War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Dad2three]

One of the flaws of capitalism, a stable economy is a loser, stable growth linked to population growth would transform mankind into a relative utopia but the capitalists would be jumping out of windows if that happened. Growth must always occur, always, in the absence of real growth cutting costs is the only way to increase the profit margin. For far too long gains have been made mostly in productivity and not nearly enough in revenue, and so gains have been made to the detriment of the workforce. Is it wrong to see this negative movement in wages as a death spiral of endless bubbles?

The greatest flaw in collectivism is the inability to accept reality. Collectivism is always based on fantasy. From the days in caves, chipping flint into spear heads, the nature of man manifests in the improvement of his tools and environment. Talk of utopia is the domain of fools, I have no interest in foolishness

There are two states to human endeavors, growth and decline. Stagnation is simply decline at a slow pace. That which is not growing is dying.

Gains in productivity have changed the lives of every person on the planet. Collectivists seek to focus on the gap between rich and poor, to focus on envy because someone has more than they. The looter will never look at what they have, only what others have.

Poor people in America live lives of luxury that Henry the VIII never dreamed of. The richest man in the world 500 years ago could not enjoy the quality of food, entertainment, transportation, and medical care that a Walmart greater enjoys today. Were you to claim that Henry the VIII was exploited, even the most obtuse of the looter class would stare at you in shock. Why should the productive class not react in the same way when you make claim of exploitation of the Walmart greeter who enjoys luxuries denied to a King?

Why do looters do this? Why do looters pretend that Americans live in squalor? To foment envy for the purpose of gaining power, of course. You should be thanking the industrialists for giving you a standard of living that is greater than any time or place in human history, instead you damn them because you follow corrupt men who lust for power that have convinced you that it's "NO FAIR, he has more than me."

ONE state or nation to EVER use your libertarian nonsense? lol

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
Thomas Jefferson


"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." Warren Buffett

You have no brain and cannot posit a cogent response. You failed to find a cut & paste so you spewed nonsense.

Got it, you can't point to ONE state or nation to EVER use that Ayn Rand bullshit!

 

[Mr Natural]

It's good to be rich.

Apart from having all your physical and material needs being met, you have non-rich stooges to do your whining for you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One of the flaws of capitalism, a stable economy is a loser, stable growth linked to population growth would transform mankind into a relative utopia but the capitalists would be jumping out of windows if that happened. Growth must always occur, always, in the absence of real growth cutting costs is the only way to increase the profit margin. For far too long gains have been made mostly in productivity and not nearly enough in revenue, and so gains have been made to the detriment of the workforce. Is it wrong to see this negative movement in wages as a death spiral of endless bubbles?

The greatest flaw in collectivism is the inability to accept reality. Collectivism is always based on fantasy. From the days in caves, chipping flint into spear heads, the nature of man manifests in the improvement of his tools and environment. Talk of utopia is the domain of fools, I have no interest in foolishness

There are two states to human endeavors, growth and decline. Stagnation is simply decline at a slow pace. That which is not growing is dying.

Gains in productivity have changed the lives of every person on the planet. Collectivists seek to focus on the gap between rich and poor, to focus on envy because someone has more than they. The looter will never look at what they have, only what others have.

Poor people in America live lives of luxury that Henry the VIII never dreamed of. The richest man in the world 500 years ago could not enjoy the quality of food, entertainment, transportation, and medical care that a Walmart greater enjoys today. Were you to claim that Henry the VIII was exploited, even the most obtuse of the looter class would stare at you in shock. Why should the productive class not react in the same way when you make claim of exploitation of the Walmart greeter who enjoys luxuries denied to a King?

Why do looters do this? Why do looters pretend that Americans live in squalor? To foment envy for the purpose of gaining power, of course. You should be thanking the industrialists for giving you a standard of living that is greater than any time or place in human history, instead you damn them because you follow corrupt men who lust for power that have convinced you that it's "NO FAIR, he has more than me."

ONE state or nation to EVER use your libertarian nonsense? lol

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
Thomas Jefferson


"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett, who put ALL his wealth in a Tax Free Trust and therefore beyond the reach of the estate tax

LOL

 

[Dad2three]

One of the flaws of capitalism, a stable economy is a loser, stable growth linked to population growth would transform mankind into a relative utopia but the capitalists would be jumping out of windows if that happened. Growth must always occur, always, in the absence of real growth cutting costs is the only way to increase the profit margin. For far too long gains have been made mostly in productivity and not nearly enough in revenue, and so gains have been made to the detriment of the workforce. Is it wrong to see this negative movement in wages as a death spiral of endless bubbles?

