Wealth Tax: Yeah! Why do Warren Buffett and Bill gates need so much money in their Trust?

[Blues Man]

By definition treating everyone exactly the same is fairness.

I suspect other people have different definitions of "fairness". And most of them don't think of equality under the law as fairness. Our Constitution promises equal protection under the law. That doesn't guarantee fairness.

Life isn't fair, it never was and it never will be.

but laws can be

 

[georgephillip]

Using government to do these things (unless can truly trust the government in which we can't), has turned out to be a failure in most of the modern day business dealings of the past and present. To depend on government hasn't worked either.

Recently I read the claim that during the decades immediately following the US Civil War railroads had more revenue than the federal government.

RR barons regularly ran for the Senate where they did everything they could to insure Big Business always controlled government.

The New Deal rolled most of that back, and Reagan began the roll back of much of the New Deal.

Those 19th Century railroad barons could only imagine the political leverage someone like Bezos has today.

Imagine the difference Jeff could make if he redistributed $120 billion of "his" wealth to his 1.2 million employees?

Jeff Bezos becomes world's first $200 billionaire. Check Top 10 List

 

[georgephillip]

Beats me. Is there some point to these dumb questions?

Bezos's arrogance is matched only by his greed.
Why do you exhibit knee-jerk support for rich greed-heads?

 

[dblack]

By definition treating everyone exactly the same is fairness.

I suspect other people have different definitions of "fairness". And most of them don't think of equality under the law as fairness. Our Constitution promises equal protection under the law. That doesn't guarantee fairness.

Life isn't fair, it never was and it never will be.

but laws can be

Well, there's a conflict between difference conceptions of "equal" and "fair".

Liberals focus on outcomes - to wit:

The crates here are "the law". If everyone is treated equally by the law, they will experience different results. Some people think this isn't fair, so they want the law to compensate, by treating people unequally.

The point here is that equal protection of the law (which is guaranteed by the Constitution) isn't necessarily "fair". And, if we task government with the job of making things "fair", equal protection of the law will be sacrificed.

 

[georgephillip]

What the fuck does that mean? I mean, besides the empty socialist buzzword of "exploitation" - what are they doing that should be illegal?

Start with Taft-Hartley.

Starting in 1947 oligarchs and their useful idiots began rolling back the nascent economic democracy that started when the oligarchs crashed the global economy in 1929.

By the time Reagan left office the robber barons of finance were on the rise, and every penny they have EXPLOITED from the economy since then has come from their abuse of government.

Why do you believe government regulations are only abusive when they restrict rich parasites from adding to their fictitious capital?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_capital#:~:text=Fictitious%20capital%20could%20be%20defined,in%20commodities%20or%20productive%20activity%22.

"Fictitious capital could be defined as a capitalisation on property ownership.

"Such ownership is real and legally enforced, as are the profits made from it, but the capital involved is fictitious; it is 'money that is thrown into circulation as capital without any material basis in commodities or productive activity"'"

 

[Blues Man]

By definition treating everyone exactly the same is fairness.

I suspect other people have different definitions of "fairness". And most of them don't think of equality under the law as fairness. Our Constitution promises equal protection under the law. That doesn't guarantee fairness.

Life isn't fair, it never was and it never will be.

but laws can be

Well, there's a conflict between difference conceptions of "equal" and "fair".

Liberals focus on outcomes - to wit:

The crates here are "the law". If everyone is treated equally by the law, they will experience different results. Some people think this isn't fair, so they want the law to compensate, by treating people unequally.

The point here is that equal protection of the law (which is guaranteed by the Constitution) isn't necessarily "fair". And, if we task government with the job of making things "fair", equal protection of the law will be sacrificed.

If all laws are applied to all people equally that is as fair as life ever gets

 

[georgephillip]

That's an abuse of government. People should be free to trade however they want. Forcing the majority's will on them with democracy is just bullying.

Whether you like it or not, government will be used to advance the interests of one element of society over those of another. You seem to believe government should serve the interests of its richest citizens at the expense of the majority. I believe the opposite. Perhaps there is no common ground at this time?

 

[georgephillip]

It's not up to me. It's what everyone else thinks, ie the market, that matters. They seem to think he's doing something right.

What has the market decided about trickle down economics?

Trickle down economics - Economics Help

 

[dblack]

It's not up to me. It's what everyone else thinks, ie the market, that matters. They seem to think he's doing something right.

What has the market decided about trickle down economics?

Beats me. Are you trying to make a point? Or just asking more dumb questions?

 

[dblack]

That's an abuse of government. People should be free to trade however they want. Forcing the majority's will on them with democracy is just bullying.

