This is why we need to tax the wealthy

[TruthNotBS]

^^^ and the faux outer shell breaks away revealing the hidden Demwit liberal inside. So predictable.

Just because you're a predictable punk and "dimwit" doesn't imply others are.

 

[Nostra]

Just because you don't read them, doesn't imply others don't. I get plenty of private messages and "thanks" for my posts, so why would I care if someone like you refuses to read my posts? You're not even my target audience. I write to truth seekers, not brain-dead country bumpkins like you who don't even have enough sense to spit in the cup when they chew their tobacco. Your brain is rotting.

Hey Cletus, you are wasting your time responding to me. I don't read your drivel.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Hey Cletus, you are wasting your time responding to me. I don't read your drivel.

You're a coward, insulting people online while hiding safely behind your computer.

 

[Nostra]

You're a coward, insulting people online while hiding safely behind your computer.

Still wasting your time, Simp.

 

[BluesLegend]

Just because you're a predictable punk and "dimwit" doesn't imply others are.

 

[Markle]

That analogy would be apt if every employee in this country did not have the liberty to find another job, learn a trade, or otherwise try to better their financial situation. But alas, that is not the case.

Firstly, the notion that workers have the freedom to easily move between jobs is a gross oversimplification. For tens of millions, especially those living paycheck to paycheck (About 60% of the workforce), the risks associated with leaving a job are immense. It's not about moving a towel on a beach; it's about risking your livelihood, your family's well-being, and your ability to meet basic needs. This isn't liberty; it's a form of coercion.

Moreover, your argument ignores the power imbalance inherent in the employer-employee relationship under capitalism. Workers often face conditions that are authoritarian, dehumanizing, and sometimes even hazardous. The 'choice' to endure such conditions or risk unemployment is no choice at all. This is not freedom; it's exploitation and control, a modern serfdom where the lords are private corporate interests.
Furthermore, I should mention that moving to different jobs frequently can be detrimental to one's future earning potential and employability. The job market punishes those who appear to lack stability, creating a catch-22 situation for many workers. They are condemned for remaining employed under bad conditions and equally condemned for trying to escape them.

Your point about education and training also falls flat. The reality is that not everyone has the capacity (i.e. luxury of time, money, energy, intelligence, or even means of transportation), to pursue further education or training at a local college or a vocational school. The systemic barriers to education and skill acquisition are real and significant, especially for those already struggling to make ends meet. America needs to develop the infrastructure and programs to help people acquire an education and skills, facilitating their school attendance, without burdening them with loans or unaffordable tuition fees. We should all support this program:

Job Corps | Careers Begin Here

Job Corps is the largest free residential education and job training program for young adults ages 16-24. We connect you with the skills and education you need to get the career you want!

www.jobcorps.gov

​

Unfortunately, GOP politicians are constantly trying to defund Job Corps, for some other half-baked, privately owned alternative or nothing at all.

Lastly, addressing your point on freedom in the workplace, it's indeed a glaring contradiction in the capitalist system. Advocates of capitalism often proclaim the virtues of liberty and democracy, yet seem content to allow workplaces to operate as dictatorships. This hypocrisy is stark and telling. The workplace, where most adults spend the majority of their waking hours, is often devoid of democratic principles. Workers have little to no say in their conditions, pay, or treatment. This is not just an economic issue; it's a fundamental issue of freedom and human dignity.
The way to mitigate all of the above is with labor unions, but unfortunately, the Republicans and some Democrats as well, do everything possible to strip workers of their ability to unionize by passing bills that protect employers at the expense of their employees.

​

What institution, making money?


Market capitalism. As a socialist who recognizes the need for markets before technology forces production by necessity into non-profit, marketless socialism, I don't agree with capitalism's bottom line, namely, profits. For me, markets serve the higher purpose of providing the nation with goods and services, which is a necessity. People need food, clothing, housing..etc. The profit motive although important in an economic system with markets, doesn't take priority in market socialism. As socialists, our priority is the public good, not private capital accumulation or the pursuit of money. Mass production serves society best when it is centered on what's good for the public, not what is convenient or palatable for a billionaire or a few wealthy elites.

