Wealth Tax: Yeah! Why do Warren Buffett and Bill gates need so much money in their Trust?

[jc456]

What I did was own and operate a successful property rental and management business for 25 years.

How many businesses have you owned and operated?

Zero.
How many people have you made homeless over those 25 years?

You think employers create homelessness? That’s not logical. Explain how that works?

 

[Blues Man]

every business owner knows that better employees means more revenue.

They also know higher wages means lower profits.
Which side wins out?

The Divine Right of Capital

"There are also two kinds of people: employee people and capital people.

"The stripped-down structure of the income statement is this:

"Profit = Revenue − Costs"

Do you side with employee people or capital people?

it's a balance. One that you obviously don't understand because you seem to think that every business owner treats his employees like shit

 

[Blues Man]

the government has no business propping up colleges.

Government policies affect the cost of education. Decades ago those policies helped build the American middle class.

Over the past fifty years, Government has chosen to side with private lenders who profit from making higher education more expensive.

The cost of college increased by more than 25% in the last 10 years—here's why

"During the 1978 - 1979 school year, it cost the modern equivalent of $17,680 per year to attend a private college and $8,250 per year to attend a public college.

"By the 2008 - 2009 school year those costs had grown to $38,720 at private colleges and $16,460 at public colleges.

"Today, those costs are closer to $48,510 and $21,370, respectively.

"That means costs increased by roughly 25.3% at private colleges and about 29.8% at public colleges."

Do you believe government should prop up private lenders or students?

Tuition has increased because people have fallen for the everyone has to go to college bullshit.

The government guarantees loans so lenders give loans to people who wouldn't ordinarily get them. That creates a false demand which raises prices.

And the government has no business propping up students or banks.

 

[Blues Man]

What I did was own and operate a successful property rental and management business for 25 years.

How many businesses have you owned and operated?

Zero.
How many people have you made homeless over those 25 years?

Not a single one.

 

[georgephillip]

How government creates millionaires

Digital History

"In 1981, the year Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president, ABC television introduced the smash hit 'Dynasty,' a show celebrating glamour and greed.

"It was, in the eyes of many social commentators, an appropriate beginning for the 1980s--a decade of selfishness and an anything goes attitude.

"Wall Street enthusiastically took part in the new celebration of wealth, as the Reagan years witnessed a corporate merger and takeover boom of unprecedented proportions.

"By using low-grade, risky 'junk bonds' to finance corporate acquisitions, corporate raiders such as Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham Lambert purchased and then dismantled companies for huge profits.

"In 1987, Milken earned $550 million by financing acquisitions.

"During the 1980s, 100,000 Americans became millionaires every year.

"The average annual earnings of the bottom 20 percent, however, fell from $9,376 to $8,800. In addition, many of the new jobs created during the Reagan years were in the low-wage service industries."

 

[Utilitarian]

If you don't like the American system's corruption, the last place you should admire is China, because it's basically what would happen here if we took corporatism even further but had a dictator controlling everything at the top.

I think the control of a state by any large interest group requires corruption, and I don't think any version of capitalism can exist without massive private corruption.

Imho, China's authoritarian one-party system of politics is exactly what (state) capitalism was created for:

Confronting the Challenge of Chinese State Capitalism

"China now has more companies on the Fortune Global 500 list than does the United States (124 versus 121), with nearly 75 percent of these being state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

"Three of the world’s five largest companies are Chinese (Sinopec Group, State Grid, and China National Petroleum).

"China’s largest SOEs hold dominant market positions in many of the most critical and strategic industries, from energy to shipping to rare earths.

"According to Freeman Chair calculations, the combined assets for China’s 96 largest SOEs total more than $63 trillion, an amount equivalent to nearly 80 percent of global GDP."

I don't have admiration for any edition of capitalism because of the degree of corruption required to sustain any economy built of exploitation and imperialism.

