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

[jc456]

economic democracy

Majority rule is good for some things. It's idiotic for an economy because everyone has different needs and desires, which don't always conform to the needs and desires of the majority.

I agree with that, that's why one negotiates things to benefit all. demofks don't do that.

 

[jc456]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

You tax the so called rich at 100% and still not pay off the debt.

Sooner or later people who make 100K a year will be called "The Rich"

And it's been this way already for a handful of years.

line item veto for a president solves the problem.

 

[georgephillip]

no democrat prefers democracy....they want big brother in total control

Democrats serve the richest ten percent of voters almost as slavishly as Republicans which is why I don't support either party; what about you?

The fact is creditors control this government just as they have almost every state since the fall of the Roman Empire, and I don't see any Democrats or Republicans willing to take on that fight?

 

[georgephillip]

get more mail in ballots ready then

More Bigots in High Places?

"In 2015, Kemp's office erroneously distributed the Social Security numbers and dates of birth of registered Georgia voters.

"During the 2016 election, Kemp was the only state official to reject help from the Department of Homeland Security to guard against Russian interference.

"Kemp also encountered criticism from voting rights advocates; from 2012 to 2018, Kemp's office cancelled more than 1.4 million voter registrations, and during the 2018 election, Kemp held up more than 53,000 voter registration applications, with nearly 70% of the voter registrations belonging to African Americans."

Brian Kemp - Wikipedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

After that we should make tax day the day before election day so people will still be sore from the big wet bite the fucking government just took out of their asses.

Yup!

Been saying that for years.
Withholding makes it too easy to disguise taxes paid.

 

[georgephillip]

When two people trade both benefit from the exchange. If only one party benefited, no one would ever trade.

When the two people are employer and employee, one loses and one wins when negotiating wages. Financial capitalism extends the principle when their interpretation of the "free market" protects big banks from insolvency by bailing out "losers" in order to pay "winners" on their all-or-nothing gambles whose size often exceeds their net worth.

 

[dblack]

When two people trade both benefit from the exchange. If only one party benefited, no one would ever trade.

When the two people are employer and employee, one loses and one wins when negotiating wages.

If either side feels the result of a negotiation is a loss, they should decline. And that's what people do, despite your delusions.

 

[georgephillip]

In your stilted, binary world view, life is a choice between government running your life or corporations running your life. Ever consider running your own life? It's not as scary as you seem to think.

I'm not delusional enough to believe I'm more powerful than society; apparently, you are.

I prefer to have a voice in how I'm governed, and democratic government is more likely than Wall Street to listen.

On "Private Tyrannies" | Ben O'Neill

"Chomsky goes on to cite with approval the work of political economist Robert Brady who states,

"Within the corporation all policies emanate from the control above. In the union of this power to determine policy with the execution thereof, all authority necessarily proceeds from the top to the bottom and all responsibility from the bottom to the top. This is, of course, the inverse of "democratic" control; it follows the structural conditions of dictatorial power.[2]"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Financial capitalism extends the principle when their interpretation of the "free market" protects big banks from insolvency

Yeah, short term loans were awful!!!

We should have allowed 30% of the banks to fail, like in the 1930s. DURR

by bailing out "losers" in order to pay "winners" on their all-or-nothing gambles whose size often exceeds their net worth.

Banks shouldn't be allowed to make mortgages, eh?
Or did you mean something else? Any specifics?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Under capitalism the vast majority of participants have a choice between selling their labor or starving.

Unlike communism, where you can't sell your labor and you still get to starve, eh comrade?

 

[dblack]

In your stilted, binary world view, life is a choice between government running your life or corporations running your life. Ever consider running your own life? It's not as scary as you seem to think.

I'm not delusional enough to believe I'm more powerful than society; apparently, you are.

I prefer to have a voice in how I'm governed, and democratic government is more likely than Wall Street to listen.

You are not "governed" by Wall Street. That's what you don't get. If a business pisses you off, or you just don't want what they're selling, you can refuse to do business with them. There's nothing they can do about it. They can't force you to buy their products or work in their employ.

Democratic government, no the other hand, offers no such option. The will of the majority will be forced on you whether you like it or not.

