“Redistribute the wealth”

[danielpalos]

We could be simplifying government and lowering our tax burden with modern left wing policies,

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

IOW you want to be paid for not working

Employment is at will in our at-will employment States.

Yes and if you choose not to work you don't get paid.

If you want to get paid get a job

What if I choose to work and can't get hired in a right to work State?

If you want to work you can find a job it might not be your first choice but then again it's still a job

And you can always work for yourself you know

The rich can always do more of the work instead of paying so low.

True moralists from the Age of Iron, know it is work ethic from the Age of Iron that is Important; not Capital.

 

[Skull Pilot]

IOW you want to be paid for not working

Employment is at will in our at-will employment States.

Yes and if you choose not to work you don't get paid.

If you want to get paid get a job

What if I choose to work and can't get hired in a right to work State?

If you want to work you can find a job it might not be your first choice but then again it's still a job

And you can always work for yourself you know

The rich can always do more of the work instead of paying so low.

No rich guy ever stopped you from getting a job or from getting a better paying job

 

[KGB]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

You’re pretending socialist aspects can’t be mixed with a capitalist model. I’m all for capitalism, but unfettered capitalism does nothing besides besides make the wealthy more wealthy. It serves no purpose in creating a strong middle class or to minimize poverty. Only through government intervention can the middle and poor class benefit.

why would I want any part of a failed model creeping into a successful one?

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at will in our at-will employment States.

Yes and if you choose not to work you don't get paid.

If you want to get paid get a job

What if I choose to work and can't get hired in a right to work State?

If you want to work you can find a job it might not be your first choice but then again it's still a job

And you can always work for yourself you know

The rich can always do more of the work instead of paying so low.

No rich guy ever stopped you from getting a job or from getting a better paying job

Not even in right to work States? Why any homelessness.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes and if you choose not to work you don't get paid.

If you want to get paid get a job

What if I choose to work and can't get hired in a right to work State?

If you want to work you can find a job it might not be your first choice but then again it's still a job

And you can always work for yourself you know

The rich can always do more of the work instead of paying so low.

No rich guy ever stopped you from getting a job or from getting a better paying job

Not even in right to work States? Why any homelessness.

Not in any state.

And most of the homeless are mentally ill, drug addicted or both and the rest are like you and don't want to work for a living

 

[danielpalos]

What if I choose to work and can't get hired in a right to work State?

If you want to work you can find a job it might not be your first choice but then again it's still a job

And you can always work for yourself you know

The rich can always do more of the work instead of paying so low.

No rich guy ever stopped you from getting a job or from getting a better paying job

Not even in right to work States? Why any homelessness.

Not in any state.

And most of the homeless are mentally ill, drug addicted or both and the rest are like you and don't want to work for a living

not even for "employment charity? only capital, right wingers.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you want to work you can find a job it might not be your first choice but then again it's still a job

And you can always work for yourself you know

The rich can always do more of the work instead of paying so low.

No rich guy ever stopped you from getting a job or from getting a better paying job

Not even in right to work States? Why any homelessness.

Not in any state.

And most of the homeless are mentally ill, drug addicted or both and the rest are like you and don't want to work for a living

not even for "employment charity? only capital, right wingers.

Employment charity is when someone gives you a job because they feel sorry for you.

I don't feel sorry for anyone and that goes especially for people who won't get a job

 

[grainbely]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Shouldnt wages increase with inflation and productivity though? They haven't been and that's what the problem is. That an adult may still be out there making only 7 or 8 an hour doing labor is fucked up. That's a failure in our system, probably multiple failures, and it's not just the individual's fault. Consumers need money in their pockets for this mary go round to keep spinning. If they are working full time then the majority of them should have money in their pocket to spend.

I'm starting to think that these jobs just flat shouldnt exist if they wont support a person because the business refuse to pay them. They arent good jobs. Automate them and let's ensure the opportunities for affordable skills development and job training are out there.

 

[Wyatt earp]

... An employer will only pay someone $15.25 per hour if that employee can produce more than $15.25 per hour in profit. Otherwise the employee gets sacked and the employer finds someone else who can.

...I march into my employer or supervisors office and demand a raise, he has two choices...

If you create $14 per hour of profit and the employer pays you $15 per hour he's no longer an employer, he's a phylanthropist giving you $1 per hour for nothing. He will stop giving away money for nothing when he has no more money to give.

Related:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
‏Verified account @Ocasio2018

US House candidate, NY-14
The restaurant I used to work at is closing its doors.​

Ocasio-Cortez Mourns Restaurant Driven Out Of Business By Minimum Wage Law She Backs​

A problem of raising minimum wage I have heard is it may put businesses out work and cut profits and raise unemployment.

