War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Boss]

Conservative icons Friedrich Hayek and Martin Friedman supported the basic income.

Capitalist, for the most part, have no problem with "basic income" because, as a matter of fact, a basic income actually helps them. Once you've baselined labor cost, it makes the rest of the formula for success easier to manage and manipulate. You've protected employers from the forces of free market capitalism, they don't have to compete for labor anymore, it's baselined.

 

[Boss]

"War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man"

Actually, the OP's thread premise fails as one of the dumbest straw man fallacies, given the fact there's no 'war' on the rich.

Actually, YOU are the dumbest strawman fallacy. You attack every facet of free market capitalism, vilify the results of free market capitalism, lament the ramblings of 19th century Marxists, smear and insult anyone who has ever obtained wealth in a free market capitalist system, then prance around claiming there is no war on the rich!

If there is a dumber ****** on this planet, it's someone who believes what you just posted.

 

[occupied]

"War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man"

Actually, the OP's thread premise fails as one of the dumbest straw man fallacies, given the fact there's no 'war' on the rich.

Course there isn't, if we were really having a war on the rich there would be hundreds if not thousands of financial industry executives in jail serving hard time for their part in the economic melt down.

 

[Boss]

"War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man"

Actually, the OP's thread premise fails as one of the dumbest straw man fallacies, given the fact there's no 'war' on the rich.

Course there isn't, if we were really having a war on the rich there would be hundreds if not thousands of financial industry executives in jail serving hard time for their part in the economic melt down.

And if you could figure out how to use the power of government to do that, you'd do it in a heartbeat. Case closed!

 

[tuhaybey]

Chart shows that it's been downhill since The Great Society and moving off of gold. Any coincidence?

Actually the chart shows it go way up after the Great Society. It doesn't start going down until 1974.

 

[tuhaybey]

What none of your charts factor in is the costs incurred by the employers and to what percentage those have also increased exponentially over the same period. Government regulations, fees, taxes, mandates... all the things you've lobbied government to do for the workers.

False. Productivity is the amount of revenue created per worker that is left after expenses have been paid.

Why should the worker be compensated for increased productivity he didn't produce or have anything to do with?

Sure, yes, workers should share in economic growth that is fueled by technological progress. Why would we want to just give it only to the rich?

socialist systems

Come on man. We're trying to have a serious conversation here.

 

[Contumacious]

Okay, so we're going to "punish" all these greedy capitalists on Wall Street by implementing all sorts of trade restrictions and penalties, heap more hassle and burden on them to prevent them capitalizing TOO much... .

The first attack on wealth - which was classified by the SCOTUS as the beginning of the war against the rich, began with the income tax of 1862.

.

 

[turtledude]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

ah the zero sum game nonsense of the left

its like saying if the class valedictorian earns an A, he deprives you of making the honor roll

 

[Wildman]

The OP wonders why people don't often respond to his threads.

Would he like an honest answer to that question?

==============
you liberliars could not provide an honest answer if your life depended on it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

ah the zero sum game nonsense of the left

its like saying if the class valedictorian earns an A, he deprives you of making the honor roll

There are no As,Bs,and Cs any more. You didn't earn that grade!!!!

 

[occupied]

"War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man"

Actually, the OP's thread premise fails as one of the dumbest straw man fallacies, given the fact there's no 'war' on the rich.

Course there isn't, if we were really having a war on the rich there would be hundreds if not thousands of financial industry executives in jail serving hard time for their part in the economic melt down.

And if you could figure out how to use the power of government to do that, you'd do it in a heartbeat. Case closed!

Damned right, any other type of crime gets draconian measures if it is perceived to be widespread and harmful to society, the war on drugs for example, but for some reason white collar crime goes practically unpunished. How badly does the financial industry have to **** us out of our wealth before you people give a shit? That's not a rhetorical question, you seem to think white collar crime does not exist, is it somehow unthinkable to you to slap handcuffs on someone who robs people with a fountain pen rather than a gun?

 

[turtledude]

"War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man"

Actually, the OP's thread premise fails as one of the dumbest straw man fallacies, given the fact there's no 'war' on the rich.

Course there isn't, if we were really having a war on the rich there would be hundreds if not thousands of financial industry executives in jail serving hard time for their part in the economic melt down.

And if you could figure out how to use the power of government to do that, you'd do it in a heartbeat. Case closed!

Damned right, any other type of crime gets draconian measures if it is perceived to be widespread and harmful to society, the war on drugs for example, but for some reason white collar crime goes practically unpunished. How badly does the financial industry have to **** us out of our wealth before you people give a shit? That's not a rhetorical question, you seem to think white collar crime does not exist, is it somehow unthinkable to you to slap handcuffs on someone who robs people with a fountain pen rather than a gun?

the best punishment for scammers who steal the wealth of others is to put them in the poor house

 

[blackhawk]

I just figured out how we can defeat ISIS we send them billions of dollars in financial aid making them part of the 1% so the left can then declare war on them.

