This is why we need to tax the wealthy

[Lisa558]

lol I get that you morons feel tough and manly just assuming there is an epidemic of unemployed moochers because you’re desperate for validation, but you’re all deluding yourselves. The unemployment rate is below 4%. Most people including myself have jobs. My job is mid level at my company and I am in the middle class.
Sorry to break it to you nut you aren’t special for being employed lol

That 4% just means that of the people actively looking for jobs, 4% are unemployed. All the mooches living off of OPM, and content not to have a job, don’t figure in.

 

[Markle]

You're amusing. You have this concept of ownership that is so myopic it borders on farce! I hate to break this to you but most owners don't loll around the country club drinking snifters of high-priced cognac and eating finger sandwiches. Most of them work longer hours than their employees do under a kind of stress you can't grasp unless you ARE an owner!

I'm referring to large companies, the big-money capitalists, not small fry, mom-and-pop business owners, who have a few employees. Couldn't you figure that out by what I said previously? Usually, a pizzeria or small construction company doesn't have "upper management", in the sense that I was referring to. I work with multibillion-dollar companies and those are the ones where workers should be unionized. Becoming part of a union when working with small businesses also has its benefits, but my criticism is mostly directed at the big-money, not mom-and-pop hardware store owners, trying to compete with Home Depot.

Such small businesses are usually owned by working-class people, who labored HARD for decades saving their money and protecting their credit, to one day fulfill their dream of having their own business. Usually, such people treat their workers with a bit more heart and compassion than the big-money boys, who don't want to work. They purchase companies and sell them as soon as possible. They hire others to do the heavy lifting, to stay up all night as you described, worrying about the business. These big-money capitalists are the ones at the country club drinking high-priced cognac and eating finger sandwiches.

If you're an employee you get paid first...not last...you get paid whether the business makes money or not.

Overhead, correct. That's what it takes to run a for-profit business.

There is no guarantee like that if you're an owner. If you're simply a worker?

That depends on what your credit is, what connections you have in the industry, and how many cronies you have working for you in government. If you're referring to a large company the owner/s most likely are wealthy investors, who are able to take the hit. A single mother trying to make ends meet with her wages doesn't enjoy much of the financial security of many of these big business owners, so I'm more concerned for the working class.

I prioritize the needs of workers, over those of employers, but that doesn't imply that I dismiss the legitimate needs and concerns of employers. They also have to make a profit and be successful. I support employers who care for their workers, and I don't care if they're at the county club all day, provided that they have enough control over the business from their poolside comforters to pay a decent living wage, provide some benefits to their employees, an acceptable, caring work environment. etc.

When you clock out for the day your worries are over.

Not really, that depends on what type of work you do. I code CNC machines and organize projects from home, so I work at the factory and home and I don't charge any extra fees, for those hours I spend working at home.
However, workers have a right to a family life and not be like me. Not all jobs require people to be planning for the next day at home or going over training or product manuals in their workshop at home.

Employees are paid/bought/rented for eight, ten, and twelve hours per shift and if they go home and decide to take the workplace out of their minds and activities, that's their prerogative. If you want these workers to do more work from home, pay them. I like what I do, and I don't demand payment for what I do at home for my employer, but I could. My wife and others in my family have remarked that I should charge my employer for what I do at home.

You're not worrying about how you're going to make payroll.

If I don't do my job, I don't make payroll. I have to work, so I'm not clear on what you mean here. I have to worry about performing well at my job, to get paid. I offer a service to my employer, which involves me being present at the business, and doing my job. So I'm not sure what you mean, maybe you can elaborate further.

You're not worried about costs of materials going through the roof or not being available at all.

The owners of a large business, don't have to worry about that either. They have a purchasing department and specialists taking care of all of that, while they drink their high-priced spirits and eat finger sandwiches at the gentlemen's club. throwing dollar bills at the ladies. Seriously, even if a business owner has to take care of such tasks, that's better than most of the work their employees have to do. They're also making a lot more money, sometimes 100, 1000 times more than the average salary in their companies, so I don't feel sorry for them at all. They're doing great, even if they have to make a few phone calls to take care of the roof and talk to a few people, big deal.

You're not worried about competition coming in and undercutting your profits.

Employees also have to keep that in mind, but not to the extent as the owner of the business, obviously. That's just part of doing business, you have to compete with other capitalists. As a business owner, you don't necessarily have to have most of the market share to make a decent profit, or to hold your niche in the marketplace. If business owners are 100% committed to making more money, even at the expense of their workers, why would anyone expect workers to give their employers any free handouts?

