it was WAR BONDS being paid out.

Then we fucked the lot with social insanity of the 1960's and 70's with social spending to 'help the poor'. Compassion overwhelmed our good sense because we had so much money to spend and be charitable with. But we mistook the job of government to include charity, which it can never be used for safely because someone will always find a way ( and 50 years of this abuse have proven this to be true) to equate compassion for need and use the force of government to make sure THEIR compassion is inflicted on those who disagree. This is not charity, because charity involves willful giving, not taxation and force.

You assume that 'everyone agreed' they WERE 'fair'. Secondly, other than say, Social Security, most of the rest of the social safety hammock did not exist. No Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, School Lunch and DOZENS of redundant welfare programs for individuals and corporations did not exist. But we also had a very regressive tax rate cumulative over 80% when consumption, income and state taxes are included.

You know, I'd be interested in reverting almost all our government policies back to sayyyyy.... 1951, when the Dept of Transportation was created by Ike and eliminate ALL the rest created after that, especially HHS, Ed, Energy, HUD, DHS and others. I think this would be an interesting tradeoff.



I've yet to see ANY liberal want to reverse on Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare or any other social spending programs. I'd LOVE to see that level of sanity from a liberal. But alas, what do they want to cut? Military. I can't conceive of any other program they want to cut.

Sure? Maybe we do the original levels when the Income Tax came into being: 1% on millionaires. I've never seen a liberal promote such things.

Its nuts.

Yes, liberalism is.

Lol awesome rebuttal. Im less than impressed.

The interesting point is that throughout all of those policies the income distribution remained fairly static until Reaganomics started. All the current trends start then.

And id like to roll back a lot of the policies of the last 10 years, thats what id like to do.

As for what to cut, are you serious??? How is the military not the first thing that people want cut? Why do we still have like 50,000 troops in germany, and what does that cost? If your looking for waste, there is no section of the budget with more.

Then you obviously are not very bright, are you?

 

[kwc57]

...income distribution remained fairly static until Reaganomics started. All the current trends start then. And id like to roll back a lot of the policies of the last 10 years, thats what id like to do...

Seriuouly, I'd be grateful if you'd please tell me your goal and your plan. Do you want to make incomes equal or do you want the state to control income distribution and keep disparity below 35%? Which programs are to be abolished to make it happen?

Its almost like you think there is no middle ground between laissez faire and communism... No one, NO ONE, is saying we should just cap personal wealth, that there is a limit to how much someone should make, or anything like that. No one, its a massive fantasy.

Conservatives always claim liberals are attacking success, but were not at all. The problem with the conservative free market ideology is simple, you think everyone is paid exactly according to the value of their output. Where does that happen? No, rather than pay their workers rightful wages corporations would rather keep wages down and pocket some extra cash.

Really? You need to get out more if you are that unaware, or you need to quit lying if you are.

Is it Time for a Cap on Personal Wealth? - New Renaissance Magazine: Renaissance Universal

"I can’t speak for all those who have come out on the streets or have expressed themselves in other ways. But if someone were to ask me what “we” want, the first item on the top of my list would be that society should enact a cap on personal wealth......

........The solution to this problem is not to enact a maximum wage bill or even a maximum income bill. Such measures would only address part of the problem, and leave a few people with their wealth intact. Rather it is time for a more drastic measure: establish the upper limit on individual wealth holdings, and to confiscate and redistribute the excess wealth........."

http://207.45.186.66/~galgitr6/Meme/OurTenets.htm

In the attempt to remove the systematic corporate enslavement of humanity by their greed instinct, this tenet will make it meaningless to pursue massive wealth for selfish purposes. Unlike the concept of communism, which attempts to level the playing field for everyone, this tenet merely 'caps' the maximum wealth one can obtain, at a very comfortable level, enough so that a person can live quite a good life, free from work, with some luxuries, etc. However, any further accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth (power) does nothing but enslave the masses to support such wealth, and that is the definition of tyranny. Excess of wealth should be spent assisting your fellow humans in altruistic fashion.

Maximum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Optimum Wealth | The Wealth Cap

 

[cbirch2]

Seriuouly, I'd be grateful if you'd please tell me your goal and your plan. Do you want to make incomes equal or do you want the state to control income distribution and keep disparity below 35%? Which programs are to be abolished to make it happen?

Its almost like you think there is no middle ground between laissez faire and communism... No one, NO ONE, is saying we should just cap personal wealth, that there is a limit to how much someone should make, or anything like that. No one, its a massive fantasy.

