Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Andylusion]

Mike,

1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?

[...]

It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class. The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.

I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation. It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.

Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and reasonable luxury.

Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.

Millions would lose their jobs.

For example, many McDonald's stores are built by existing franchise owners. The value of a McDonald's store is easily $6 Million.

What this means is, every store owner would have a dis-incentive to open new stores, and provide more jobs.

If for each store they open, the amount of personal wealth they could enjoy, would be reduced.

I own one store worth $6 Million, and I have $14 Million in other assets (house, yacht, cars, blaw blaw blaw).

But if I build a second store, now I have two worth $12 Million, now I can only have $8 Million in other assets.

The incentive would be to not provide anymore growth and jobs.

Further, this rule would be nearly impossible to enforce. Most assets are not in personal property items anyway. Most wealth is tied up in stocks. Stocks go up and down in the market.

When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that? Just outright confiscate his stocks? We're going to be a nation built on thievery?

And wouldn't that simply encourage Bill Gates to move his assets out of the country? Move Microsoft to another country, where his stocks are out of reach by the government?

I think it would. And that kind of incentive would harm the middle and lower class, more than it would Bill Gates.

 

[bripat9643]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

That's funny.

Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.

No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.

That would be the poor. Furthermore, you statement is a tautology.

 

[bripat9643]

[...]

And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy. In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.

[...]

I was born in 1936. According to my parents I might have been born in a hallway or in an alley if it were not for FDR's WPA and CCC programs which rescued us from the verge of homelessness, along with millions of other desperately unemployed Americans. And, again, according to my parents, who lived it, the effect of those work programs had a clearly uplifting effect not only on the economy but on the very mood of the nation. So believe whomever you choose to.

So while I'm not academically capable of offering a scholarly response to those scholarly denials of the success of FDR's programs, what I'm saying here comes right from the horse's mouth. It's from the front lines in the depth of the Great Depression. My parents always spoke reverently of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- and for good reason.

Yeah.... So government screws up the economy, ruins jobs, wipes out industry............ but then comes to the rescue of WPA and CCC, and you pledge your undying favor.

Do you not see the problem here? The Great Depression was caused by government. When the 1932 tax increases hit, the countries economy fell like a rock. When the tariffs were passed, the economy fell like a rock. When the 1936 taxes hit, the country had a recession... inside the great depression...

But because FDR gave out a few bucks, to move bricks around, he saved you all?

Look... I'm not going to argue with you, or your parents. Personal emotional connections, will always out weight facts to the people to experienced them.

But when you look at the fact, devoid of feelings and personal emotions.... FDR did not save the country. FDR caused most of the problems in the country. Yes, after he, and Hoover, screwed up the entire country, he did give out a few dollars here and there.

But WPA and CCC, did not boost the economy, or return the country to growth. That's what the facts say.

I have said all I intend to say on this matter. Believe whatever you want. The facts are the facts. You can't change them.

FDR was like a maniacal doctor who administered poison to his patient, gave him pain killers to relieve some of the symptoms, and then takes the credit when he failed to kill the patient.

 

[bripat9643]

Mike,

1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?

[...]

It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class. The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.

I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation. It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.

Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and reasonable luxury.

Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.

Millions would lose their jobs.

For example, many McDonald's stores are built by existing franchise owners. The value of a McDonald's store is easily $6 Million.

What this means is, every store owner would have a dis-incentive to open new stores, and provide more jobs.

If for each store they open, the amount of personal wealth they could enjoy, would be reduced.

I own one store worth $6 Million, and I have $14 Million in other assets (house, yacht, cars, blaw blaw blaw).

But if I build a second store, now I have two worth $12 Million, now I can only have $8 Million in other assets.

The incentive would be to not provide anymore growth and jobs.

Further, this rule would be nearly impossible to enforce. Most assets are not in personal property items anyway. Most wealth is tied up in stocks. Stocks go up and down in the market.

When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that? Just outright confiscate his stocks? We're going to be a nation built on thievery?

And wouldn't that simply encourage Bill Gates to move his assets out of the country? Move Microsoft to another country, where his stocks are out of reach by the government?

I think it would. And that kind of incentive would harm the middle and lower class, more than it would Bill Gates.