Do you expect workers to do more work beyond their shifts, at home, or do extra work while on the job, when their employer is not willing to do anything extra for them? Think about it. Sometimes an employer should take less if it means improving work conditions and taking good care of his workers. If not, then don't expect workers to do more for that type of employer. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

You can go home, put your feet up and relax.

Yeah, and I should, ask my wife and children, they'll agree.

I've been on both sides of that equation.

I grew up working in a family business, so I'm aware of how it works and how the wealthy think. I was raised in that environment. Upper-Middle Class, Miami, Florida, Pinecrest, that should say it all. I was raised in a household with an annual net income of a quarter million dollars in the 1970s and 80s. Many of my friends had millionaire parents and lived in mansions with boat slips. My family's house was pretty big, three blocks from the bay.

Are there good things about being an owner? Very much so.

Yes indeed.

But along with that comes sleepless nights and heartburn.

Sleepless nights in a 700 square ft master bedroom and taking Pepto from a medicine cabinet in a luxury "pimped out" bathroom, with a big bubbling jacuzzi bathtub, isn't that bad. Believe me, especially when you have a few million bucks in savings and great credit.

It takes guts to be an owner.

That depends on the type of business and the owner. Not necessarily. I would say the same about the employees. It takes guts to wake up in the morning and go to work in a factory with machinery that can crush you into a bloody pancake and in an environment that could easily turn you into a wet red puddle of dying protoplasm on the concrete floor below.

View attachment 888557

View attachment 888558​

You have to take chances.

Yes, that's right, we all do. That's life.

If you screw up you might lose it all.

Maybe you shouldn't be in business if not succeeding means you end up under a bridge. Business is a gamble, you might make it, or you might not. That's how it works. Welcome to the real world, where capitalists compete with one another for market share and workers compete for jobs and have every right to advance their interests, and meet their needs, just like capitalists do. Of course, within that employer-employee relationship, there is a serious power imbalance, and that's why workers should have the legal right to organize labor unions among themselves, without being harassed, threatened, or fired by their employers.

The idea that an employer has the right to dismiss a worker saying:

"Hey, if you don't like it here, go to hell, find another job. I only buy one filter a month for that machine and I don't care if it begins emitting toxic fumes after two weeks, deal with it. I don't have to do anything else legally, because the government regulation which I helped write into law by bribing politicians, states that I am only obligated to buy one filter for that machine monthly. So I'm not spending an extra $500 monthly for another filter, there's the door bucko".

Mind you, this is a profitable business, with over 1000 employees. The business can and must buy that extra filter, for that machine, whether they want to or not. That's part of the cost of doing business (i.e. overhead). People being forced to leave their jobs, after taking the risk of moving their whole family, from one city to another, or from another state in the country to another state 2000 miles away, to work a job, only to be told by the owner of the company "GO FKYRSLF breath the gas", that's unacceptable.

That is less likely to occur when 80% of those 1000 workers are unionized. The union representative enters the owner's office and says:

"You're going to have to spend an extra $500 monthly for that second filter, or purchase a better quality filter because that machine is releasing toxic gas and although people aren't getting sick now, they're breathing it in and sooner or later, you're going to get sued. We'll give you two months to fix the filter issue with that machine and if you don't do it, we'll strike".

Only a union rep can talk to a powerful, wealthy employer like that.

Remember this though, Christian...if it wasn't for people taking chances...workers like you wouldn't have a job period!

What a skewed view of the world you have. If it wasn't for people like me taking chances and applying my high-level skills at the job, capitalists wouldn't have a business or any customers to buy their products. Everyone takes risks, in their own way as I mentioned earlier. Look at those construction workers standing over a thousand feet above New York City. Look at that worker, standing in front of that machine, that could easily crush him. There are different types of risks, and the ones that workers consistently make often involve their health and lives.

View attachment 888568

View attachment 888564

View attachment 888565

View attachment 888566​

We don't need capitalists for jobs, we can have the government employ us or with the assistance of the SBA (Small Business Administration), the working-class can launch worker-cooperatives, that do everything that a privately owned enterprises does. Capitalists are unnecessary middlemen, especially in the modern age, with all of the technology we have available today.

All you're looking for when you trade in Capitalism for Communism is a different boss.

The US government is the boss we're going to need to have out of necessity when it comes to the production of goods and services, due to advanced automation. However, the good thing about allowing the government to do all of the accounting and logistics of production and providing the facilities and machinery, is that it's a boss that is accountable to the public. This boss is comprised of a group of elected officials that organize the Department of Commerce and Labor in such a way, that every American citizen and legal resident enjoys a high standard of living and beautiful life, full of resources.