Are you a slave?

Relying on wages from an employer-owner, as an employee, is a form of slavery, so in a way yes, I am dependent upon my wages and employer. My employer in a way at a macroscale or at a higher level, is also dependent upon wages because workers like me take their money and purchase the products and services that capitalists like my employer sell. A market capitalist economy is similar to an ecosystem. There's a form of symbiosis between employers and their employees, but where the wheel meets the road, in the most apparent and visible way, workers like me are the slaves of this system of production, and dependent on wages and their employers.

I'm fortunate enough to be a unionized machinist, with a phenomenal salary. I've been coding CNC machines now for 12 years and before then I was a CNC machine operator. I've been training artificial intelligence to take my job for the last two and a half years. I'm training the system that is going to render me jobless, but hey that's how this system works. I'm getting a good pension, it's not that bad. I'm concerned for the young ones, in their 20s and 30s. I'm 51, and I've been doing this for almost 30 years, here in the US and in another country I used to live in.

This still begs the question: What about those who do not abuse that power?

My analogy answered that question. There are good masters but the institution itself is wrong or obsolete in the case of capitalism.

This is purely opinion on your part. But it does beg another question: At what point, exactly, does one's income constitute "some type of mental and emotional disturbance"?

It's an appeal to common sense and what is self-evident for most people. Are you being violated by society for not being allowed to hoard more than a million bucks monthly? Most reasonable people would say no after they reflect upon it a bit. For some of us, the answer is immediately apparent. No way! A million bucks monthly? Who could seriously complain?

A cap on personal wealth, such as a net income of a million dollars monthly or a maximum of $100 million in personal assets, can be justified on several grounds:

1. Redressing Extreme Inequality: Gross inequality is a significant issue in many societies. When a small minority accumulates vast fortunes while a significant portion of the population struggles for basic necessities, it creates an unjust and unstable society. A cap on personal wealth would help redistribute resources more equitably, ensuring that everyone has access to essential services like healthcare, education, and housing.
2. Democratic Integrity: Billionaires wield disproportionate political influence through campaign contributions, lobbying, and control over media narratives. This undermines democratic processes and often leads to policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the majority. Limiting personal wealth would help reduce this undue influence and restore balance to the democratic process.
3. Social Stability and Cohesion: Extreme wealth disparities can lead to social unrest, as people become increasingly disillusioned with a system that seems rigged against them. By capping personal wealth, society can promote greater social cohesion and stability.
4. Moral and Ethical Considerations: There's a moral argument that no individual needs billions of dollars to live a fulfilling life. Beyond a certain point, wealth accumulation becomes less about personal success and more about hoarding resources that could be used for the public good.

Regarding the specific limits, it's true that any cap on wealth is somewhat arbitrary. However, the exact figure is less important than the principle behind it. The limit should be set at a level that allows individuals to live comfortably and luxuriously, without amassing so much wealth that it disrupts economic balance and social equity. The proposed figures of $1 million monthly income and $100 million in assets strike a balance between individual reward for success and effort, and societal needs.

The determination of what constitutes a "reasonable" limit is indeed a societal decision. Like all laws and regulations, it reflects the values and priorities of the society that implements it.

 

[TruthNotBS]

That's all your responses amount to. A vacuous look without substance.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That analogy would be apt if every employee in this country did not have the liberty to find another job, learn a trade, or otherwise try to better their financial situation. But alas, that is not the case.

Firstly, the notion that workers have the freedom to easily move between jobs is a gross oversimplification. For tens of millions, especially those living paycheck to paycheck (About 60% of the workforce), the risks associated with leaving a job are immense. It's not about moving a towel on a beach; it's about risking your livelihood, your family's well-being, and your ability to meet basic needs. This isn't liberty; it's a form of coercion.

Irrelevant. Every person in this country has the freedom and the right to find a better paying job or even switch careers. Of course it may be more difficult for some but that is not the fault of the rich.

Every one of us made the choices to get where we are. It's not the fault of the rich that I'm not rich.

