You go Girl! Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Plans Bill to Boost Top Individual Tax Rate to 59%

[Bleipriester]

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Hitler would have been so proud of you.

If we took all the poor in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would they never be missed, it would benefit society greatly.

If we took all the rich in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country would collapse.

Next time you need a job, ask a homeless man for one.

Hitler was funded by the private companies. He maintained market economy. No idea where you have your nonsense from.
And without the rich the poor would not be poor. People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

Hold on. I'll argue with you about your opinion, but this history rewriting, no....

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

Ludwig Von Mises wrote all the way back in the 1950s..... the National Socialism, was in fact socialism. The Nazis were not capitalist free-market people.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
​

Yeah, it was more "capitalist" than the Russian version, where they just killed everyone and stole their stuff.

But leaving the "shop managers" in place, is about as close to free-market capitalism as it got. The state controlled everything. They controlled what you produced, what prices you charged, and what people got paid.... EVERYTHING. There's a famous (if questionable) statement by Hitler himself, where he said (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter to me if you own the cow.... as long as I own you".

Meaning, yeah on paper you own that manufacturing plant... but I'm telling you what you are going to manufacturer, and what price you'll charge, and who you'll employ, and so on.

And by the way, this is why German Socialism was superior to Russian Socialism. This is why the Russians were handing out rifles to every 5th soldier during the deployment. I told you in the other post, how terrible it is for the people with the knowledge and skills to leave the country.

The Russians killed all the people who knew out to make stuff work. That's why their entire economy imploded. While the German economy was clearly damaged by their socialistic controls, they didn't kill the people who knew how to make the businesses in the country run. They controlled them, yes, and that was harmful, but not nearly as bad as simply killing them all off like the Russians did.

But this mindless stupidity being puked out of universities today, that Hitler had a free-market capitalist economy.... I don't blame you for thinking that given the number of idiots in universities who have spouted this crap... but is crap. The people who were there, like Mises, who documented how the Nazis worked.... it wasn't free-market capitalism.... any more than me putting a gun to your head, and telling you to work.... is really voluntary exchange. BULL CRAP.

And without the rich the poor would not be poor.

Again... the rich left Cuba, and they left Venezuela, and they left N.Korea.

The people there..... are super freakin poor. More poor, than anyone here in the US. The poorest of the poor in the US, I don't see them eating grass like N.Korea. I don't see families, without mental illness, working a job.... and living in a refrigerator box, like they do in Cuba. There was a documentary that came out some years ago, where people were going to University to get a degree.... in order to be a waiter at a restaurant in Cuba.

No rich..... extremely extremely poor.

People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

If they didn't have crappy job, they would have no jobs.

Again, Cuba, Venezuela, N.Korea.... so on... Not having crappy jobs, doesn't mean that you'll magically have a good job.

That's a strange concept at face value. You are implying.... that if you eliminate crappy jobs, that people without skills, will either A: Magically get skills...... Or B: that jobs that require skills, will simply hire people without them..... because there are no crappy jobs, and so they hire people without skills.

This is a stupid ideology. If I run an auto repair bay..... I'm not hiring someone who can't fix a car, just because Walmart and McDonald's no longer exist.

If I need my water heater replaced, I'm not hiring someone who can't replace one.... just because there are no crappy jobs they can work.

The reason people get crappy jobs, is because they have crappy skills. It's not like all these people have degrees in nuclear physics, and are working at Wendy's because it..... well it exists.... and they are all just waiting for you to come along and ban crappy jobs, and then they'll all work NASA or SpaceX or something.

All these Ph.Ds all flipping burgers over, just waiting for the day you'll be elected and ban Wendy's, so they can go get their Quantum Physics job.

It's not happening dude. The reason people work at Wendy's is because they are not qualified to work elsewhere. You eliminating those jobs, doesn't make them qualified elsewhere. So you get rid of no-skill jobs, just means that no-skill people will be unemployed.

Yeah yeah, you capitalism guys insist on that because evil is qual to socialism. But National Socialism is not regular socialism and therefor not comparable. All the companies you know, Messerschmitt, Mercedes, Auto Union, ect were pricately owned. You are just forming your own reality like idiots. I am long enough here and I can say that because it is true.

Right....... ok... so I'm going place my bets on the 50 years plus of research on how the Nazi economy actually worked, research done by world renowned economists and historians..... over the words of random internet poster.

So if you want to play the appeal to authority game.... I gotta let you know, that evidence from people like Mises, verses "Bleipriester" on authority... you lose that game.

Moreover, I just posted an article about how "they were privately owned" only in word, but not in practice. So repeating that they were privately owned, when I already said openly that in practice the government controlled every aspect of the companies..... doesn't make your point any more relevant.