Robots work 24/7, producing everything that we consume. People will need to work less supervising the system and will have more than what they have now under capitalism.

You're still taking orders.

I don't have a problem with following rules and acknowledging authority, provided it's legitimate and isn't only out for "numero uno". That authority figure or system has to serve the community and be accountable to it. If it's incompetent or oppressive there should always be a way to strip that person or system of its abusive authority. It's that simple.

We replace congressional districts with community councils that elect their delegates to Congress and that's how we maintain control of the government. I'm a communist that believes in democracy, the rule of the people, not the rule of one socioeconomic class over another, or the rule of kings and queens. I'm for the legal rule of the people (the rule of laws established by the people), in a constitutional, Republican, socialist government.


Only under Communism there is a limit to what you can achieve.

No less than under capitalism.

Under Capitalism, the only limits are the ones that you set yourself.

That depends on what type of capitalism is in place. In a mixed economy where there is equality of opportunity and the nation's infrastructure supports and serves the public good, capitalism can indeed provide people with many opportunities. However, In a form of capitalism that doesn't prioritize the public good and is only focused on private profits and power, there are many limits set by the circumstances created by the system. Gross inequality, poor working conditions for workers, stagnant wages without many benefits, a high cost of living, limited access to healthcare, to an education, and crumbling infrastructure, all undermine a person's ability to actualize their fullest potential.

Come on, get a life! Your diatribes are not read much less persuasive.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm referring to right-wing conservatives, who for the most part, don't complain when corporations receive services and resources from the government but are full of criticism for working-class people when they receive services and resources from the government.

I'm not even against the government helping a business, especially if it's a company with a large number of employees, that treats its workers well. I'm against the hypocrisy of many conservative Republicans who don't condemn the rich for getting assistance from the government but can't stop accusing working people of being lazy bums because they get services and resources from the government.

You've set up a straw man and are attacking it with a hammer.

 

[TruthNotBS]

If you want to address a group, address the group. Otherwise, address me and my comments.


I condemn the government for giving the money.

You seem to expect the government that is guilty of massive wasteful spending to solve your economic problems for you.

I expect the government to meet its obligations, which are to protect our rights and yes, provide services. Unlike you, I work and pay my taxes and the government uses its resources to develop infrastructure and resources for its citizens, that's why we created the government in the first place. Duh.

 

[SweetTea]

Total GDP, maybe...due in part to triple the population.

Yeah, not even total GDP, so you can imagine disparity in GDP per capita.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The Soviet Union was built on sand. It required huge western aid to advance at all.


Total GDP, maybe...due in part to triple the population.

The USSR didn't have triple the population of the US:

Cold War: U.S. and USSR populations 1970-1990| Statista

Throughout the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union had relatively similar total populations.

www.statista.com

Not even double the population. The Soviet Union didn't receive any aid from the US after WW2, unlike Western Europe and Japan (The Marshal Plan). It had to pick itself up by its own bootstraps and rebuild its country from the ruins of the war. Only socialism can achieve that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The USSR didn't have triple the population of the US:

Cold War: U.S. and USSR populations 1970-1990| Statista

Throughout the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union had relatively similar total populations.

www.statista.com

Not even double the population. The Soviet Union didn't receive any aid from the US after WW2, unlike Western Europe and Japan (The Marshal Plan). It had to pick itself up by its own bootstraps and rebuild its country from the ruins of the war. Only socialism can achieve that.

Work on reading comprehension.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Work on reading comprehension.

Lick your wounds moron. The USSR didn't have anywhere near three times the population of the US, it didn't have 50% more of the population. Get your head out of your ass.

 

[Mashmont]

The USSR didn't have triple the population of the US:

Cold War: U.S. and USSR populations 1970-1990| Statista

Throughout the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union had relatively similar total populations.

www.statista.com

Not even double the population. The Soviet Union didn't receive any aid from the US after WW2, unlike Western Europe and Japan (The Marshal Plan). It had to pick itself up by its own bootstraps and rebuild its country from the ruins of the war. Only socialism can achieve that.

Socialism doesn't and can't build wealth.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Yeah, not even total GDP, so you can imagine disparity in GDP per capita.

Your disingenuous assertion focuses on the per capita GDP disparity between the USSR and the USA, implying that the economic success of the USSR was not as significant when individual prosperity is considered. However, this perspective overlooks several critical historical contexts and achievements of the USSR. First of all, it doesn't matter how you shake it, the USSR was the second-largest economy in the world by 1970, despite all of the challenges. I already presented evidence in an earlier post, which you flippantly dismissed with your magical wand, that most of the Russians who were born in the USSR and lived there as adults, miss the USSR. They stated that their lives were good, as Soviet citizens.