Moreover, your argument ignores the power imbalance inherent in the employer-employee relationship under capitalism.

"Power imbalance"? The only power the employer has over an employee is determining how much to pay. Beyond that, an employer is just another guy on the street and the employee is under no obligation to stay.

Workers often face conditions that are authoritarian, dehumanizing, and sometimes even hazardous.

And they have the option to find another job.

The 'choice' to endure such conditions or risk unemployment is no choice at all.

Yes, it is. People do it every day.

This is not freedom; it's exploitation and control, a modern serfdom where the lords are private corporate interests.

More accurately, it is someone taking risks to build a company and put people to work.

Furthermore, I should mention that moving to different jobs frequently can be detrimental to one's future earning potential and employability. The job market punishes those who appear to lack stability, creating a catch-22 situation for many workers. They are condemned for remaining employed under bad conditions and equally condemned for trying to escape them.

You just said looking for a better paying job is difficult and now you're talking about someone changing jobs frequently.

Your point about education and training also falls flat. The reality is that not everyone has the capacity (i.e. luxury of time, money, energy, intelligence, or even means of transportation), to pursue further education or training at a local college or a vocational school.

So whose fault is that?

The systemic barriers to education and skill acquisition are real and significant, especially for those already struggling to make ends meet. America needs to develop the infrastructure and programs to help people acquire an education and skills, facilitating their school attendance, without burdening them with loans or unaffordable tuition fees. We should all support this program:

Job Corps | Careers Begin Here

Job Corps is the largest free residential education and job training program for young adults ages 16-24. We connect you with the skills and education you need to get the career you want!

www.jobcorps.gov

​

Unfortunately, GOP politicians are constantly trying to defund Job Corps, for some other half-baked, privately owned alternative or nothing at all.

Lastly, addressing your point on freedom in the workplace, it's indeed a glaring contradiction in the capitalist system. Advocates of capitalism often proclaim the virtues of liberty and democracy, yet seem content to allow workplaces to operate as dictatorships. This hypocrisy is stark and telling. The workplace, where most adults spend the majority of their waking hours, is often devoid of democratic principles. Workers have little to no say in their conditions, pay, or treatment. This is not just an economic issue; it's a fundamental issue of freedom and human dignity.
The way to mitigate all of the above is with labor unions, but unfortunately, the Republicans and some Democrats as well, do everything possible to strip workers of their ability to unionize by passing bills that protect employers at the expense of their employees.

​

What institution, making money?


Market capitalism. As a socialist who recognizes the need for markets before technology forces production by necessity into non-profit, marketless socialism, I don't agree with capitalism's bottom line, namely, profits. For me, markets serve the higher purpose of providing the nation with goods and services, which is a necessity. People need food, clothing, housing..etc. The profit motive although important in an economic system with markets, doesn't take priority in market socialism. As socialists, our priority is the public good, not private capital accumulation or the pursuit of money. Mass production serves society best when it is centered on what's good for the public, not what is convenient or palatable for a billionaire or a few wealthy elites.

Are you a slave?

Relying on wages from an employer-owner, as an employee, is a form of slavery, so in a way yes, I am dependent upon my wages and employer.

Did you imagine that wages would just come to you without working?

My employer in a way at a macroscale or at a higher level, is also dependent upon wages because workers like me take their money and purchase the products and services that people like my employer sell. A market capitalist economy is similar to an ecosystem. There's a form of symbiosis between employers and their employees, but where the wheel meets the road, in the most apparent and visible way, workers like me are the slaves of this system of production, and dependent on wages and their employers.

I'm fortunate enough to be a unionized machinist, with a phenomenal salary. I've been coding CNC machines now for 12 years and before then I was a CNC machine operator. I've been training artificial intelligence to take my job for the last two and a half years. I'm training the system that is going to render me jobless, but hey that's how this system works. I'm getting a good pension, it's not that bad. I'm concerned for the young ones, in their 20s and 30s. I'm 51, and I've been doing this for almost 30 years, here in the US and in another country I used to live in.

This still begs the question: What about those who do not abuse that power?

My analogy answered that question.