Conservatives always claim liberals are attacking success, but were not at all. The problem with the conservative free market ideology is simple, you think everyone is paid exactly according to the value of their output. Where does that happen? No, rather than pay their workers rightful wages corporations would rather keep wages down and pocket some extra cash.

Really? You need to get out more if you are that unaware, or you need to quit lying if you are.

Is it Time for a Cap on Personal Wealth? - New Renaissance Magazine: Renaissance Universal

"I can’t speak for all those who have come out on the streets or have expressed themselves in other ways. But if someone were to ask me what “we” want, the first item on the top of my list would be that society should enact a cap on personal wealth......

........The solution to this problem is not to enact a maximum wage bill or even a maximum income bill. Such measures would only address part of the problem, and leave a few people with their wealth intact. Rather it is time for a more drastic measure: establish the upper limit on individual wealth holdings, and to confiscate and redistribute the excess wealth........."

http://207.45.186.66/~galgitr6/Meme/OurTenets.htm

In the attempt to remove the systematic corporate enslavement of humanity by their greed instinct, this tenet will make it meaningless to pursue massive wealth for selfish purposes. Unlike the concept of communism, which attempts to level the playing field for everyone, this tenet merely 'caps' the maximum wealth one can obtain, at a very comfortable level, enough so that a person can live quite a good life, free from work, with some luxuries, etc. However, any further accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth (power) does nothing but enslave the masses to support such wealth, and that is the definition of tyranny. Excess of wealth should be spent assisting your fellow humans in altruistic fashion.

Maximum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Optimum Wealth | The Wealth Cap

Lol thats the best you can do? RU.com? Wealthcap.com? Some obscure shit ive never even heard of?

Ok ill make a small concession. I'm sure someone out there is probably talking about it. But anyone that matters? Is it a serious discussion? Is there any chance that the senate or the president will come out and say "No one is going to make more than 100 million a year"? Nope. Its a pointless distraction from what is actually practical.

Again, your argument is just not very convincing. something called RU magazine, whose website looks shotty at best, isnt exactly representative of the substantive policy discussion going on this country. im sure i could find some random right-wing website saying something crazy. does that mean i should act as if boehner said it and spend all my time refuting it? Or is that a waste of time?

 

[kwc57]

Its almost like you think there is no middle ground between laissez faire and communism... No one, NO ONE, is saying we should just cap personal wealth, that there is a limit to how much someone should make, or anything like that. No one, its a massive fantasy.

Conservatives always claim liberals are attacking success, but were not at all. The problem with the conservative free market ideology is simple, you think everyone is paid exactly according to the value of their output. Where does that happen? No, rather than pay their workers rightful wages corporations would rather keep wages down and pocket some extra cash.

Really? You need to get out more if you are that unaware, or you need to quit lying if you are.

Is it Time for a Cap on Personal Wealth? - New Renaissance Magazine: Renaissance Universal

"I can’t speak for all those who have come out on the streets or have expressed themselves in other ways. But if someone were to ask me what “we” want, the first item on the top of my list would be that society should enact a cap on personal wealth......

........The solution to this problem is not to enact a maximum wage bill or even a maximum income bill. Such measures would only address part of the problem, and leave a few people with their wealth intact. Rather it is time for a more drastic measure: establish the upper limit on individual wealth holdings, and to confiscate and redistribute the excess wealth........."

http://207.45.186.66/~galgitr6/Meme/OurTenets.htm

In the attempt to remove the systematic corporate enslavement of humanity by their greed instinct, this tenet will make it meaningless to pursue massive wealth for selfish purposes. Unlike the concept of communism, which attempts to level the playing field for everyone, this tenet merely 'caps' the maximum wealth one can obtain, at a very comfortable level, enough so that a person can live quite a good life, free from work, with some luxuries, etc. However, any further accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth (power) does nothing but enslave the masses to support such wealth, and that is the definition of tyranny. Excess of wealth should be spent assisting your fellow humans in altruistic fashion.

Maximum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Optimum Wealth | The Wealth Cap

Lol thats the best you can do? RU.com? Wealthcap.com? Some obscure shit ive never even heard of?

Ok ill make a small concession. I'm sure someone out there is probably talking about it. But anyone that matters? Is it a serious discussion? Is there any chance that the senate or the president will come out and say "No one is going to make more than 100 million a year"? Nope. Its a pointless distraction from what is actually practical.

Again, your argument is just not very convincing. something called RU magazine, whose website looks shotty at best, isnt exactly representative of the substantive policy discussion going on this country. im sure i could find some random right-wing website saying something crazy. does that mean i should act as if boehner said it and spend all my time refuting it? Or is that a waste of time?

Thank you for conceding.