I disagree but only in terms of corporate structure. Capitalism does not require said corruption. Corporations seem to, however.

Capitalism does not require corporations. For most of its existence, capitalism did not have corporations. Corporations themselves are an invention of the state through corporate law. Before corporations, there were certain large companies (like the East India Company) which sometimes colluded with governments, but they still did not have the corporate veil that exists today.

If we eliminated most of corporate law, capitalism would become much freer throughout the world. Of course, that's not going to happen.

So, in practical terms, you could say capitalism is the problem, but in technical terms, it is instead a problem with corporatism or corporate law.

 

[jc456]

If you don't like the American system's corruption, the last place you should admire is China, because it's basically what would happen here if we took corporatism even further but had a dictator controlling everything at the top.

I think the control of a state by any large interest group requires corruption, and I don't think any version of capitalism can exist without massive private corruption.

Imho, China's authoritarian one-party system of politics is exactly what (state) capitalism was created for:

Confronting the Challenge of Chinese State Capitalism

"China now has more companies on the Fortune Global 500 list than does the United States (124 versus 121), with nearly 75 percent of these being state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

"Three of the world’s five largest companies are Chinese (Sinopec Group, State Grid, and China National Petroleum).

"China’s largest SOEs hold dominant market positions in many of the most critical and strategic industries, from energy to shipping to rare earths.

"According to Freeman Chair calculations, the combined assets for China’s 96 largest SOEs total more than $63 trillion, an amount equivalent to nearly 80 percent of global GDP."

I don't have admiration for any edition of capitalism because of the degree of corruption required to sustain any economy built of exploitation and imperialism.

I disagree but only in terms of corporate structure. Capitalism does not require said corruption. Corporations seem to, however.

Capitalism does not require corporations. For most of its existence, capitalism did not have corporations. Corporations themselves are an invention of the state through corporate law. Before corporations, there were certain large companies (like the East India Company) which sometimes colluded with governments, but they still did not have the corporate veil that exists today.

If we eliminated most of corporate law, capitalism would become much freer throughout the world. Of course, that's not going to happen.

So, in practical terms, you could say capitalism is the problem, but in technical terms, it is instead a problem with corporatism or corporate law.

It’s that way because of law suits.

 

[Utilitarian]

I disagree but only in terms of corporate structure. Capitalism does not require said corruption. Corporations seem to, however.

Capitalism does not require corporations. For most of its existence, capitalism did not have corporations. Corporations themselves are an invention of the state through corporate law. Before corporations, there were certain large companies (like the East India Company) which sometimes colluded with governments, but they still did not have the corporate veil that exists today.

If we eliminated most of corporate law, capitalism would become much freer throughout the world. Of course, that's not going to happen.

So, in practical terms, you could say capitalism is the problem, but in technical terms, it is instead a problem with corporatism or corporate law.

It’s that way because of law suits.

Some of corporate law addresses that, but the initial creation of corporations happened long before the modern trend of litigiousness. Corporations were granted "personhood" through a very distorted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, for example.

How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into 'People' | HISTORY

Under U.S. law, some essential rights of the 14th amendment belong not only to American citizens, but also corporations—thanks to a few key Supreme Court cases and a controversial legal concept known as corporate personhood.

www.history.com

 

[georgephillip]

He's right about the leisure class....certainly people that have access money will spend for leisure...that's a good thing....I was happy when I finally got successful enough to buy things I wanted and not just things I needed. Only in Capitalism can you get to that level of freedom.

Veblen linked the conspicuous consumption of US robber barons with the social stratification of people and division of labor from Europe's feudal age (9th-15th centuries):

<i>The Theory of the Leisure Class</i>

"Veblen asserts that the contemporary lords of the manor, the businessmen who own the means of production, have employed themselves in the economically unproductive practices of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure, which are useless activities that contribute neither to the economy nor to the material production of the useful goods and services required for the functioning of society, while it is the middle class and the working class who are usefully employed in the industrialised, productive occupations that support the whole of society."