​

Moreover, the US came out of WW2 unscathed compared to the USSR. America is surrounded by two vast oceans that function as HUGE WALLS, against invasion. The USSR lost 14% of its population in WW2, with approximately 28 million dead. Much of its national infrastructure was in ruins. The US only lost 0.03% of its population in the war, with about 460 thousand dead. The Soviets lost 50 times more people in the war, than the US, safely situated between those two HUGE WALLS. The US became the manufacturing hub of the world, making the USD the reserve currency of international trade and banking. You're at best, disingenuous, in how you judge the USSR's accomplishments in light of history and just common sense, which you apparently lack due to your Cold War, capitalist brainwashing.

1. Industrialization and Historical Head Start: The USA had a significant head start in industrialization, dating back to the late 18th century, whereas the USSR began as a largely agrarian society. This disparity in starting points is crucial. Despite this, the USSR managed to transform its economy and infrastructure at a remarkably rapid pace, narrowing the industrial gap.
2. Impact of Wars and Lack of External Support: The USSR faced immense challenges, including invasions and the devastation of World War II. Unlike Western Europe, which benefited from substantial American aid for post-war reconstruction (i.e. Marshall Plan), the USSR was forced to rebuild its country, picking itself up by its own bootstraps.
3. Rapid Technological and Military Advancements: Within a relatively short time after WWII, the USSR emerged as a nuclear superpower, directly challenging the USA's dominance. This rapid advancement, including significant milestones in space exploration like launching satellites and cosmonauts, was achieved without the external support that many capitalist countries enjoyed.
4. Comparative Achievements and Timeframe: The assertion that the USSR achieved in a few decades what took capitalist nations much longer to accomplish is notable. It underscores the effectiveness of the socialist system in mobilizing resources and achieving rapid industrialization and technological progress, despite starting from a less advantageous position and facing numerous external challenges.

While per capita GDP is a relevant metric, it does not fully capture the historical context, the challenges faced, and the significant achievements of the USSR.

 

[Nostra]

Come on, get a life! Your diatribes are not read much less persuasive.

I just put CommieMan on ignore because my fingers were getting worn out scrolling past his long winded, Commie manifesto cut and paste diatribes.

Makes it much easier to read a thread.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Socialism doesn't and can't build wealth.

It builds real wealth, for everyone who works. Not just for a privileged few.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Lick your wounds moron. The USSR didn't have anywhere near three times the population of the US, it didn't have 50% more of the population. Get your head out of your ass.

I DIDN’T SAY THAT, YOU GIBBERING IDIOT!

 

[Billy000]

That 4% just means that of the people actively looking for jobs, 4% are unemployed. All the mooches living off of OPM, and content not to have a job, don’t figure in.

You’re talking about mostly housewives, the disabled, students at least 16, and the retired. Are there some moochers in there? Of course. There just isn’t some epidemic of them.

 

[Mashmont]

It builds real wealth, for everyone who works. Not just for a privileged few.

Socialism makes the privileged few very wealthy. Socialists in the US Congress made millions off the backs of taxpayers. Socialist economies lacks incentive to do well.

 

[pknopp]

Socialism makes the privileged few very wealthy.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/10/wealthy-own-record-share-stock-market

 

[Lisa558]

You’re talking about mostly housewives, the disabled, students at least 16, and the retired. Are there some moochers in there? Of course. There just isn’t some epidemic of them.

Puh-lease. There are plenty of able-bodied adults on welfare.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Socialism makes the privileged few very wealthy. Socialists in the US Congress made millions off the backs of taxpayers. Socialist economies lacks incentive to do well.

You're confusing capitalism with socialism. Actual socialists serve the public good, rather than corporations at the expense of everyone else. Socialism is the future, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

 

[francoHFW]

Didn't somebody somewhere else try this?

Oh yeah, the USSR. How'd that Workers Paradise turn out?

******* idiot

It's why you're dimocraps -- You never learn. Not ever.

Nobody is for communism, chump of greedy lying megarich swine.... and socialism is fair capitalism and always democratic. Ask anyone who not an English speaking Tory dupe....Vive la difference

 

[francoHFW]

Puh-lease. There are plenty of able-bodied adults on welfare.

Probably scared of idiot GOP COVID carriers. Or crap gop jobs. Not so many now...