No, it did not. The analogy was inapt because in the case of the slave, the slave has no options. Every workers does.

There are good masters but the institution itself is wrong or obsolete in the case of capitalism.

This is purely opinion on your part. But it does beg another question: At what point, exactly, does one's income constitute "some type of mental and emotional disturbance"?

It's an appeal to common sense and what is self-evident for most people.

Whose common sense, yours?

Are you being violated by society for not being allowed to hoard more than a million bucks monthly? Most reasonable people would say no after they reflect upon it a bit. For some of us, the answer is immediately apparent. No way! A million bucks monthly? Who could seriously complain?

A cap on personal wealth, such as a net income of a million dollars monthly or a maximum of $100 million in personal assets, can be justified on several grounds:

1. Redressing Extreme Inequality: Gross inequality is a significant issue in many societies.

Inequality of what? You just said some do not possess the intelligence, etc. to better their financial situation.

You want equal results for people in general when some of those same people lack the skill, intelligence and will to earn those results.

1. When a small minority accumulates vast fortunes while a significant portion of the population struggles for basic necessities, it creates an unjust and unstable society. A cap on personal wealth would help redistribute resources more equitably, ensuring that everyone has access to essential services like healthcare, education, and housing.

So you want the rich to make less money but you want your free healthcare?

A fact you may not be aware of: wealth is not fixed or finite. Wealth can be created and increased and when it is created, it does not deprive the worker or anyone else.

1. Democratic Integrity: Billionaires wield disproportionate political influence through campaign contributions, lobbying, and control over media narratives.

In the political sphere, billionaires have no more power than what politicians give them.

1. This undermines democratic processes and often leads to policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the majority. Limiting personal wealth would help reduce this undue influence and restore balance to the democratic process.

It would also stifle innovation and progress in medicine, technology and a host of other things.

1. Social Stability and Cohesion: Extreme wealth disparities can lead to social unrest,

So people become restless just because someone else is rich?

1. as people become increasingly disillusioned with a system that seems rigged against them. By capping personal wealth, society can promote greater social cohesion and stability.

The system is rigged against those who do nothing to improve their lot in life. It always has been.

1. Moral and Ethical Considerations: There's a moral argument that no individual needs billions of dollars to live a fulfilling life. Beyond a certain point, wealth accumulation becomes less about personal success and more about hoarding resources that could be used for the public good.

You might find this hard to believe but for many, becoming successful is more about building and accomplishing something than it is about money or becoming rich.

Regarding the specific limits, it's true that any cap on wealth is somewhat arbitrary.

It's not somewhat arbitrary, it's completely arbitrary.

However, the exact figure is less important than the principle behind it.

What's that, stifling economic growth?

The limit should be set at a level that allows individuals to live comfortably and luxuriously, without amassing so much wealth that it disrupts economic balance and social equity.

You've already said that you are a successful machinist and make good money. I myself make good money at what I do (vessel captain). So tell me, in your time becoming proficient at what you do and steadily making more money through the years through promotion and whatnot, and amassing a decent pension, how have YOU been negatively impacted by a few rich people making millions a month?

The proposed figures of $1 million monthly income and $100 million in assets strike a balance between individual reward for success and effort, and societal needs.

What makes you think society's needs will be better met simply by hamstringing the wealthy?

The determination of what constitutes a "reasonable" limit is indeed a societal decision. Like all laws and regulations, it reflects the values and priorities of the society that implements it.

I don't think our society wants what you want.

Look, there is no perfect economic system but capitalism works better in my opinion because it operates the same way nature does: survival of the fittest.

The world is not fair, nor is it unfair. It just IS. That means you get out of life what you put into it. The ones who have the intelligence, drive, ambition and the wherewithal to achieve career goals will succeed while those who do not, will not. Not to the same degree.

 

[Oldestyle]

That analogy would be apt if every employee in this country did not have the liberty to find another job, learn a trade, or otherwise try to better their financial situation. But alas, that is not the case.