Your inability to acknowledge this simple fact is where you're stuck. It's where your argument breaks down and your understanding of economic matters is stymied.

 

[jc456]

I prefer to have a voice in how I'm governed, and democratic government is more likely than Wall Street to listen

Based on what? Name a success

 

[dblack]

When two people trade both benefit from the exchange. If only one party benefited, no one would ever trade.

When the two people are employer and employee, one loses and one wins when negotiating wages.

There's a key economic concept here, that you're either ignoring or don't understand: value is subjective. A given good or service will be worth more to some, and less to others. This is the reason we trade in the first place.

Maybe an example would help you. If I'm good at building houses, that's really only value to me one time. After I've built my own house, there's not as much incentive for me to build myself more houses and my skill isn't that valuable. It does me little good. But other people, who aren't good at building houses, would love to have my skill at building houses. It's worth more to them than it is to me. They, on the other hand, might be great at farming - and I suck at it. I have a really hard time growing enough food for my family. Their skill at farming, the food they produce, is worth more to me than it is to them. It's a win-win trade, not a win/lose trade. We'll haggle over prices, which might seem to you like winning and losing, but once we agree on a price, we still both benefit from the trade. And if either side feels like they aren't benefiting enough, they can decline the trade.

 

[dblack]

Under capitalism the vast majority of participants have a choice between selling their labor or starving.

Unlike communism, where you can't sell your labor and you still get to starve, eh comrade?

Under communism, your labor isn't yours to sell. It's the state's.

 

[jc456]

Under capitalism the vast majority of participants have a choice between selling their labor or starving.

Unlike communism, where you can't sell your labor and you still get to starve, eh comrade?

Under communism, your labor isn't yours to sell. It's the state's.

And it’s at their beckon call!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Under capitalism the vast majority of participants have a choice between selling their labor or starving.

Unlike communism, where you can't sell your labor and you still get to starve, eh comrade?

Under communism, your labor isn't yours to sell. It's the state's.

That's what I said.... Unlike communism, where you can't sell your labor

 

[Blues Man]

In ideal capitalism, fraud would be rare. However, we're not an ideal capitalistic system by a long shot.

And yet, even in non-ideal capitalism, fraud is relatively rare. It could definitely be better though.

Most people think that 'Capitalism' means 'Opportunism'. Anything goes if you can get away with it.

Yeah. That's just one of the problems with "most people".

The 'free-market' is a 'free-for-all-market'. May the best thief win!!!!

That's the reality.

That's the opposite of a free market. A free market depends on the mutual respect of property rights. Sounds like you're one of those folks who confuses freedom with anarchy.

Sounds like your one of those people that confuses fantasy with reality.

In our real economic system defacto fraud occurs all the time. Laws are created by the wealthy and by the thieves to protect themselves.

Do you really believe that the people who work in the New York City financial industry care about ideal capitalism or economic fairness or a fair free-market?

I grew up in Wall Street's bedroom - those people couldn't care less about anything except sucking up all the money that they can get their greedy little hands on any way they can get it- and screw everybody else. They're all mobsters.

Thank God for the regulation that we do have - otherwise we'd all be their slaves!

Oh, wait! We are all their slaves.

How does some guy on Wall Street commit defraud you?

I have been buying stocks and shares in mutual funds since I was 18 and have never been the victim of fraud on any of those transactions.

Every week billions of dollars are poured into stock & other financial mechanisms thru 401k plans.

According to the law of supply and demand, stocks should all steadily increase in value.

Instead, short term traders keep the market volatile which allows them to transfer all the 401k money into their pockets.

Secondly, banks have been extending far, far too much credit to everyone for many years. This has caused gross inflation - especially in housing and automobiles. We end up paying 2-3 times the original price due to interest. Everyone winds up being in incredible debt their whole lives. The banks own our homes and cars - effectively they own us.

Didn't the 2008 economic crash teach you anything? How about 1929?

What a mountain of equivocation.

Yes, we all are wage slaves and that is why we live the most luxurious and pampered lives that we have since the dawn of time. The fact I can go outside and be anywhere in the world inside of 2 days shows how little freedom of movement exists. The fact that companies advertise and compete to get my labor shows that they actually own me. And, just like slaves, we have the burden of actually electing the government for which we live under.