Whether you like it or not, government will be used to advance the interests of one element of society over those of another.

Maybe. But I think we should minimize that. Do you?

You seem to believe government should serve the interests of its richest citizens at the expense of the majority. I believe the opposite. Perhaps there is no common ground at this time?

Not much, no. I don't want government favoring anyone's "interests". That's the entire point of "general" welfare. Government should seek what's best for everyone, not just lobbyists. Laws and policies designed to favor special interests are abuse of government. If you like that kind of government (corporatism) then it's true, we have very little common ground.

 

[dblack]

By definition treating everyone exactly the same is fairness.

I suspect other people have different definitions of "fairness". And most of them don't think of equality under the law as fairness. Our Constitution promises equal protection under the law. That doesn't guarantee fairness.

Life isn't fair, it never was and it never will be.

but laws can be

Well, there's a conflict between difference conceptions of "equal" and "fair".

Liberals focus on outcomes - to wit:

The crates here are "the law". If everyone is treated equally by the law, they will experience different results. Some people think this isn't fair, so they want the law to compensate, by treating people unequally.

The point here is that equal protection of the law (which is guaranteed by the Constitution) isn't necessarily "fair". And, if we task government with the job of making things "fair", equal protection of the law will be sacrificed.

If all laws are applied to all people equally that is as fair as life ever gets

I tend to agree. But again, "fair" is a very subjective estimation.

 

[georgephillip]

No one's labor is exploited.

Every employee enters an employment contract by choice for an agreed upon wage.

Every employee is part of an overwhelming majority of society whose surplus value is legally appropriated by a small minority of "owners."

Employees are compelled by their lack of ownership of the means of production to sell their labor to capitalists for less than the full value of the goods they produce.

It doesn't matter which capitalist they work for, the game is rigged.

 

[dblack]

No one's labor is exploited.

Every employee enters an employment contract by choice for an agreed upon wage.

Every employee is part of an overwhelming majority of society whose surplus value is legally appropriated by a small minority of "owners."
View attachment 467310
Employees are compelled by their lack of ownership of the means of production to sell their labor to capitalists for less than the full value of the goods they produce.

It doesn't matter which capitalist they work for, the game is rigged.

You never really get tired of slinging the party line, eh comrade?

 

[georgephillip]

And one individual's net worth has nothing to do with your net worth.

If one rich individual bribes elected government for a 15% tax rate while another pays 35%, the first individual has a great deal to do with the second's net worth.

 

[georgephillip]

You can raise your net worth anytime you want no one is stopping you.

Also not true. Creditors have controlled virtually every western government since the Roman Empire. When they succeed in strangling the productive economy in concentric coils of debt to the extent they have today, they are stopping the majority of citizens from raising their net worth.

The State of American Debt Slaves: Q4 2020. Consumer Borrowing in Weirdest Economy Ever

 

[georgephillip]

I have no idea what this rage statement means. damn son, can't you just comment without flipping off Trump TDS?

It's a very simple question, Dog.
"Is Trump an example of 'people who represent society based on rules'"? What's your answer?

 

[jc456]

I have no idea what this rage statement means. damn son, can't you just comment without flipping off Trump TDS?

It's a very simple question, Dog.
"Is Trump an example of 'people who represent society based on rules'"? What's your answer?

Huh?

 

[Blues Man]

No one's labor is exploited.

Every employee enters an employment contract by choice for an agreed upon wage.

Every employee is part of an overwhelming majority of society whose surplus value is legally appropriated by a small minority of "owners."
View attachment 467310
Employees are compelled by their lack of ownership of the means of production to sell their labor to capitalists for less than the full value of the goods they produce.

It doesn't matter which capitalist they work for, the game is rigged.

no it's not.

anyone who wants to can start a business, work for himself, or improve his own skill set so as to make his labor worth more.

Your labor is your product. If you want more for it then you have to make it worth more to the people you sell it to.

You and you alone are in complete control over who you choose to sell your labor to.

 

[Blues Man]

You can raise your net worth anytime you want no one is stopping you.

Also not true. Creditors have controlled virtually every western government since the Roman Empire. When they succeed in strangling the productive economy in concentric coils of debt to the extent they have today, they are stopping the majority of citizens from raising their net worth.

The State of American Debt Slaves: Q4 2020. Consumer Borrowing in Weirdest Economy Ever

Student loans are a choice.

you don't have to take loans out to go to college.

 

[georgephillip]

child labor and sweat shops, damn straight, that slave labor and you seem to be fine with China continuing it. says all anyone needs to know about you.

Why did US and European capitalists discontinue child labor?

They noticed they were killing off the next generation of labor BEFORE it could reproduce.

Aren't you proud?