The greatest flaw in collectivism is the inability to accept reality. Collectivism is always based on fantasy. From the days in caves, chipping flint into spear heads, the nature of man manifests in the improvement of his tools and environment. Talk of utopia is the domain of fools, I have no interest in foolishness

There are two states to human endeavors, growth and decline. Stagnation is simply decline at a slow pace. That which is not growing is dying.

Gains in productivity have changed the lives of every person on the planet. Collectivists seek to focus on the gap between rich and poor, to focus on envy because someone has more than they. The looter will never look at what they have, only what others have.

Poor people in America live lives of luxury that Henry the VIII never dreamed of. The richest man in the world 500 years ago could not enjoy the quality of food, entertainment, transportation, and medical care that a Walmart greater enjoys today. Were you to claim that Henry the VIII was exploited, even the most obtuse of the looter class would stare at you in shock. Why should the productive class not react in the same way when you make claim of exploitation of the Walmart greeter who enjoys luxuries denied to a King?

Why do looters do this? Why do looters pretend that Americans live in squalor? To foment envy for the purpose of gaining power, of course. You should be thanking the industrialists for giving you a standard of living that is greater than any time or place in human history, instead you damn them because you follow corrupt men who lust for power that have convinced you that it's "NO FAIR, he has more than me."

ONE state or nation to EVER use your libertarian nonsense? lol

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
Thomas Jefferson


"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett, who put ALL his wealth in a Tax Free Trust and therefore beyond the reach of the estate tax

LOL

And NOT leaving it to his kids like the Walton's/Koch's dad did? Weird? And he supports an increase on taxes on the 'job creators', go figure!

 

[zeke]

My example is yet to be addressed. Are the workers at a MacDonald's affected by how much of the profits the owner decides to keep?

It's because your example was an exercise in complete ignorance of how any business works. I think my 8-year-old granddaughter can come up with a better explanation of how business operates than you can.

NO OWNER "decides to keep" any damn thing! You act like they go to the bank at the end of the fiscal year and the banker plops out $600k on the table and says... "So, what are ya gonna do with all of it man?" And then the owner says, "Oh, I haven't decided yet... thought about giving my peasant workers a little raise... but nahhh... I think I'll jet off down to the Bahamas and blow it on coke and whores!"

That's not how businesses work in the real world. Maybe that's how it works on The Simpsons? Maybe in Jon Stewart's little universe, that's how business works, but not in the real world.

Actually, the final numbers on profits aren't known until usually a month or more after the close of the fiscal year because of the red tape in calculating it. Almost every successful business considers less than 10% increase in profit from last year as a LOSS. This is because every capitalist competitor is growing. Less than 10% growth and you're not keeping up with your competition.

Now the money goes to all kinds of different things, it's illiterate to think this $600k profit you exemplified is going into the owner's pocket and simply increased his wealth by $600k. A chunk of it was probably reinvested in the franchise. Maybe some of it went to the venture capitalist who loaned the owner the money to open the franchise? Perhaps it simply repaid the money that was lost last year when there was a profit loss of $600k? We don't know because this is a bonehead hypothetical that never exists in the real universe.

What simply does not happen in any free market capitalist business is, the capitalist saying; "We're going to run our business like communists where everyone here is in a commune, and we're going to evenly divide up all the profit gains between everyone here because we're all cool like that! ...Pass the bong, man!" Now... IF you want to try a business model like that here, I am all for it! I think you need to go for it! You open your capitalist business that equally divides up all the profits it generates between everyone working in the business, and I will support you as long as you're in business. But I have to say this, I bet such a business would fail. Why? Because there is a reason we don't see such businesses in a free market capitalist system.

You the one in lala land dude.

CEO's of many American corporations have outsourced millions of US jobs because the reduced labor costs increased profits and there by increased the CEO' pay because CEOs of corporations are always paid on company profitability.

And you want to claim the CEOs didn't know THEIR paychecks would go up if the companies labor payroll went down. And company profitability went up. As stock values went up. THE CEOs didn't know they would make more money.