 

[georgephillip]

The demon rats can confiscate the private property of every millionaire , billionaire and plebian in the us and the total would not pay off us national debt .

"A small tax on the great fortunes of more than $50 million can bring in nearly $4 trillion to rebuild America’s middle class."

Ultra-Millionaire Tax | Elizabeth Warren

Which side are you on?

 

[georgephillip]

It's all about redistribution of wealth, do ya understand that when you do that the rich people take their wealth and go elsewhere? Who here thinks that's good for the economy? We've seen it time after time, when you try to fuck the rich the rich leave.

But they leave their real estate behind along with their citizenship. You seem oblivious to how government helped millionaires acquire their fortunes.

When Reagan expanded Carter's efforts to decontrol and deregulate the economy, he launched a wave of new millionaires while at the same time reducing the income of 20% of Americans:

Digital History

"Wall Street enthusiastically took part in the new celebration of wealth, as the Reagan years witnessed a corporate merger and takeover boom of unprecedented proportions.

"By using low-grade, risky 'junk bonds' to finance corporate acquisitions, corporate raiders such as Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham Lambert purchased and then dismantled companies for huge profits.

"In 1987, Milken earned $550 million by financing acquisitions."

During the 1980s, 100,000 Americans became millionaires every year. The average annual earnings of the bottom 20 percent, however, fell from $9,376 to $8,800..."

 

[jc456]

It's all about redistribution of wealth, do ya understand that when you do that the rich people take their wealth and go elsewhere? Who here thinks that's good for the economy? We've seen it time after time, when you try to fuck the rich the rich leave.

But they leave their real estate behind along with their citizenship. You seem oblivious to how government helped millionaires acquire their fortunes.

When Reagan expanded Carter's efforts to decontrol and deregulate the economy, he launched a wave of new millionaires while at the same time reducing the income of 20% of Americans:

Digital History

"Wall Street enthusiastically took part in the new celebration of wealth, as the Reagan years witnessed a corporate merger and takeover boom of unprecedented proportions.

"By using low-grade, risky 'junk bonds' to finance corporate acquisitions, corporate raiders such as Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham Lambert purchased and then dismantled companies for huge profits.

"In 1987, Milken earned $550 million by financing acquisitions."

During the 1980s, 100,000 Americans became millionaires every year. The average annual earnings of the bottom 20 percent, however, fell from $9,376 to $8,800..."

Why haven’t you answered my question on wealth?

 

[georgephillip]

That's some word salad. Worthy of @danielpalos even.

What about capitalism depends on fraud?

Capitalism divides society into two unequal cohorts.
A small minority of owners.
A much larger majority of workers.
Owners decide what to produce, where to produce it, and how any surplus will be divided.
Anyone not hopelessly blinded by corporate ideology can see the inherent corruption.

The Rise Of Crony Capitalism

 

[jc456]

That's some word salad. Worthy of @danielpalos even.

What about capitalism depends on fraud?

Capitalism divides society into two unequal cohorts.
A small minority of owners.
A much larger majority of workers.
Owners decide what to produce, where to produce it, and how any surplus will be divided.
Anyone not hopelessly blinded by corporate ideology can see the inherent corruption.

The Rise Of Crony Capitalism

You’re rambling with no evidence of your point

 

[struth]

He's right about the leisure class....certainly people that have access money will spend for leisure...that's a good thing....I was happy when I finally got successful enough to buy things I wanted and not just things I needed. Only in Capitalism can you get to that level of freedom.

