Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

 

[georgephillip]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

This CEO takes 8 weeks of vacation and rarely works weekends - CNN

"After growing that first business into the leading junk removal service, now known as 1-800-GOT-JUNK?, he founded and franchised three other home-service businesses: You Move Me, WOW 1-Day Painting and Shack Shine.

"Combined, the four brands employ more than 5,000 people, including 500 who work at Scudamore's O2E Brands, the parent company. He expects total revenue to top $400 million this year."

How much would Brian have earned without government providing the monopoly of violence that allows "rugged individualist" to grow their businesses without worrying about paying off local gangs?

 

[georgephillip]

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

How much would parasites like Brian earn without government providing the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

This CEO takes 8 weeks of vacation and rarely works weekends - CNN

"After growing that first business into the leading junk removal service, now known as 1-800-GOT-JUNK?, he founded and franchised three other home-service businesses: You Move Me, WOW 1-Day Painting and Shack Shine.

"Combined, the four brands employ more than 5,000 people, including 500 who work at Scudamore's O2E Brands, the parent company. He expects total revenue to top $400 million this year."

How much would Brian have earned without government providing the monopoly of violence that allows "rugged individualist" to grow their businesses without worrying about paying off local gangs?

How much would Brian have earned without government providing the monopoly of violence

Aren't his taxes intended to fund the "monopoly of violence"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

How much would parasites like Brian earn without government providing the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

How much would parasites like Brian earn without government providing the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

Aren't his taxes intended to pay for the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

It's not like the government is paying for these things with their own money, eh?

 

[dblack]

Corporations are created by government.
Really.

Corporation - Wikipedia

And that's the core of the problem. Government shouldn't be doing any of those things.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yep, government should do it all for free. And when it gets sick.. Die quickly.

Private companies can build their own roads, regulate their own markets, enforce their own laws, charter themselves, put out their own fires, provide their own clean water, deal with their own trash and sewage, etc, etc,.. else it should be provided for free.

Ohhhh, there ain't no welfare queens like giant corporations
Until one considers the billionaires hiding behind every damned one
Trading so hard they sometimes break into a sweat
Just so they can afford to sit out on their front porch
Drinking beer, smoking cigarettes, maybe even some weed
Some sunny day!

 

[Richard-H]

How 'bout mandatory profit sharing?

Hypothetical.....

You are in a company with declining market share. You need to focus research and design on a new product to save the company.

The law requires you pay out profits to employees.

Result, you don't have the resources to fund the R&D, and the company falls into obscurity and closes.

I'm all for profit sharing.... But the above, is the reason I'm against a 'one size fits all' solution. You don't know what a company is going through. You can look at a profit number in the moment, but you don't know if that profit is based on existing products that are going obsolete, or not.

I'll give you a perfect example. I worked for a company that focused on industrial printers. While the company was pulling down multiple millions a year in profit.... what you did not know looking at the profit numbers, was the company was losing ground year over years. The companies biggest selling product, was a printer designed in the 1980s, and quickly becoming obsolete.

The company was desperately trying to use those profits to create a new product, to generate new income.

If you had put in place a profit sharing requirement, that could have been devastating to the company.

Profit sharing is based on net profits, not gross profits.

Profit sharing has been working for a very long time...but it's only offered to a select few.

Like I said, I'm all for profit sharing.

I understand the difference between net profit, and gross profit. R&D budgets come out of net profits.

Money that is paid out in profit sharing, can't be used to fund R&D. It can't be used to open a new facility, or buy new equipment, or be used to grow the business, marketing, or purchase out a competitor that will grow the companies market.

Again... I am most certainly not against profit sharing. I am not. I am all for it.

I am just saying, you don't know what a business might be going through. Just looking at a profit statement, may not tell you whether or not a company is struggling. It might be pulling down a million dollars off of legacy products, while facing a very uncertain future.