You full of shit dude. Full of shit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My example is yet to be addressed. Are the workers at a MacDonald's affected by how much of the profits the owner decides to keep?

It's because your example was an exercise in complete ignorance of how any business works. I think my 8-year-old granddaughter can come up with a better explanation of how business operates than you can.

NO OWNER "decides to keep" any damn thing! .

lol, I've worked for a boss who decided how much of a bonus to give at the end of the year.

You didn't tell us yet. Are you a multi-millionaire? A billionaire?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,

according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!

 

[zeke]

Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,

according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!

That's what's amazing about boss. It's like he doesn't think payroll affects profits and CEOs get paid on profits.So an increase in corporate payroll not offset by an increase in corporate income will effect the CEOs pay. He admits corporations manage all the other aspect of their business to insure profit but not payroll.

But then the corporations do fight like hell to not increase the MW,so I guess they are managing the payroll by managing the Congress. The Repubs sure do like them some big business.

 

[JoeNormal]

If wealth were truly infinite, what would it matter to the capitalists how much their underlings were paid?

I've been through this as well, I am not going to just repeat the thread here. You need to go back and read all my posts. This was addressed back on the first several pages.

"Wealth is infinite" does not mean there is some mythical endless pile of it somewhere for the taking. It means wealth is infinitely acquirable. It still has to be obtained.

The capitalist doesn't mind you establishing a baseline for labor with a minimum wage. It makes their job easier in terms of formulating costs because they don't have to compete for labor anymore. And you can raise that baseline, the capitalist will protest because it interferes with their capitalism, but they will adapt to whatever you establish. You want to pay McDonald's workers $15 an hour? Okay, Big Macs will now cost $10. Or maybe automated technology replaces 80% of the labor and you order through a terminal? The capitalist will work it all out... OR they will simply close the doors and do something else.

I realize that you attribute all good things to capitalism and apparently no bad. I'll grant that capitalism has some good attributes. The best capitalism is the European type that has a safety net, environmental regulation and public support systems applied to it. Pure capitalism has no purpose but to maximize profit for the capitalists. The list of bad attributes of unbridled capitalism is long and heinous.

Free market capitalism is the best form of capitalism. What they have in Europe varies from place to place, but none of those nations enjoy the free market type system we have in America. The great and wonderful thing about free market capitalism is that it enables the capitalist to maximize profits. There is nothing "bad" about that. If a capitalist is successful in a free market system, it means that consumers had a need that was met and they were satisfied. Nothing whatsoever "bad" about that. If they showed record profits it means their stocks went up in value... nothing "bad" about that if you own the stock.

We've never had "unbridled" capitalism in America. We have free market capitalism. Our Constitution, by virtue of the Commerce Clause, gives government the power to regulate capitalism, and our government has done so. In fact, they have so perverted the Commerce Clause, they are now regulating capitalism in ways they were never empowered to do.

When government is tinkering around with, and meddling in the affairs of free market capitalism, it is generally doing more harm to capitalism than good. It does so on your behalf, in order to appease your demands, and in the process it blows another hole in the hull of your own ship. It doesn't affect the rich, they don't have to be capitalists.

As I suspected, you choose to see only the good in capitalism. The number of people it benefits versus the number it exploits is exceedingly small. Also, there are a vast array of profit incentives that degrade the environment and reward short term, paint-you-into-a-corner decision making. It will eventually run its course but I fear for the form that the correction will take.

 

[Contumacious]

CAPITALISM IS NOT BEING PRACTICED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

Yeah, every time Capitalism fails, and obviously it has failed everywhere since it is being practiced nowhere in the world, it wasn't really Capitalism.

I think the point being made is that the definition most Capitalists favor - that of free trade capitalism - has not been in practice. I must agree. They themselves set up all sorts of protections that protect only themselves, to the detriment of smaller tradesmen..

If there is GOVERNMENT IMPOSED PROTECTIONISM there is NO CAPITALISM. In a Capitalistic system GOVERNMENT IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM.

.

Really? So...under that understanding, capital should be just as divorced from government policy as religion is supposed to be, and the old rules should apply from back to our country's founding? {/quote]


Correct.

After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, ―the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.‖173 The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.

The EITC was a coercive state sponsored monopoly .