Veblen linked the conspicuous consumption of US robber barons with the social stratification of people and division of labor from Europe's feudal age (9th-15th centuries):

<i>The Theory of the Leisure Class</i>

"Veblen asserts that the contemporary lords of the manor, the businessmen who own the means of production, have employed themselves in the economically unproductive practices of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure, which are useless activities that contribute neither to the economy nor to the material production of the useful goods and services required for the functioning of society, while it is the middle class and the working class who are usefully employed in the industrialised, productive occupations that support the whole of society."

of course it contributes...the leisure class is still buying things...the things they want still need to be produced

 

[dblack]

It's all about redistribution of wealth, do ya understand that when you do that the rich people take their wealth and go elsewhere? Who here thinks that's good for the economy? We've seen it time after time, when you try to fuck the rich the rich leave.

But they leave their real estate behind along with their citizenship. You seem oblivious to how government helped millionaires acquire their fortunes.

When Reagan expanded Carter's efforts to decontrol and deregulate the economy, he launched a wave of new millionaires while at the same time reducing the income of 20% of Americans:

Digital History

"Wall Street enthusiastically took part in the new celebration of wealth, as the Reagan years witnessed a corporate merger and takeover boom of unprecedented proportions.

"By using low-grade, risky 'junk bonds' to finance corporate acquisitions, corporate raiders such as Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham Lambert purchased and then dismantled companies for huge profits.

"In 1987, Milken earned $550 million by financing acquisitions."

During the 1980s, 100,000 Americans became millionaires every year. The average annual earnings of the bottom 20 percent, however, fell from $9,376 to $8,800..."

Why haven’t you answered my question on wealth?

He never answer questions. He just posts unrelated propaganda.

 

[dblack]

That's some word salad. Worthy of @danielpalos even.

What about capitalism depends on fraud?

Capitalism divides society into two unequal cohorts.
A small minority of owners.
A much larger majority of workers.
Owners decide what to produce, where to produce it, and how any surplus will be divided.

And? What's corrupt about that?

Anyone not hopelessly blinded by corporate ideology can see the inherent corruption.

So, you got nothing? You can't back up your claim. It's just that anyone who challenges your empty horseshit is "hopelessly blinded". What a fucking joke.

 

[jc456]

I disagree but only in terms of corporate structure. Capitalism does not require said corruption. Corporations seem to, however.

Capitalism does not require corporations. For most of its existence, capitalism did not have corporations. Corporations themselves are an invention of the state through corporate law. Before corporations, there were certain large companies (like the East India Company) which sometimes colluded with governments, but they still did not have the corporate veil that exists today.

If we eliminated most of corporate law, capitalism would become much freer throughout the world. Of course, that's not going to happen.

So, in practical terms, you could say capitalism is the problem, but in technical terms, it is instead a problem with corporatism or corporate law.

It’s that way because of law suits.

Some of corporate law addresses that, but the initial creation of corporations happened long before the modern trend of litigiousness. Corporations were granted "personhood" through a very distorted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, for example.

How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into 'People' | HISTORY

Under U.S. law, some essential rights of the 14th amendment belong not only to American citizens, but also corporations—thanks to a few key Supreme Court cases and a controversial legal concept known as corporate personhood.

www.history.com

The other reason is tax law, personal vs business.

 

[danielpalos]

That's some word salad. Worthy of @danielpalos even.

What about capitalism depends on fraud?

Capitalism divides society into two unequal cohorts.
A small minority of owners.
A much larger majority of workers.
Owners decide what to produce, where to produce it, and how any surplus will be divided.
Anyone not hopelessly blinded by corporate ideology can see the inherent corruption.

The Rise Of Crony Capitalism

Raise the minimum wage until even the Poor pay enough taxes and can afford justice!

 

[georgephillip]

That's irrelevant. Even if your "socialist order" was a perfectly functioning democracy (a ridiculously naive presumption), it's still a fact that labor is owned by the state. In other words, best case scenario, the minority is owned by the majority.

Whether workers control the state or the state owns workers is relevant to anyone concerned with reality.

Obviously not a concern for you.

Socialism extends democracy to the workplace thereby ending the unequal economic and political influence of a small minority of owners over a majority of workers.

"Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public."

Economic democracy - Wikipedia.