That's why I'm against a one-size-fits-all solution. It's pretty easy for people on the outside, to claim they can just give out their millions in profit sharing. Then when the company closes because it never had the resources to make a new product, now everyone is unemployed. Well done.

So apparently you're all for profit sharing for the select few highly compensated employees, but not for the people who actually do the work.

Perhaps severe reductions in executive compensation would cover the mandatory profit sharing plus R&D.

 

[Andylusion]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

We were discussing a senior who had already worked forty to fifty years. Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

/——/ Bad life decisions, intellectual laziness, lack of planning, being stupid with money, not pursuing an education or vocational skills, eating take out every night while sitting on the front porch with a 12 pack smoking cigarettes and complaining that the rich are holding you down. There’s more but you get the idea.

Maybe it's just me, that that part right there is the absolute most infuriating thing for me.

I can't count the number of times I've had a co-worker complain about being poor, while sucking on a cigarette, after just finishing a story about getting plastered all weekend at a bar.

"The little man can't get ahead! They holding us down!" After $200 blown every weekend.... whines about being poor.... likely joins a forum, and complains about Wall St.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Coward's motto: Always be punching down or sideways, never up!

 

[Andylusion]

Everything she says involves big govt.
She is the arch nemesis of our constitution.
Fucking totalitarian.

She's read the Constitution.
Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 3 of the Act would establish an 'Office of United States Corporations', with a director appointed by the President on consent of the Senate, at the Department of Commerce to grant charters to large federal corporations, and monitor compliance with the Act's requirements.

"Section 4 requires corporations with over $1 billion in tax receipts to obtain a federal charter.

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

She's read the Constitution.
Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 3 of the Act would establish an 'Office of United States Corporations', with a director appointed by the President on consent of the Senate, at the Department of Commerce to grant charters to large federal corporations, and monitor compliance with the Act's requirements.

"Section 4 requires corporations with over $1 billion in tax receipts to obtain a federal charter.

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money?

It's what commies do...…..

 

[georgephillip]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

Read more.
Troll less.

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits. The essay is a synthesis of Lenin's modifications and developments of economic theories that Karl Marx formulated in Das Kapital (1867)."

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

Read more.
Troll less.

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits. The essay is a synthesis of Lenin's modifications and developments of economic theories that Karl Marx formulated in Das Kapital (1867)."

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia

Wow!

Lenin, expert on capitalism......DURR

 

[georgephillip]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

We were discussing a senior who had already worked forty to fifty years. Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

in order to avoid living in poverty

 

[Andylusion]

How 'bout mandatory profit sharing?

Hypothetical.....

You are in a company with declining market share. You need to focus research and design on a new product to save the company.

The law requires you pay out profits to employees.

Result, you don't have the resources to fund the R&D, and the company falls into obscurity and closes.

I'm all for profit sharing.... But the above, is the reason I'm against a 'one size fits all' solution. You don't know what a company is going through. You can look at a profit number in the moment, but you don't know if that profit is based on existing products that are going obsolete, or not.

I'll give you a perfect example. I worked for a company that focused on industrial printers. While the company was pulling down multiple millions a year in profit.... what you did not know looking at the profit numbers, was the company was losing ground year over years. The companies biggest selling product, was a printer designed in the 1980s, and quickly becoming obsolete.

The company was desperately trying to use those profits to create a new product, to generate new income.

If you had put in place a profit sharing requirement, that could have been devastating to the company.

Profit sharing is based on net profits, not gross profits.

Profit sharing has been working for a very long time...but it's only offered to a select few.

Like I said, I'm all for profit sharing.

I understand the difference between net profit, and gross profit. R&D budgets come out of net profits.

Money that is paid out in profit sharing, can't be used to fund R&D. It can't be used to open a new facility, or buy new equipment, or be used to grow the business, marketing, or purchase out a competitor that will grow the companies market.

Again... I am most certainly not against profit sharing. I am not. I am all for it.