We would all be enjoying a stone age standard of living if MikeK's plan was ever implemented.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Many of the bills congress votes on (like ObamaCare) are written by corporate lobbyists. Corporations pay for the election campaigns and retirements of elected and non-elected members of congress. The revolving door between public and private interests usually leads to higher levels of pay in the private sector once a public official has accumulated enough knowledge of how government works to be useful to those who "extort" the commons by socializing cost and privatizing profit. The rich have controlled every government yet devised; why do you think this one is any different?

The only solution is for the workers to seize the corporations!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:

"August 2012.

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

"The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Call it reparations, Comrade

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

It's true, success is profitable.

Call it reparations, Comrade

People who create jobs and save millions of people money must be punished!
Only government should do those things.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Something like 99.3% huh? Cool. Does having a fridge mean you have food in it? Do you think fridges come with lifetime supply of food? The poorest don't have homes to have fridges in, so you need to make that distinction.

The biggest health problem among the poor is obesity. So it appears that having food in their refrigerators is not one of their major problems.

Or it's because processed GMO pink slime costs less to produce than healthy food, and since their wages aren't going up, and their hours are being cut back so that multi-billion dollar corporations can save money on health insurance coverage, and the price of gas keeps going up, and their food stamps are being cut, it might be difficult for a struggling family to afford healthy meals.

Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans. You should stop eating.

 

[georgephillip]

The only solution is for the workers to seize the corporations!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:

"August 2012.

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

"The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Call it reparations, Comrade

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

It's true, success is profitable.

Call it reparations, Comrade

People who create jobs and save millions of people money must be punished!
Only government should do those things.

Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:

"This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.

"As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs.

"It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.

"Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.

"According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients.

"They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.

"Wal-mart’s 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:

"August 2012.

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

"The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Call it reparations, Comrade

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

It's true, success is profitable.

Call it reparations, Comrade

People who create jobs and save millions of people money must be punished!
Only government should do those things.

Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:

"This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.

"As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs.

"It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.

"Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.

"According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients.

"They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.

"Wal-mart’s 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg

I guess we'd pay less welfare if WalMart and McDonald's shut their doors.

Idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:

"August 2012.

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

"The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

Call it reparations, Comrade

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

It's true, success is profitable.

Call it reparations, Comrade

People who create jobs and save millions of people money must be punished!
Only government should do those things.

Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:

"This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.

"As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs.

"It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.

"Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.

"According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients.

"They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.

"Wal-mart’s 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg

No one is buying this libturd campaign that claims Walmart is responsible for welfare payments to individuals. Socialist morons don't seem to understand the concept of the freedom of contract. That means you are free to make any agreement with another person you like. It doesn't make that person responsible for anything except what's specified in the contract.

 

[georgephillip]

"Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

It's true, success is profitable.

Call it reparations, Comrade

People who create jobs and save millions of people money must be punished!
Only government should do those things.

Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:

"This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.

"As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs.

"It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.

"Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.

"According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients.

"They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.

"Wal-mart’s 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg

I guess we'd pay less welfare if WalMart and McDonald's shut their doors.

Idiot.

Rich bitches might pay even less in taxes if Wal-mart and McDonald's payed a living wage

 

[MikeK]

Mike,

1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?

[...]

It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class. The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.

I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation. It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.

Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and reasonable luxury.

Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.

Millions would lose their jobs.

For example, many McDonald's stores are built by existing franchise owners. The value of a McDonald's store is easily $6 Million.

What this means is, every store owner would have a dis-incentive to open new stores, and provide more jobs.

If for each store they open, the amount of personal wealth they could enjoy, would be reduced.

I own one store worth $6 Million, and I have $14 Million in other assets (house, yacht, cars, blaw blaw blaw).

But if I build a second store, now I have two worth $12 Million, now I can only have $8 Million in other assets.

The incentive would be to not provide anymore growth and jobs.

Further, this rule would be nearly impossible to enforce. Most assets are not in personal property items anyway. Most wealth is tied up in stocks. Stocks go up and down in the market.

When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that? Just outright confiscate his stocks? We're going to be a nation built on thievery?

And wouldn't that simply encourage Bill Gates to move his assets out of the country? Move Microsoft to another country, where his stocks are out of reach by the government?