Again, under Capitalism, the government has no authority to grant monopoly authority. The ONLY regulatory mechanism is the FREE MARKET.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How about if owners of the stock took 1% less dividends? lol

Don't strain yourself moving those goal posts....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Mitt Romney was not smart enough to beat Barack Obama. The war is not on the rich it is on the politicians that give the rich a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

Mitt Romney was not corrupt enough to beat Barack Obama.

 

[Uncensored2008]

False....

every two bit banana republic has a concentration of wealth in the top percentage of society.

so yes, what you're saying is a proven lie.

So you think wealth is finite, then?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pompous much? The American capitalist system is rigged to concentrate wealth at the top were it tends to stay. That's a fact of life you need to accept. Not looking for socialism just wanting things to work as you seem to think they currently do where opportunity exists in sufficient quantity where no one has to do without if they simply get some hustle.

The most egregious example of such rigging is Obamacare. Earlier examples of such corruption were the AT&T monopoly and the railroads.

But nothing spells corruption quite like Obamacare.

Of course ALL of these are examples of state power, the infringement on the market by government. Do you believe the answer to governmental corruption is more government?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Directors/Cronies!
AKA, Crony Capitalism!

That is not what "crony capitalism" means, edtheliar.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again, it is only "income" if it is REALIZED, so if your capital assets grew by 10 million and you only cashed in 1 million, you are taxed ONLY on that 1 million and at a lower rate than wages depending on how long you held the capital asset before you realized any income from it. The remaining 9 million are untaxed.

I know how capital gains work. They are still income taxes and are taxed more than some earned income and less than other earned income.

And you really should wonder who is screwing the middle class when the government taxes all the gains in a retirement plan as regular income and not capital gains.

And your max deduction for losses is only 3000 a year or didn't you know that either. You can't take a bath and write off millions in losses.

And I have to ask how much of your day do you spend taking notes on what Rush Limbaugh says?

You can deduct $3,000 each and every year until all your loss is deducted, all loss not deducted in a year is carried over forever until all of it is deducted.

Again, it is only "income" if it is REALIZED, so if your capital assets grew by 10 million and you only cashed in 1 million, you are taxed ONLY on that 1 million and at a lower rate than wages depending on how long you held the capital asset before you realized any income from it. The remaining 9 million are untaxed.

I know how capital gains work. They are still income taxes and are taxed more than some earned income and less than other earned income.

And you really should wonder who is screwing the middle class when the government taxes all the gains in a retirement plan as regular income and not capital gains.

And your max deduction for losses is only 3000 a year or didn't you know that either. You can't take a bath and write off millions in losses.

And I have to ask how much of your day do you spend taking notes on what Rush Limbaugh says?

You can deduct $3,000 each and every year until all your loss is deducted, all loss not deducted in a year is carried over forever until all of it is deducted.

and how long will it take to deduct millions in losses?

Hint you won't live that long.

Capital loss deductions are small potatoes

How many individuals lose millions in Cap Gains? They are even smaller potatoes.

So why bring it up at all when the real injustice here is taxing the gains in a retirement account as regular income?

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million– are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.
The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

Hey get a clue of what we were talking about will ya?

We were talking about writing off losses in a portfolio.

But here's a question why aren't you upset that the government taxes all the gains in retirement accounts as regular income and not capital gains?

 

[Dad2three]

How about if owners of the stock took 1% less dividends? lol

Don't strain yourself moving those goal posts....

Oh right, ONLY you get to set the false premise to argue from

 

[Uncensored2008]

Got it, you can't point to ONE state or nation to EVER use that Ayn Rand bullshit!

No more than you can name ONE state that has EVER used that Karl Marx bullshit you push.

What's sad is that you are such a dullard that you think you're scoring points, rather than simply highlighting your own ignorance.

 

[Dad2three]

False....

every two bit banana republic has a concentration of wealth in the top percentage of society.

so yes, what you're saying is a proven lie.

So you think wealth is finite, then?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

 

[Skull Pilot]

My example is yet to be addressed. Are the workers at a MacDonald's affected by how much of the profits the owner decides to keep?

It's because your example was an exercise in complete ignorance of how any business works. I think my 8-year-old granddaughter can come up with a better explanation of how business operates than you can.

NO OWNER "decides to keep" any damn thing! .

lol, I've worked for a boss who decided how much of a bonus to give at the end of the year.

You didn't tell us yet. Are you a multi-millionaire? A billionaire?

A bonus on top of your agreed upon salary?

You should say thank you