[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

A professor once experimented with communism in his classroom. He averaged all the grades and awarded every student the same "C". Those who hadn't studied and obviously failed the exam were thrilled. Those who had studied hard and had earned an "A" were not at all thrilled. The next exam, the average grade was "D". The good students who normally would have studied hard to make the grade didn't do as much and the slackards as usual did nothing so everybody's grade fell. And the next grade was an "F". The slackards didn't care. The good students were demanding a return to the earned reward system.

What does that have to do Communism?

 

[PMZ]

Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.

• 
  It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work.
  
  It can be inherited.
  
  It can be stolen.
  
  It can be begged.
  
  And it can be looted.

Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.

The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.

Support whom you will, but I support the producers.

Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.

Larry Ellison - Oracle
Elon Musk - Tesla Motors
Marissa A. Mayer - Yahoo Inc.
Ralph Lauren - Ralph Lauren Corp
Rupert Murdoch - News Corp
John J. Donahoe - Ebay Inc
Howard Schultz - Starbucks Inc.

Actually, I could just list every CEO who received over $30 million in salary, but I'd like to see you argue that the above are looting their companies. They created their companies.

If they started their company their compensation should, and does, come from stock value increase.

Their operating contribution is miniscule compared to their employees.

 

[PMZ]

You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry "What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."

Congratulations Komrade! You are setting a higher standard for stupidity

Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote. I'll explain it to you.

I completely understand what you wrote. That's why I nominated you for the award.

Then tell us what, specifically, what you think is in error.

 

[bripat9643]

Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.

Larry Ellison - Oracle
Elon Musk - Tesla Motors
Marissa A. Mayer - Yahoo Inc.
Ralph Lauren - Ralph Lauren Corp
Rupert Murdoch - News Corp
John J. Donahoe - Ebay Inc
Howard Schultz - Starbucks Inc.

Actually, I could just list every CEO who received over $30 million in salary, but I'd like to see you argue that the above are looting their companies. They created their companies.

If they started their company their compensation should, and does, come from stock value increase.

Their operating contribution is miniscule compared to their employees.

ROFL! Two nominations for Dumbest Post of the Month in one day!

 

[bripat9643]

Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote. I'll explain it to you.

I completely understand what you wrote. That's why I nominated you for the award.

Then tell us what, specifically, what you think is in error.

To begin with, there's your claim that "it doesn't matter who owns it."

Every socialist in the universe would disagree with that, as would ever economist. In fact, an 8 year old would disagree.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it. Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.

You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry "What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."

Congratulations Komrade! You are setting a higher standard for stupidity

Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote. I'll explain it to you.

1) Why you think we all "have" to do this.

2) Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.

Explain those, please.

 

[PMZ]

I completely understand what you wrote. That's why I nominated you for the award.

Then tell us what, specifically, what you think is in error.

To begin with, there's your claim that "it doesn't matter who owns it."

Every socialist in the universe would disagree with that, as would ever economist. In fact, an 8 year old would disagree.

You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count' the same as the wealth created by non government workers.

I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it. Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.

If a worker makes a widget, that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget made on means owned by all us, in other words government, is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us, ie private enterprise.

That may be a little advanced for you.

 

[bripat9643]

You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry "What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."

Congratulations Komrade! You are setting a higher standard for stupidity

Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote. I'll explain it to you.

1) Why you think we all "have" to do this.

2) Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.

Explain those, please.

Parasites who produce nothing are always eager to divide up what others have produced.

 

[bripat9643]

Then tell us what, specifically, what you think is in error.

To begin with, there's your claim that "it doesn't matter who owns it."

Every socialist in the universe would disagree with that, as would ever economist. In fact, an 8 year old would disagree.

You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count' the same as the wealth created by no government workers.

I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it. Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.

If a worker makes a widget, that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget made on means owned by all us, in other words government, is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us, ie private enterprise.

That may be a little advanced for you.

Here's the first flaw in your argument: The claim the government workers produce wealth. They don't. No one would pay voluntarily for anything the government produces. That's why government has to use guns to make you pay for it.

Again, the claim that it doesn't matter who owns it is the ultimate in stupid. If you think that it didn't matter whether Henry Ford owned Ford Motor Corp or some imbecile bureaucrat, then you are so stupid you are beyond salvation. When Steve Jobs took over Apple Computer, he increased the value of the company by several hundred billion dollars.

You have to be a complete moron to actually believe it doesn't matter who owns it.

 

[PMZ]

You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry "What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."

Congratulations Komrade! You are setting a higher standard for stupidity

Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote. I'll explain it to you.

1) Why you think we all "have" to do this.

2) Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.

Explain those, please.

I' m not sure that I understand your question. Or even if you're asking it of me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote. I'll explain it to you.

1) Why you think we all "have" to do this.

2) Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.

Explain those, please.