Well a better solution I have heard is to have the government pay the employee the difference per hour so he still is making 15hr. So let's say employee A makes only 8hr at Burger King. Burger king pays still just 8hr to employee but the government gives that employee an extra 7hr for each hour he works so he can make 15hr. The government pays for this by simply raising taxes.

A brillant solution in my opinion that we need to implement in USA.

So trickle up poor, your going to raise my fucking taxes to give to a snot nose kid burger flipper? Fuck you.



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

They don't give a damn how the government waste the money as long as they use the government as the robber to get even with the people who take risks and make money.

 

[RealDave]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

Deficits are going up. Ask your buddy Trump, your economy hero. The wealthy are getting wealthier under Trump & the Middle Class is going backwards,. Typical Republicanism & typical stupidity from Republican voters like you.

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that the wealthy were not getting wealthier under DumBama and the middle-class were not going backwards? You really live in your own little world, don't you?

And I see you once again deflected. So here's the question again: If we double the tax on the wealthy, how does that help you or me?

Obama worked on changing the tax code. Additional taxes were put into effect that targeted rich people.

You li ve in the world of ignorance. Put down then gun & try picking up a book

 

[Wyatt earp]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

'Wealth Redistribution' is a term propagated by the wealthy as an excuse to stop any form of change that favors working people.

What liberals want is NOT 'Wealth Redistribution' AT ALL. What we want is 'FAIR Wealth distribution' GOING FORWARD.

People should get paid on par with the productive value of their work. That's all.

Says who? People are paid by the value of their work according to their employer.

No they're not! They are paid the least that employers can get away with.

How many unions forced wages higher than the employers wanted to pay? How many union shops remained very profitable long after those wages went up?

Liar look at the job boards in the red States they are paying well over the states minimum wage .

.

 

[RealDave]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

But the bulk of the generated wealth eds up the the pockets of the wealthy. Dumbass

 

[Skull Pilot]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

But the bulk of the generated wealth eds up the the pockets of the wealthy. Dumbass

Wealth is nothing but net worth and anyone can increase their net worth

 

[RealDave]

When asked why he paid his employees more than the average, Henry Ford said he wanted his employees to be able to afford to buy one of his cars.

to you fake capitalism experts, capitalism does not work well if all you have is a few rich people & poor people.

You need the middle class with buying power.

Something Republicans & Trump know nothing about..

 

[Skull Pilot]

When asked why he paid his employees more than the average, Henry Ford said he wanted his employees to be able to afford to buy one of his cars.

to you fake capitalism experts, capitalism does not work well if all you have is a few rich people & poor people.

You need the middle class with buying power.

Something Republicans & Trump know nothing about..

You give an example of capitalism in your criticism of capitalism

To deny Ford was a capitalist is beyond stupid

 

[RealDave]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

They don't give a damn how the government waste the money as long as they use the government as the robber to get even with the people who take risks and make money.

More lies from a blithering fool.

When business people take risks, they loose other people's money. Ask your butt buddy Trump.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

They don't give a damn how the government waste the money as long as they use the government as the robber to get even with the people who take risks and make money.

More lies from a blithering fool.

When business people take risks, they loose other people's money. Ask your butt buddy Trump.

And the people who put up the venture capital do it with full knowledge of those risks

 

[danielpalos]

The rich can always do more of the work instead of paying so low.

No rich guy ever stopped you from getting a job or from getting a better paying job

Not even in right to work States? Why any homelessness.

Not in any state.

And most of the homeless are mentally ill, drug addicted or both and the rest are like you and don't want to work for a living

not even for "employment charity? only capital, right wingers.

Employment charity is when someone gives you a job because they feel sorry for you.

I don't feel sorry for anyone and that goes especially for people who won't get a job

No Charity for the homeless from Employers?

 

[RealDave]

When asked why he paid his employees more than the average, Henry Ford said he wanted his employees to be able to afford to buy one of his cars.

to you fake capitalism experts, capitalism does not work well if all you have is a few rich people & poor people.

You need the middle class with buying power.

Something Republicans & Trump know nothing about..

You give an example of capitalism in your criticism of capitalism

To deny Ford was a capitalist is beyond stupid

Look dickbreath, I never said Ford was not a capitalist.

You can be a capitalist & treat your employees well.

Unfettered capitalism will not succeed. That is why we need regulations.

As the housing industry, ask wall street in 2008.