Firstly, the notion that workers have the freedom to easily move between jobs is a gross oversimplification. For tens of millions, especially those living paycheck to paycheck (About 60% of the workforce), the risks associated with leaving a job are immense. It's not about moving a towel on a beach; it's about risking your livelihood, your family's well-being, and your ability to meet basic needs. This isn't liberty; it's a form of coercion.

Moreover, your argument ignores the power imbalance inherent in the employer-employee relationship under capitalism. Workers often face conditions that are authoritarian, dehumanizing, and sometimes even hazardous. The 'choice' to endure such conditions or risk unemployment is no choice at all. This is not freedom; it's exploitation and control, a modern serfdom where the lords are private corporate interests.
Furthermore, I should mention that moving to different jobs frequently can be detrimental to one's future earning potential and employability. The job market punishes those who appear to lack stability, creating a catch-22 situation for many workers. They are condemned for remaining employed under bad conditions and equally condemned for trying to escape them.

Your point about education and training also falls flat. The reality is that not everyone has the capacity (i.e. luxury of time, money, energy, intelligence, or even means of transportation), to pursue further education or training at a local college or a vocational school. The systemic barriers to education and skill acquisition are real and significant, especially for those already struggling to make ends meet. America needs to develop the infrastructure and programs to help people acquire an education and skills, facilitating their school attendance, without burdening them with loans or unaffordable tuition fees. We should all support this program:

Job Corps | Careers Begin Here

Job Corps is the largest free residential education and job training program for young adults ages 16-24. We connect you with the skills and education you need to get the career you want!

www.jobcorps.gov

​

Unfortunately, GOP politicians are constantly trying to defund Job Corps, for some other half-baked, privately owned alternative or nothing at all.

Lastly, addressing your point on freedom in the workplace, it's indeed a glaring contradiction in the capitalist system. Advocates of capitalism often proclaim the virtues of liberty and democracy, yet seem content to allow workplaces to operate as dictatorships. This hypocrisy is stark and telling. The workplace, where most adults spend the majority of their waking hours, is often devoid of democratic principles. Workers have little to no say in their conditions, pay, or treatment. This is not just an economic issue; it's a fundamental issue of freedom and human dignity.
The way to mitigate all of the above is with labor unions, but unfortunately, the Republicans and some Democrats as well, do everything possible to strip workers of their ability to unionize by passing bills that protect employers at the expense of their employees.

​

What institution, making money?


Market capitalism. As a socialist who recognizes the need for markets before technology forces production by necessity into non-profit, marketless socialism, I don't agree with capitalism's bottom line, namely, profits. For me, markets serve the higher purpose of providing the nation with goods and services, which is a necessity. People need food, clothing, housing..etc. The profit motive although important in an economic system with markets, doesn't take priority in market socialism. As socialists, our priority is the public good, not private capital accumulation or the pursuit of money. Mass production serves society best when it is centered on what's good for the public, not what is convenient or palatable for a billionaire or a few wealthy elites.

Are you a slave?

Relying on wages from an employer-owner, as an employee, is a form of slavery, so in a way yes, I am dependent upon my wages and employer. My employer in a way at a macroscale or at a higher level, is also dependent upon wages because workers like me take their money and purchase the products and services that capitalists like my employer sell. A market capitalist economy is similar to an ecosystem. There's a form of symbiosis between employers and their employees, but where the wheel meets the road, in the most apparent and visible way, workers like me are the slaves of this system of production, and dependent on wages and their employers.

I'm fortunate enough to be a unionized machinist, with a phenomenal salary. I've been coding CNC machines now for 12 years and before then I was a CNC machine operator. I've been training artificial intelligence to take my job for the last two and a half years. I'm training the system that is going to render me jobless, but hey that's how this system works. I'm getting a good pension, it's not that bad. I'm concerned for the young ones, in their 20s and 30s. I'm 51, and I've been doing this for almost 30 years, here in the US and in another country I used to live in.

This still begs the question: What about those who do not abuse that power?

My analogy answered that question. There are good masters but the institution itself is wrong or obsolete in the case of capitalism.

This is purely opinion on your part. But it does beg another question: At what point, exactly, does one's income constitute "some type of mental and emotional disturbance"?