Really? Ever here of "spread the wealth" or "fair share" or listened to any of the OWS talking points? What do you think is the final desiredd outcome of those initial beginnings? You're here on this board where the liberals complain about the 1% stealing all of the wealth from the 99% and you don't think there are people who would like to see a cap on those greedy sonsabitches 1%'ers? Would you be interested in buying a bridge?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

income distribution remained fairly static until Reaganomics started. All the current trends start then.

cbirch will get one thing right one day!!



Domhoff: (arch uber liberal) Numerous studies show that the wealth distribution has been extremely concentrated throughout American history, with the top 1% already owning 40-50% in large port cities like Boston, New York, and Charleston in the 19th century (Keister, 2005). It was very stable over the course of the 20th century, although there were small declines in the aftermath of the New Deal and World II,
Moreover, it is about the same in the European socialist paradises!!! Sorry

Western countries wealth owned
by top 10%
Switzerland 71.3%
United States 69.8%
Denmark 65.0%
France 61.0%

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, rather than pay their workers rightful wages corporations would rather keep wages down and pocket some extra cash.

of course thats 100% absurd. If corporations don't pay the highest wages possible they lose their best workers to competitors who do.

Econ. 101 , class one, day one. It would identical to saying corporations like to raise prices to pocket some more cash! Why not wait till college or clear your posts with parents beforehand?

 

[daveman]

Its almost like you think there is no middle ground between laissez faire and communism... No one, NO ONE, is saying we should just cap personal wealth, that there is a limit to how much someone should make, or anything like that. No one, its a massive fantasy.

Conservatives always claim liberals are attacking success, but were not at all. The problem with the conservative free market ideology is simple, you think everyone is paid exactly according to the value of their output. Where does that happen? No, rather than pay their workers rightful wages corporations would rather keep wages down and pocket some extra cash.

Really? You need to get out more if you are that unaware, or you need to quit lying if you are.

Is it Time for a Cap on Personal Wealth? - New Renaissance Magazine: Renaissance Universal

"I can’t speak for all those who have come out on the streets or have expressed themselves in other ways. But if someone were to ask me what “we” want, the first item on the top of my list would be that society should enact a cap on personal wealth......

........The solution to this problem is not to enact a maximum wage bill or even a maximum income bill. Such measures would only address part of the problem, and leave a few people with their wealth intact. Rather it is time for a more drastic measure: establish the upper limit on individual wealth holdings, and to confiscate and redistribute the excess wealth........."

http://207.45.186.66/~galgitr6/Meme/OurTenets.htm

In the attempt to remove the systematic corporate enslavement of humanity by their greed instinct, this tenet will make it meaningless to pursue massive wealth for selfish purposes. Unlike the concept of communism, which attempts to level the playing field for everyone, this tenet merely 'caps' the maximum wealth one can obtain, at a very comfortable level, enough so that a person can live quite a good life, free from work, with some luxuries, etc. However, any further accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth (power) does nothing but enslave the masses to support such wealth, and that is the definition of tyranny. Excess of wealth should be spent assisting your fellow humans in altruistic fashion.

Maximum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Optimum Wealth | The Wealth Cap

Lol thats the best you can do? RU.com? Wealthcap.com? Some obscure shit ive never even heard of?

Ok ill make a small concession. I'm sure someone out there is probably talking about it. But anyone that matters? Is it a serious discussion? Is there any chance that the senate or the president will come out and say "No one is going to make more than 100 million a year"? Nope. Its a pointless distraction from what is actually practical.

Again, your argument is just not very convincing. something called RU magazine, whose website looks shotty at best, isnt exactly representative of the substantive policy discussion going on this country. im sure i could find some random right-wing website saying something crazy. does that mean i should act as if boehner said it and spend all my time refuting it? Or is that a waste of time?

You said, "No one, NO ONE, is saying we should just cap personal wealth...", not "No one, NO ONE, I ever heard of or think matters is saying we should just cap personal wealth..."

You should be more specific when you make claims. That way you don't have to move the goalposts later.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, rather than pay their workers rightful wages corporations would rather keep wages down and pocket some extra cash.

workers would rather pocket some extra cash by keeping wages up too. How fair are workers to corporations when corporations now routinely face cut throat international competition?

Also, you assume that wages are a zero sum game,i.e., that when workers get rich owners must get poor. In reality both over the last 100 years of capitalism have gotten far richer.

 

[cbirch2]

Really? You need to get out more if you are that unaware, or you need to quit lying if you are.

Is it Time for a Cap on Personal Wealth? - New Renaissance Magazine: Renaissance Universal

"I can’t speak for all those who have come out on the streets or have expressed themselves in other ways. But if someone were to ask me what “we” want, the first item on the top of my list would be that society should enact a cap on personal wealth......