I think it would. And that kind of incentive would harm the middle and lower class, more than it would Bill Gates.

Personal assets are separate from corporate holdings. One may be the CEO of a ten billion dollar corporation but his/her personal assets must remain below twenty million. In other words, forget the mansion on a mountain and the $40,000,000 yacht. Those obscenities would no longer exist in America.

There presently is an "exit tax" which once would impose effective control over what we are seeing now in terms of offshore assets and expatriating billionaires. But the rules have been drastically softened over the years. If it were possible to impose the twenty-million dollar limit you may take for granted the imposition of rigid laws to prevent the substance of America's wealth resources from being removed from the Country.

Simply stated, if you manage to accumulate billions of dollars by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources, that money stays here. You may not remove it. And any attempt to do so would invoke a severe criminal penalty.

My proposal is not confined to a twenty million dollar limit but would necessarily include many rules and strict laws to prevent evasion and manipulation.

 

[gnarlylove]

[...]

And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy. In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.

[...]

I was born in 1936. According to my parents I might have been born in a hallway or in an alley if it were not for FDR's WPA and CCC programs which rescued us from the verge of homelessness, along with millions of other desperately unemployed Americans. And, again, according to my parents, who lived it, the effect of those work programs had a clearly uplifting effect not only on the economy but on the very mood of the nation. So believe whomever you choose to.

So while I'm not academically capable of offering a scholarly response to those scholarly denials of the success of FDR's programs, what I'm saying here comes right from the horse's mouth. It's from the front lines in the depth of the Great Depression. My parents always spoke reverently of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- and for good reason.

I'd like to add that the CCC built the federal park system in my area (Wayne National Forest, Lake Vesuvius) that would have otherwise not existed. It obviously took work and the workers got paid. If this isn't economic facts showing the CCC benefited, nothing can.

Economics is not and should not be an utter abstraction. It dictates the lives of each and every human being so just for a second, let's consider its impact in my area. People received pay for helping create a beautiful park that is used by thousands each year for almost 100 years, and has been my personal sanctuary, then yeah, this has significant economic and health benefits on the citizens. Indeed the region at large has benefited as the park attracts tourists and is a fantastic open meeting space for family picnics and birthdays.

I guess since the idea behind the CCC and others was not to create profit and speculation, then it has no value. What utter dumb-fuckery. Ever wonder why the CCC was created in the first place? The speculation of banks. Glass steagall.

 

[gnarlylove]

Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans. You should stop eating.

Does GMO mean modified by humans? Your comment only has meaning if GMO means simply modified by humans. But we all know GMO stands for something quite specific, so sadly your left stinky brown diarrhea for us all to read. Do us a favor and think before you type.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that? Just outright confiscate his stocks?

Such contingencies would be managed with a 30 day period within which Gates must dispose of excess. He could transfer it to anyone he chooses whose assets are less then twenty million (any relative, friend, or charity). The alternative is confiscation.

We're going to be a nation built on thievery?

If you're one of those fanatical Libertarians who think of taxes as thievery, then yes. But I prefer to think of it as a nation built on equitable distribution of its exceptional wealth resources.

 

[georgephillip]

It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class. The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.

I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation. It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.

Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and reasonable luxury.

Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.

Millions would lose their jobs.

For example, many McDonald's stores are built by existing franchise owners. The value of a McDonald's store is easily $6 Million.

What this means is, every store owner would have a dis-incentive to open new stores, and provide more jobs.

If for each store they open, the amount of personal wealth they could enjoy, would be reduced.

I own one store worth $6 Million, and I have $14 Million in other assets (house, yacht, cars, blaw blaw blaw).

But if I build a second store, now I have two worth $12 Million, now I can only have $8 Million in other assets.

The incentive would be to not provide anymore growth and jobs.

Further, this rule would be nearly impossible to enforce. Most assets are not in personal property items anyway. Most wealth is tied up in stocks. Stocks go up and down in the market.

When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that? Just outright confiscate his stocks? We're going to be a nation built on thievery?

And wouldn't that simply encourage Bill Gates to move his assets out of the country? Move Microsoft to another country, where his stocks are out of reach by the government?