It's an appeal to common sense and what is self-evident for most people. Are you being violated by society for not being allowed to hoard more than a million bucks monthly? Most reasonable people would say no after they reflect upon it a bit. For some of us, the answer is immediately apparent. No way! A million bucks monthly? Who could seriously complain?

A cap on personal wealth, such as a net income of a million dollars monthly or a maximum of $100 million in personal assets, can be justified on several grounds:

1. Redressing Extreme Inequality: Gross inequality is a significant issue in many societies. When a small minority accumulates vast fortunes while a significant portion of the population struggles for basic necessities, it creates an unjust and unstable society. A cap on personal wealth would help redistribute resources more equitably, ensuring that everyone has access to essential services like healthcare, education, and housing.
2. Democratic Integrity: Billionaires wield disproportionate political influence through campaign contributions, lobbying, and control over media narratives. This undermines democratic processes and often leads to policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the majority. Limiting personal wealth would help reduce this undue influence and restore balance to the democratic process.
3. Social Stability and Cohesion: Extreme wealth disparities can lead to social unrest, as people become increasingly disillusioned with a system that seems rigged against them. By capping personal wealth, society can promote greater social cohesion and stability.
4. Moral and Ethical Considerations: There's a moral argument that no individual needs billions of dollars to live a fulfilling life. Beyond a certain point, wealth accumulation becomes less about personal success and more about hoarding resources that could be used for the public good.

Regarding the specific limits, it's true that any cap on wealth is somewhat arbitrary. However, the exact figure is less important than the principle behind it. The limit should be set at a level that allows individuals to live comfortably and luxuriously, without amassing so much wealth that it disrupts economic balance and social equity. The proposed figures of $1 million monthly income and $100 million in assets strike a balance between individual reward for success and effort, and societal needs.

The determination of what constitutes a "reasonable" limit is indeed a societal decision. Like all laws and regulations, it reflects the values and priorities of the society that implements it.

I'm always amused by liberals like yourself that equate working for someone with being that person's "slave"! As someone who worked in the Private Sector in management for the better part of 35 years let me assure you that workers are not viewed that way by any intelligent boss. Good workers are cherished. They're increasingly hard to find and there is always someone trying to steal them away if you do find some. Any owner that treats his employees as slaves...takes advantage of them...abuses them...will very quickly find his good workers have departed and all that are left are the workers that suck.

As for setting limits on how much an owner makes? There are no rules in America that says certain people aren't allowed to start a business. If you want to risk your capital in starting up a new business then why shouldn't you make money if it succeeds? Is society going to reimburse you if the business fails? Of course not. So why should society have the right to determine how much money you can make? If you follow the law...pay your taxes...what you make is for YOU to decide what to do with!

 

[TruthNotBS]

Irrelevant. Every person in this country has the freedom and the right to find a better paying job or even switch careers. Of course it may be more difficult for some but that is not the fault of the rich.

Every one of us made the choices to get where we are. It's not the fault of the rich that I'm not rich.


"Power imbalance"? The only power the employer has over an employee is determining how much to pay. Beyond that, an employer is just another guy on the street and the employee is under no obligation to stay.


And they have the option to find another job.


Yes, it is. People do it every day.


More accurately, it is someone taking risks to build a company and put people to work.


You just said looking for a better paying job is difficult and now you're talking about someone changing jobs frequently.


So whose fault is that?


Did you imagine that wages would just come to you without working?


No, it did not. The analogy was inapt because in the case of the slave, the slave has no options. Every workers does.


Whose common sense, yours?


Inequality of what? You just said some do not possess the intelligence, etc. to better their financial situation.

You want equal results for people in general when some of those same people lack the skill, intelligence and will to earn those results.


So you want the rich to make less money but you want your free healthcare?

A fact you may not be aware of: wealth is not fixed or finite. Wealth can be created and increased and when it is created, it does not deprive the worker or anyone else.


In the political sphere, billionaires have no more power than what politicians give them.


It would also stifle innovation and progress in medicine, technology and a host of other things.


So people become restless just because someone else is rich?


The system is rigged against those who do nothing to improve their lot in life. It always has been.