The problem with declaring that everyone is steeling from you and that you are so suppressed by short term trades in wall street, which do not actually effect you unless you are willfully and freely participating, is that it takes utterly ignoring the reality around you. It never ceases to amaze me how one of the most free societies to ever exist is filled with a massive number of people demanding they are victims.

You sound exactly like Trump: WHHHHHAAAAAAAA!!! everyone is steeling from us so we need tariffs in place to stop them taking advantage of us all while we are the wealthiest nation by a massive margin. Ignoring reality.

You've obviously never had to support yourself on a minimum wage job.

You only see your own self-centered existence - oblivious to the world around you.

You always make these kinds of presumptions about someone you don't know at all?

Because anyone that says the things he said obviously has never supported themselves on minimum wage, and is unaware of the standard of living of those that do support themselves on minimum wage.

Any more idiotic questions?

And you would be incorrect. Supported myself since I was 16 and spent a few of those years living on the streets. Been upper middle class to destitute. Never once was threatened with starvation as most of the planet faces on a regular basis. Never once had to worry about a war coning into our neighborhoods as much of the world also faces. Always could find shelter no matter where I was.

And even when I was homeless I was pretty well off. It is absolutely telling that you are unaware of how truly pampered we are at this moment in time and here in this nation. You are part of the 0.1%.

I have seen real poverty. I have been to the third world and seen what true destitution is. Your comments strike me as someone who is utterly clueless as to the reality of life for the vast majority of people throughout time. Funny that you state I am being 'self-centered' because I recognize the fact that we are living in a fucking amazing time in an amazing nation when the vast majority of the world's 7+ billion people really do live in poverty.

We have out problems. Many people in the nation have very severe problems. Not one of them that had any sense would trade their current position for the average joe in China, North Korea, India, virtually anywhere in the entire continent of Africa or virtually anywhere in the Middle East. You know, where most of the worlds population lives....

Our sob story reeks of BULLSHIT!

Apparently, you didn't try supporting yourself on minimum wage. I guess you preferred homelessness to being a wage slave, correct? Preferred the government handouts?

Besides, this discussion was about fraud in the capitalist system, not about worldwide poverty.

You got way off topic.

I haven't made MW since I was 16.

If you're still making MW when you're 30 it's your own fault

 

[Blues Man]

I know damn well that I could have been an executive in the financial industry in NYC (like so many of my classmates) except for the fact that I had a moral conscience - and they knew it.

And he says my story is bullshit. LOL.

 

[Blues Man]

When two people trade both benefit from the exchange. If only one party benefited, no one would ever trade.

When the two people are employer and employee, one loses and one wins when negotiating wages. Financial capitalism extends the principle when their interpretation of the "free market" protects big banks from insolvency by bailing out "losers" in order to pay "winners" on their all-or-nothing gambles whose size often exceeds their net worth.

Wrong.

Since wages are negotiated if the prospective employee accepts the offer and the employer is willing to pay it they both win.

The employer gets a potentially valuable employee and the employee to be gets a job he wanted

If the deal wasn't acceptable to either one then the employer doesn't have to hire the applicant or the applicant doesn't have to accept the employment offer.

Every single employer/employee relationship is 100 percent voluntary

 

[Turtlesoup]

The State owns everything, not the individual. The individual can never advance, never own their own property, or their fruits of their labor In between Socialism, and Capitalism

That's one of many variations of socialism.
There's another exemplified by Mondragon Corporation.
Worker owned or self-directed enterprises can accomplish everything neoliberal capitalism can without a growing chasm between rich and poor.

Socialism is where the workers own the means of production.

"If you didn’t believe me the second time, google it. Sometimes it’s defined as 'public' or 'social' ownership of the means of production–words which are problematic for a reason I will get into shortly–but the point that needs to be hammered the hell home is that socialism is not, I repeat, not necessarily the redistribution of wealth."

Are workers’ cooperatives 
the alternative to capitalism? | International Socialist Review

Socialism in actuality is the promises of free chit that always lead to starvation of the masses while the ruling class and their puppet masters get richer. See venzuela and nazi Germany.