I think it would. And that kind of incentive would harm the middle and lower class, more than it would Bill Gates.

Personal assets are separate from corporate holdings. One may be the CEO of a ten billion dollar corporation but his/her personal assets must remain below twenty million. In other words, forget the mansion on a mountain and the $40,000,000 yacht. Those obscenities would no longer exist in America.

There presently is an "exit tax" which once would impose effective control over what we are seeing now in terms of offshore assets and expatriating billionaires. But the rules have been drastically softened over the years. If it were possible to impose the twenty-million dollar limit you may take for granted the imposition of rigid laws to prevent the substance of America's wealth resources from being removed from the Country.

Simply stated, if you manage to accumulate billions of dollars by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources, that money stays here. You may not remove it. And any attempt to do so would invoke a severe criminal penalty.

My proposal is not confined to a twenty million dollar limit but would necessarily include many rules and strict laws to prevent evasion and manipulation.

There have been times in the recent past when financial speculation was a capital offense. (A real death tax) I don't think we need to go that far, but the rich could be subjected to a wealth limit that would function like a speed limit on public roads; however, I don't think elected Republicans OR Democrats will connect the dots in time. IMHO, we need to break the corporate stranglehold on US politics by choosing our Representatives and Senators from established third parties instead of either wing of the Wall Street Party.

 

[gnarlylove]

Mike,

1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?

[...]

It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class. The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.

I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation. It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.

Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and reasonable luxury.

Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.

Well put. Indeed there needs to be a transition from several multi-billionaires to less. But adjusting for inflation from around your birth, FDR proposed a 100% tax on those who earn above 300,000. It didn't become a law but it was a serious issue. A sensible yet stern cap on earnings would drastically reduce income inequality, and therefore political inequality.

Now-a-days such a cap would inflame and potentially explode the heads of people like Androw. It's truly sad how some cannot be bothered with Democracy, political equality, and legal equality due to personal pursuits. Wasn't the idea of classical liberalism at it's core the self-evident truth that it's ok to do x, y and z in private until it harms another human being?

 

[The Rabbi]

Mike,

1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?

[...]

It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class. The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.

I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation. It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.

Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and reasonable luxury.

Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.

Well put. Indeed there needs to be a transition from several multi-billionaires to less. But adjusting for inflation from around your birth, FDR proposed a 100% tax on those who earn above 300,000. It didn't become a law but it was a serious issue. A sensible yet stern cap on earnings would drastically reduce income inequality, and therefore political inequality.

Now-a-days such a cap would inflame and potentially explode the heads of people like Androw. It's truly sad how some cannot be bothered with Democracy, political equality, and legal equality due to personal pursuits. Wasn't the idea of classical liberalism at it's core the self-evident truth that it's ok to do x, y and z in private until it harms another human being?

How many multi billionaires is the right number? Why do you want to see fewer of them? I want more. Lots more.

 

[gnarlylove]

What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.

CEOs and Hedge Fund managers know their job is to monopolize the market, manipulate it if they can't run a collusion and extrapolate capital by all sorts of tricks, like preferred calls, advanced information and high frequency trading.

Moreover, their campaign contributions drowns out you and me from political significance. So you prefer to have less influence in the decisions made about your life?

You sound like your'e being paid by billionaires to say they are so useful instead of being coherent.

 

[The Rabbi]

What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.

CEOs and Hedge Fund managers know their job is to monopolize the market, manipulate it if they can't run a collusion and extrapolate capital by all sorts of tricks, like preferred calls, advanced information and high frequency trading.

Moreover, their campaign contributions drowns out you and me from political significance. So you prefer to have less influence in the decisions made about your life?

You sound like your'e being paid by billionaires to say they are so useful instead of being coherent.

No it doesnt imply anythng of the sort. Unless you think Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have manipulated the market for about 50 years.

 

[bripat9643]

Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:

"This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.

"As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs.

"It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.

"Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.

"According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients.

"They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.

"Wal-mart’s 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg

I guess we'd pay less welfare if WalMart and McDonald's shut their doors.

Idiot.

Rich bitches might pay even less in taxes if Wal-mart and McDonald's payed a living wage

How would that stop libturds like you from demanding higher taxes on the rich?