You might find this hard to believe but for many, becoming successful is more about building and accomplishing something than it is about money or becoming rich.


It's not somewhat arbitrary, it's completely arbitrary.


What's that, stifling economic growth?


You've already said that you are a successful machinist and make good money. I myself make good money at what I do (vessel captain). So tell me, in your time becoming proficient at what you do and steadily making more money through the years through promotion and whatnot, and amassing a decent pension, how have YOU been negatively impacted by a few rich people making millions a month?


What makes you think society's needs will be better met simply by hamstringing the wealthy?

I don't think our society wants what you want.

Look, there is no perfect economic system but capitalism works better in my opinion because it operates the same way nature does: survival of the fittest.

The world is not fair, nor is it unfair. It just IS. That means you get out of life what you put into it. The ones who have the intelligence, drive, ambition and the wherewithal to achieve career goals will succeed while those who do not, will not. Not to the same degree.

Ignore practically all of the points that I made, but others won't keep that in mind.

Your responses consistently display a lack of understanding and empathy for workers. The truth is that those who work the business should own and run it together. Production has always been a social endeavor requiring a group of people to cooperate and work together. There's no such thing as private mass production, that's a fantasy created by delusional, hubristic capitalists.

No masters, just elected, accountable leadership chosen on their merits. Except for parents and close relatives like grandparents who have authority over the children they're raising, that's the only legitimate authority that should exist in a truly free and modern society, including the workplace. You're either elected or appointed by an elected leader and always fully accountable with the possibility of being recalled or replaced with another person if you're proven incompetent or unfit.

The fittest are those who are rendering capitalism obsolete with automation and artificial intelligence. It's socialism that is the inevitable successor of capitalism.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I'm always amused by liberals like yourself that equate working for someone with being that person's "slave"! As someone who worked in the Private Sector in management for the better part of 35 years let me assure you that workers are not viewed that way by any intelligent boss. Good workers are cherished. They're increasingly hard to find and there is always someone trying to steal them away if you do find some. Any owner that treats his employees as slaves...takes advantage of them...abuses them...will very quickly find his good workers have departed and all that are left are the workers that suck.

As for setting limits on how much an owner makes? There are no rules in America that says certain people aren't allowed to start a business. If you want to risk your capital in starting up a new business then why shouldn't you make money if it succeeds? Is society going to reimburse you if the business fails? Of course not. So why should society have the right to determine how much money you can make? If you follow the law...pay your taxes...what you make is for YOU to decide what to do with!

You sound like someone defending slavery by arguing that so-many slave masters treat their slaves well, hence the institution of slavery should continue. The relationship between employers and employees in capitalism, according to the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, is one of master and servant/workmen.

"What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, and the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Wealth Of Nations: Book I, Chapter VIII)

The people who work in the productive enterprise should own and run it together. All leadership should be elected and accountable. You're constantly complaining about a lack of democracy in politics or government, then ironically support authoritarianism in the workplace, where you might spend most of your waking hours. Much of our lives are spent at work, and yet you reject democracy and representation, even organizing labor unions. Amazing.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Define “fair share” ChristianMan

What percent of the total tax burden should the Top 1% pay? Top 10%?

Give us a number.

Flat tax... watch him shrivel

 

[TruthNotBS]

Flat tax... watch him shrivel

Does that also include Wall Street "sales" or transactions? That would definitely make the mammon worshipers shrivel.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Does that also include Wall Street "sales" or transactions? That would definitely make the mammon worshipers shrivel.

No those are capital gain taxes.

Two different animals

I'd love a 10 percent flat tax on my capital gains.

You're in over your head

 

[scruffy]

You only get taxed when you actually realize a profit as it should be.

Horseshit.

Most states (like CA for example) have a minimum tax, which you pay whether you make money or not.

They tax you just for living.

 

[pknopp]

Did you imagine that wages would just come to you without working?

Why not, wealth does.

Opinion | The Federal Reserve Has an $8 Trillion Secret

I ask this over and over. Who exactly worked for this?

Simply trillions and trillions of dollars pumped into the markets that NO ONE didn't any work for.