I' m not sure that I understand your question. Or even if you're asking it of me.

So your response is that you're too dumb to be expected to answer. Noted. Run along.

 

[PMZ]

Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote. I'll explain it to you.

1) Why you think we all "have" to do this.

2) Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.

Explain those, please.

Parasites who produce nothing are always eager to divide up what others have produced.

I agree. That’s why I'm always on the side of middle class workers, creators of the wealth that we all share amongst us.

 

[PMZ]

To begin with, there's your claim that "it doesn't matter who owns it."

Every socialist in the universe would disagree with that, as would ever economist. In fact, an 8 year old would disagree.

You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count' the same as the wealth created by no government workers.

I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it. Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.

If a worker makes a widget, that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget made on means owned by all us, in other words government, is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us, ie private enterprise.

That may be a little advanced for you.

Here's the first flaw in your argument: The claim the government workers produce wealth. They don't. No one would pay voluntarily for anything the government produces. That's why government has to use guns to make you pay for it.

Again, the claim that it doesn't matter who owns it is the ultimate in stupid. If you think that it didn't matter whether Henry Ford owned Ford Motor Corp or some imbecile bureaucrat, then you are so stupid you are beyond salvation. When Steve Jobs took over Apple Computer, he increased the value of the company by several hundred billion dollars.

You have to be a complete moron to actually believe it doesn't matter who owns it.

As usual, you are almost completely wrong.

If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building, has he added value?

An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure. Any value in that?

A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America. Valuable?

The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.

I can go on all day proving you wrong.

 

[Peterf]

You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count' the same as the wealth created by no government workers.

I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it. Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.

If a worker makes a widget, that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget made on means owned by all us, in other words government, is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us, ie private enterprise.

That may be a little advanced for you.

Here's the first flaw in your argument: The claim the government workers produce wealth. They don't. No one would pay voluntarily for anything the government produces. That's why government has to use guns to make you pay for it.

Again, the claim that it doesn't matter who owns it is the ultimate in stupid. If you think that it didn't matter whether Henry Ford owned Ford Motor Corp or some imbecile bureaucrat, then you are so stupid you are beyond salvation. When Steve Jobs took over Apple Computer, he increased the value of the company by several hundred billion dollars.

You have to be a complete moron to actually believe it doesn't matter who owns it.

As usual, you are almost completely wrong.

If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building, has he added value?

An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure. Any value in that?

A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America. Valuable?

The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.

I can go on all day proving you wrong.

What you have shown is that some state employees sometimes add value. Nothing wrong with that even though you have carefully selected examples that support your case, ignoring that vast army of bureaucrats who add no value whatsoever but simply get in the way of those who actually produce.

But even among your examples it may be that the state is wasting resources. It is possible that air traffic control could be carried out by a private company more efficiently and at lower cost.

The need to make a profit is a powerful drive towards efficiency. Relying on ever more money from taxpayers is not.

 

[PMZ]

How can we ever have homeland security with our current immigration, or lack of thereof, policy.

When my parents can here from Europe in the early 50's, first of all there was a quota on the number of people from different countries who could come here, and by the way you could not be pregnant. Then you needed a sponser, who was responsible for you, till you became a citizen. You were required to take a test and report to the post office every two weeks. If you did not comply they came and deported you. Compare this to todays joke of a system, where we do not even know who is here.

While I'm on a role, let me not stop here. My parents learned english in a very short time, which they taught me, not their native languages. The schools I went to did not have teach in different languages, just plain old english ! Mom & Dad were working within 3 days, and paying taxes, after they arrived here. They found a way to overcome obstacles, like language in the begining, they did not go on welfare, have 20 kids, send their money back to Europe, and become a fly on the american taxpayers a??. I have been working since I was 17 years old, paying taxes, and hopefully being a productive citizen. I resent having to foot the bill for some mexican who walks across the boarder broke, pregnant, and ready for some good old American welfare. Let me say I have nothing against helping Americans who need help, in fact I think we should give more to the people who truely need it, like the elderly, disabled, our vets, etc . Most of these people who played it straight live a substandard existence because the monies are spread so thin, feeding the illegals, cheaters, and the just plain old LAZY.

By the way did you guys read or see that the families of some of the mexicans crossing our lovely southern boarder, are suing the US govt. because their loved ones died of dehydration crossing our deserts. They claim the govt. should have installing drinking fountains to prevent this. Maybe I'm a little hard core but I think we should have installed 50 caliber machine guns instead. I also saw on Fox News a congressman who described an incident where the mexican army escorted illegals across the boarder and when confronted by boarder patrol fired weapons at them. HOW is this tolerated? How is this Homeland security?

Whew! Thats enough to ge you worked UP, better take a valium. Only kidding.

No. I told you. I don't understand your question. If you are unable to clarify it, move on.

 

[Peterf]

1) Why you think we all "have" to do this.

2) Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.

Explain those, please.

Parasites who produce nothing are always eager to divide up what others have produced.

I agree. That’s why I'm always on the side of middle class workers, creators of the wealth that we all share amongst us.

How sweet. But what is at issue is how those middle - or upper or lower - class workers are resourced, organised and directed to produce the shared wealth.

Socialist countries like the USSR and its satellites were very bad at producing wealth to share (and very bad at sharing it) which is why they collapsed.

 

[PMZ]

Here's the first flaw in your argument: The claim the government workers produce wealth. They don't. No one would pay voluntarily for anything the government produces. That's why government has to use guns to make you pay for it.

Again, the claim that it doesn't matter who owns it is the ultimate in stupid. If you think that it didn't matter whether Henry Ford owned Ford Motor Corp or some imbecile bureaucrat, then you are so stupid you are beyond salvation. When Steve Jobs took over Apple Computer, he increased the value of the company by several hundred billion dollars.

You have to be a complete moron to actually believe it doesn't matter who owns it.

As usual, you are almost completely wrong.

If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building, has he added value?

An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure. Any value in that?

A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America. Valuable?

The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.

I can go on all day proving you wrong.

What you have shown is that some state employees sometimes add value. Nothing wrong with that even though you have carefully selected examples that support your case, ignoring that vast army of bureaucrats who add no value whatsoever but simply get in the way of those who actually produce.

But even among your examples it may be that the state is wasting resources. It is possible that air traffic control could be carried out by a private company more efficiently and at lower cost.

The need to make a profit is a powerful drive towards efficiency. Relying on ever more money from taxpayers is not.

There are many bureaucrats who don't add much value. Some work for government, some for private enterprise.

Private enterprise is a fine system with competition. Would you contract work to a single supplier? If so, you're just plain stupid.

No competition, make more money regardless of the cost to others, just doesn't work. Why are conservatives oblivious to that simple fact? Give me a noncompetitive contract. I'll show you profit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count' the same as the wealth created by no government workers.

I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it. Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.

If a worker makes a widget, that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget made on means owned by all us, in other words government, is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us, ie private enterprise.

That may be a little advanced for you.

Here's the first flaw in your argument: The claim the government workers produce wealth. They don't. No one would pay voluntarily for anything the government produces. That's why government has to use guns to make you pay for it.

Again, the claim that it doesn't matter who owns it is the ultimate in stupid. If you think that it didn't matter whether Henry Ford owned Ford Motor Corp or some imbecile bureaucrat, then you are so stupid you are beyond salvation. When Steve Jobs took over Apple Computer, he increased the value of the company by several hundred billion dollars.

You have to be a complete moron to actually believe it doesn't matter who owns it.

As usual, you are almost completely wrong.

If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building, has he added value?

An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure. Any value in that?

A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America. Valuable?

The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.

I can go on all day proving you wrong.

You know, we believed you when you told me that you were too stupid to answer me. You didn't actually have to PROVE it. But we appreciate the thought.

Learn the meaning of "produce wealth", fucknut. Move along.

 

[bripat9643]

1) Why you think we all "have" to do this.

2) Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.

Explain those, please.

Parasites who produce nothing are always eager to divide up what others have produced.

I agree. That’s why I'm always on the side of middle class workers, creators of the wealth that we all share amongst us.

You mean you're on the side of parasites because under capitalism everyone receives exactly what his fellow men believe he is entitled to receive. Your only purpose in taking a side to is to alter that arrangement. There are no sides under capitalism because all arrangements are voluntary. It's only when politicians pit one citizen against another by inciting envy that "sides" come into being. One of those "sides" is always a gang of thugs intent on looting the other "side" which are the victims.

 

[bripat9643]

As usual, you are almost completely wrong.

If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building, has he added value?

An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure. Any value in that?

A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America. Valuable?

The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.

I can go on all day proving you wrong.

What you have shown is that some state employees sometimes add value. Nothing wrong with that even though you have carefully selected examples that support your case, ignoring that vast army of bureaucrats who add no value whatsoever but simply get in the way of those who actually produce.

But even among your examples it may be that the state is wasting resources. It is possible that air traffic control could be carried out by a private company more efficiently and at lower cost.

The need to make a profit is a powerful drive towards efficiency. Relying on ever more money from taxpayers is not.

There are many bureaucrats who don't add much value. Some work for government, some for private enterprise.

Private enterprise is a fine system with competition. Would you contract work to a single supplier? If so, you're just plain stupid.

No competition, make more money regardless of the cost to others, just doesn't work. Why are conservatives oblivious to that simple fact? Give me a noncompetitive contract. I'll show you profit.

You are describing the essence of government: no competition. It makes money regardless of the cost to taxpayers. When you have a monopoly on the use of force, you have the worst kind of monopoly.