 

[occupied]

I just figured out how we can defeat ISIS we send them billions of dollars in financial aid making them part of the 1% so the left can then declare war on them.

Not a very effective war so far. No one has been jailed, no one of consequence has had their assets seized, no big banks have been broken up, nothing really has come of this "war" you speak of. The complaints you hear are not a war, It's the voice of the people who do not want to be ruled by a wealthy aristocracy who manipulate the economy for their own ends and yet somehow do not have to answer for it when they blow it up.

 

[francoHFW]

Raising taxes 5% over $250k is hardly "all out war"...so brainwashed- but what pander to the rich Pubs have done to the nonrich and the country is. See sig pp1. Everyone is paying 21% in all taxes and fees now since states and localities raise raise them to make up shortfalls...see if you can spot the trend, hater dupes- we need DEMAND!!:

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg image
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[Darkwind]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

There is no such thing as wealth inequality. The entire idea presupposes the theory that all persons should have equal amounts of wealth or assets.

Just as ridiculous though is the CEO making 30000X times what his employees are making while they are on welfare. I mean you acknowledge that , right?

When the CEO was a kid he wasn't making that much. When he was a teen he wasn't making that much. As a young college student he wasn't making that much. So why is he making that much now? Because he earned a degree and was literally hired by the corporation. They made a financial offer and he accepted it. What's wrong with that?

Irrelevant. If a company can afford to pay their CEO that wage, they can afford to keep their employees off welfare rolls.

See, left and right have stupid opinions on this subject.

You have oversimplified the entire concept. A person pushing a broom does not bring to the company the same value as the CEO and of course, you leave off the fact that CEO's are often paid in stock, not wages. That puts their entire income at risk with the company which lends an incentive to do well for the company.

Can you even imagine the equestrian braying that would occur if it was suggested that a line employee should be paid ONLY if the production quota is met, or only if the company does well?

The sound would be deafening.

 

[Boss]

Productivity is the amount of revenue created per worker that is left after expenses have been paid.

Only in your dreams and memes is this the case. Productivity has nothing to do with revenue or expenses, what has or hasn't been paid, or anything with regard to remuneration to the worker. Productivity is an average measure of the efficiency of production.

PROFIT is the amount gained by capitalists after expenses have been paid.

No wonder we're having such trouble with you stupid people.

Why should the worker be compensated for increased productivity he didn't produce or have anything to do with?

Sure, yes, workers should share in economic growth that is fueled by technological progress. Why would we want to just give it only to the rich?

Uhm, because they earned it and you didn't? Again... this so-called "rich" person, invested his money in new technology to improve productivity. His workers did not invest or take any risk at all. Now it exists only because the "rich" person made the choice to invest his money in the new technology. If there was no consequential gain from him doing this... like if, all the extra productivity would have to be accounted for in pay increases to his employees, why in heaven's name would he ever make such a choice? You're not "giving" anything. You don't have any damn thing to give. A capitalist is capitalizing on new technology to increase productivity, the reward for that should go to the capitalist. It's his risk, it's his money.

socialist systems

Come on man. We're trying to have a serious conversation here.

Really? Are we now? Because you sound like a clown at a low-budget small town carnival. You've not even demonstrated you have enough common sense to tie your shoes, let alone debate free market capitalism with me. You come here armed with your propaganda and rhetoric from your little socialist blogs, and think you can bully your way around like a real tough guy.

 

[edthecynic]

Occutards

Once you stoop to name-calling you admit you know you have no real argument.
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

libtard,

Why do I post in the manner I do? What manner? Smart, intelligent, well-reasoned? Better than any ******* counter-argument you can think of?

No argument and delusions of grander.

 

[Boss]

"War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man"

Actually, the OP's thread premise fails as one of the dumbest straw man fallacies, given the fact there's no 'war' on the rich.

Course there isn't, if we were really having a war on the rich there would be hundreds if not thousands of financial industry executives in jail serving hard time for their part in the economic melt down.

And if you could figure out how to use the power of government to do that, you'd do it in a heartbeat. Case closed!

Damned right, any other type of crime gets draconian measures if it is perceived to be widespread and harmful to society, the war on drugs for example, but for some reason white collar crime goes practically unpunished. How badly does the financial industry have to **** us out of our wealth before you people give a shit? That's not a rhetorical question, you seem to think white collar crime does not exist, is it somehow unthinkable to you to slap handcuffs on someone who robs people with a fountain pen rather than a gun?

Well that's probably on account of, other crimes like drug dealing, are actually crimes and are against the law. What you consider a crime is capitalists practicing capitalism too well for your liking. You say "white collar crime" but we send white collar criminals to jail when they are found guilty of crimes. What's unthinkable to me is to slap some handcuffs on someone who didn't break the law.