Your complaint is exactly what happened with the markets. They screwed up and weren't making money so the Federal Reserve (government) saw to it that the money was there for them.

Look, there is no perfect economic system but capitalism works better in my opinion because it operates the same way nature does: survival of the fittest.

Maybe some day a country will actually practice this great system. That NO country actually practices this system doesn't seem to register with you.

Tell me, where in Capitalism do we find the idea of the government taking money from taxpayers to bail out business concerns?

The world is not fair, nor is it unfair. It just IS. That means you get out of life what you put into it. The ones who have the intelligence, drive, ambition and the wherewithal to achieve career goals will succeed while those who do not, will not. Not to the same degree.

"Succeed". My ass. You deal in theories, not reality.

 

[Blues Man]

Horseshit.

Most states (like CA for example) have a minimum tax, which you pay whether you make money or not.

They tax you just for living.

So that's not an income tax. Realized capital gains are income

 

[TruthNotBS]

No those are capital gain taxes.

Two different animals

I'd love a 10 percent flat tax on my capital gains.

You're in over your head

I'm not referring to that but to a transactional or trade tax for speculative trading. You're the one "over your head" apparently.

 

[Oldestyle]

You sound like someone defending slavery by arguing that so-many slave masters treat their slaves well, hence the institution of slavery should continue. The relationship between employers and employees in capitalism, according to the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, is one of master and servant/workmen.

"What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, and the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Wealth Of Nations: Book I, Chapter VIII)

The people who work in the productive enterprise should own and run it together. All leadership should be elected and accountable. You're constantly complaining about a lack of democracy in politics or government, then ironically support authoritarianism in the workplace, where you might spend most of your waking hours. Much of our lives are spent at work, and yet you reject democracy and representation, even organizing labor unions. Amazing.

With all due respect, Christian? Accusing me of defending slavery because I rightly point out that workers are NOT slaves is about as stupid as it gets! I don't think you have a clue about how things work in real life. With you it's all these pie in the sky concepts that have never been shown to work because they don't take into account human nature.

 

[TruthNotBS]

With all due respect, Christian? Accusing me of defending slavery because I rightly point out that workers are NOT slaves is about as stupid as it gets! I don't think you have a clue about how things work in real life. With you it's all these pie in the sky concepts that have never been shown to work because they don't take into account human nature.

I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist-agnostic. Do you believe a Christian man would use such a cringy, cheesy nickname?

The capitalist defender's appeal to "human nature" is definitely "stupid" being that they always conveniently prop up the worst, most animalistic, and base tendencies of our humanity, pretending we can't or shouldn't aspire for anything more.

​

The fact is that mankind has been evolving for tens of thousands of years and what has proven to contribute the most to our survival and success as a species is our ability to empathize with one another and cooperate, working together towards an objective. The more willing we are to serve the interests of others within our community, the more likely we are to survive and thrive as individuals and collectively. There's nothing noble or sophisticated with your appeal to gross individualism, greed, and self-serving patterns of thought and behavior, especially when it's at the expense of others.

The bottom line is that we need to evolve socially and economically, along with our technology. Capitalists and their brainwashed, zombie-drones insist that capitalism is eternal and nothing else is ever going to replace it. In the advent of advanced automation, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, there's no reason to assume that capitalism with its wage-labor-based production and markets, can and should survive.

We need to start transitioning into a marketless, non-profit, more democratic system of production, which eventually will lead to the consumer having much more control over the means of production (i.e. Machinery, robots/nanobots, "replicator" technology/atomic precision manufacturing machines, etc.), in the future.

The goal of modern socialists is to have every consumer produce their own goods and services, at home or wherever they might be. Today we have machines that draw water from the air and safely generate electricity through atomic fission, which could fit in a person's garage or the basement of an apartment complex, or a community center of a suburban neighborhood.

Delivering the production of these products and services to the individual consumer makes production (national productive infrastructure) modular, much more mobile (Movable = Not indefinitely fixed in one location), and hence practically indestructible in the event of a natural disaster or nuclear war. We need to evolve.