........The solution to this problem is not to enact a maximum wage bill or even a maximum income bill. Such measures would only address part of the problem, and leave a few people with their wealth intact. Rather it is time for a more drastic measure: establish the upper limit on individual wealth holdings, and to confiscate and redistribute the excess wealth........."

http://207.45.186.66/~galgitr6/Meme/OurTenets.htm

In the attempt to remove the systematic corporate enslavement of humanity by their greed instinct, this tenet will make it meaningless to pursue massive wealth for selfish purposes. Unlike the concept of communism, which attempts to level the playing field for everyone, this tenet merely 'caps' the maximum wealth one can obtain, at a very comfortable level, enough so that a person can live quite a good life, free from work, with some luxuries, etc. However, any further accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth (power) does nothing but enslave the masses to support such wealth, and that is the definition of tyranny. Excess of wealth should be spent assisting your fellow humans in altruistic fashion.

Maximum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Optimum Wealth | The Wealth Cap

Lol thats the best you can do? RU.com? Wealthcap.com? Some obscure shit ive never even heard of?

Ok ill make a small concession. I'm sure someone out there is probably talking about it. But anyone that matters? Is it a serious discussion? Is there any chance that the senate or the president will come out and say "No one is going to make more than 100 million a year"? Nope. Its a pointless distraction from what is actually practical.

Again, your argument is just not very convincing. something called RU magazine, whose website looks shotty at best, isnt exactly representative of the substantive policy discussion going on this country. im sure i could find some random right-wing website saying something crazy. does that mean i should act as if boehner said it and spend all my time refuting it? Or is that a waste of time?

Thank you for conceding.

Really? Ever here of "spread the wealth" or "fair share" or listened to any of the OWS talking points? What do you think is the final desiredd outcome of those initial beginnings? You're here on this board where the liberals complain about the 1% stealing all of the wealth from the 99% and you don't think there are people who would like to see a cap on those greedy sonsabitches 1%'ers? Would you be interested in buying a bridge?

I didnt concede shit. Like i said, you can find anyone making any claim, that doesnt mean its a substantive discussion. Its a distraction.

Obama has said he wants the top tax rate to go from 35% to 39%. What a communist!

 

[cbirch2]

income distribution remained fairly static until Reaganomics started. All the current trends start then.

cbirch will get one thing right one day!!



Domhoff: (arch uber liberal) Numerous studies show that the wealth distribution has been extremely concentrated throughout American history, with the top 1% already owning 40-50% in large port cities like Boston, New York, and Charleston in the 19th century (Keister, 2005). It was very stable over the course of the 20th century, although there were small declines in the aftermath of the New Deal and World II,
Moreover, it is about the same in the European socialist paradises!!! Sorry

Western countries wealth owned
by top 10%
Switzerland 71.3%
United States 69.8%
Denmark 65.0%
France 61.0%

Not exactly a steady historical trend, like you claim. Instead, the current trend begins in 1980.

 

[cbirch2]

No, rather than pay their workers rightful wages corporations would rather keep wages down and pocket some extra cash.

of course thats 100% absurd. If corporations don't pay the highest wages possible they lose their best workers to competitors who do.

Econ. 101 , class one, day one. It would identical to saying corporations like to raise prices to pocket some more cash! Why not wait till college or clear your posts with parents beforehand?

Well your econ 101 is a massive failure. Learn supply and demand. Companies do charge as much as they can for a product. If raising prices will decrease demand to offset that growth in prices, then a company wont raise prices. But on the whole a company charges as much as it can.

Econ 101: a company in a perfectly competitive market will produce where Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost. Dont throw out the "econ 101" bullshit when its obvious that youve never taken econ 101. You dont just get to make up shit and call it econ 101. MC=MR is actually textbook econ 101, while your just pulling shit out of your ass.

But, this discussion on prices is pretty much irrelevant, the discussion is labor.

Labor costs are a large portion of a businesses budget. Certainly there is a balance between paying enough to attract workers, and controlling your total labor costs. Which side is favored will probably depend on the industry. google has the money and the market stature to pay its software engineers handsomely to get the best. However, your local factory isnt in the same situation; the auto factory in my town isnt paying extra to attract talented assembly line workers.

So basically your just wrong.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama has said he wants the top tax rate to go from 35% to 39%. What a communist!

you never ever understand do you. Obama had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, supports single payer, is beloved by the CPUSA, his two mentors were communists (Rev. Wright and Frank Marshall Davis). 39% is a mere stepping stone for him!

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.