I am just saying, you don't know what a business might be going through. Just looking at a profit statement, may not tell you whether or not a company is struggling. It might be pulling down a million dollars off of legacy products, while facing a very uncertain future.

That's why I'm against a one-size-fits-all solution. It's pretty easy for people on the outside, to claim they can just give out their millions in profit sharing. Then when the company closes because it never had the resources to make a new product, now everyone is unemployed. Well done.

So apparently you're all for profit sharing for the select few highly compensated employees, but not for the people who actually do the work.

Perhaps severe reductions in executive compensation would cover the mandatory profit sharing plus R&D.

So apparently you all can't read. Go back... read my post... and if you don't see "so only profit sharing for a select few highly compensated employees" in my post... then you are free to assume I didn't say that.

No, a reduction in executive compensation would not cover it.

First off, reducing executive compensation is a dangerous thing. For one, a bad CEO can destroy a company. Enron for example. A good CEO, can greatly increase a company, create jobs, and product goods and services the nation values. Steve Jobs at Apple for example.

Limiting CEO pay, only limits your ability to attract top CEO talent, and avoid crap CEOs. Would you rather have a profit sharing bonus of $50, and end up unemployed the following year? Because getting a cheap CEO, so you can get that $50, may well result in an Enron end to your job.

Second, is that it simply would not cover it.

Take Walmart. Walmart's CEO earned 22 Million last year. Walmart employs 2.2 million people. I assume you can do basic math. That means if we collected the CEO's entire pay check, and distributed it to all the employees, that's $10 per person.

And what happens when Walmart ends up run by a fool who drives the company into the ground?

So 2.2 million people end up unemployed... but at least they got $10s, and the CEO didn't collect $22 Million.

Brilliant move.

Third, is that you people don't even know how CEO compensation works. If you did, then you would know that all that compensation, isn't in money.

The CEO of Walmart, isn't collecting $22 Million in cash. Only about $6.3 Million is in cash. So in reality, you are not even going to get the $10 per person. More like three dollars per person.

The rest of a CEO's compensation is in stock and other benefits. For example, Warren buffet has a private jet at company expense. You can't divide up jet services that are used for a host of executives, and give it to employees.

Some might say, well just sell the jet, and give the money to the employees.... right except that company execs still need to fly places all the time. So now they'll have to hire an outside jet company, and pay retail price, which will cost the company more money than just owning their own jet.

And as far as stock compensation.... you want to be paid in stock, that you can't sell for 5 years? What's a college student at Walmart going to do with company stock instead of money, that he can't sell for years?

So even with your greedy mind, you want to steal the CEO's $22 Million compensation, you still won't get very much money.

So to review, no.... taking executive pay, will not pay for your profit sharing plan.

The math doesn't work for it.

 

[Andylusion]

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

Read more.
Troll less.

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits. The essay is a synthesis of Lenin's modifications and developments of economic theories that Karl Marx formulated in Das Kapital (1867)."

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia

Says a guy who lives as the top 1% of people in the world as far as standard of living, all because of capitalism.

Moreover, only the most stupid can't see where those who followed Lenin, and Marx, ended up....

 

[Andylusion]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

We were discussing a senior who had already worked forty to fifty years. Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

in order to avoid living in poverty

Except that the poorest people in Capitalism end up on top. That's a statistical fact. More than half the people in the bottom 20% of wage earners, end up in the top 20% of wage earners during their life.

That's a statistical fact.

Meanwhile... you look at any country with an opposite system, and you see people are born poor, live poor, and die poor. But at least there is no capitalism.... right?

 

[georgephillip]

Corporations are created by government.
Really.

Corporation - Wikipedia

And that's the core of the problem. Government shouldn't be doing any of those things.

And that's the core of the problem. Government shouldn't be doing any of those things.

Which institution should charter a private for-profit corporation?
Should corporations regulate themselves?
I understand government is failing the vast majority of Americans when it comes to corporate behavior, but I blame that on the private corporate money currently corrupting government.