Owning something on paper, doesn't matter, if I can control every single aspect of your life. The whole point of private ownership, is that you can do with your stuff, whatever you want. Because.... you own it.

If I can control when you drive your car, how far you can drive it, what places you can drive it to, and control who is allowed in your car.... do you really own the car? Answer..... No. You don't.

This doesn't seem to be that difficult of a concept, so I'm not sure why you keep stumbling over it. You might give your son, a room to sleep in.... but do they own that room? No. Can you control what they do in that room? Yes. They don't own it.

Similarly, businesses in German might have been their private property on paper.... but the Nazi controlled everything that you did. Who hired, how much you paid, what product you made, where you bought supplies from, and who you sold products to. Yes, on paper, I get it.... it was privately owned on paper. In reality, the Nazis controlled nearly everything.

Now you can keep lying to yourself, in the face of 50 years of research to the contrary, but that just makes you an idiot. Time to grow up..... seriously.

You have no idea about "Nazi Germany" and it will be this way for every so I am saving the trouble of elaborating.
Some simple example:
Junkers was pressured to sell his company when he refused to make war planes.

 

[Andylusion]

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

What a bunch of nonsense.
I want more Americans to be successful.

Business plan A with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 8 million, while paying the average worker $40,000 for that year.

Business plan B with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 6 million, while paying the average worker $80,000 for that year.

Business plan C with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 5 million, while paying the average worker $100,000 for that year.

I see Company C as a very successful Business, an Owner making Millions per year, and workers that are in the upper middle class.
I see Company A as a very successful Business, and Owner making Millions per year, and workers making millions for the owner while themselves making less than a median salary Nationwide.

Tell me you support business Plan C and can agree that Business Plan A's owner has a Greedy and Uncaring attitude for his/her workers.​

Then why don't you open up Company C and see how long you stay in business.

huh?

Are you saying Plan C is terrible.
Owner makes $5,000,000 per year.
Seems pretty stable to me, I'm surely confused about your lack of good business sense.

What I am saying is...... DO IT......

This is the problem with you people. You spout off about things you don't know.... but you never put your money where your mouth is.

Stop preaching...... and DO IT..... shut your yapping mouth flopping around all the time..... AND DO IT YOURSELF.

It's always so easy for you arm chair generals to sit around saying "Well here is how others should live their lives!" and you never live it out. Never.

Not one time do you people ever live out what you claim.

Bernie Sanders is a perfect example....... Bernie sitting around supporting the $15/hour, and saying no one who works 40 hours should live poor.

Bernie Reportedly Doesn't Pay His Staff the $15 Minimum Wage He's So Into

Then it turns out that Bernie doesn't even pay his own people $15/hour.

So what does Bernie do?

Bernie Sanders campaign announces it will cut hours to pay staffers $15 minimum wage -

Bernie can't afford to pay them $15, so he cuts hours.... yeah, he'll pay $15/hour.... but you are working fewer hours.

Bernie Sanders, kicked out of his own commune for being lazy, now a multimillionaire with multiple property, can't pay staffers $15/hour, while claiming everyone else in the entire country should.

You people NEVER LIVE IT OUT. It's always "well that business owner over there doesn't care, and they should do this and that"..... You sit on your butts in front of a computer all day long spewing out how everyone else should live their lives, and you never live it yourself. NEVER.

If employees feel as though they are not paid enough, they can quit their jobs, and work elsewhere. Your existence, does not entitle you to anything the CEO or owner is paid. I care if you think they are greedy or whatever, it's none of your business, it's not your money, your company, or your anything, and your opinion is not important to anyone but yourself.

You think the owner should take less money, and give more to the employees..... then do it yourself. Close mouth.... close.... now go practice what you preach...... then we'll listen..... until then.... either practice it.... or stop preaching it. The only one here who cares about your virtue signaling, is you.

 

[Bleipriester]

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated. But I think that the whole story is a hoax. You know US law? You have to pay up anyway, no matter where you got to. They´d have to give up on their citizenship. Also, not every rich is this unpatriotic.

But it is true. It's a statistical, historical fact.

View attachment 290063
The effective tax rate on the top 1%, isn't much different today, than it was in the 70s or 50s, when tax rates were double what they are today.

What that means is that the share of the tax burden has fallen more on the poor, than the rich, in the past.

View attachment 290064

The poorest 50% of tax payers (that would include the middle class, are paying less of the tax burden today, than they did in the 1970s with the 70% top marginal rate. Equally the top 1% are paying more of the tax burden today, than they did when the top marginal rate was 70%.

This isn't theory.... it is flat out statistical, undeniable, documented fact.

if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Again... that has been tried. They tried it in Venezuela. The rich packed up and left, and the government confiscated their wealth.

What you people don't seem to understand, is that it is the rich people themselves, that know how to make assets have value. That is in fact, exactly why they are wealthy.

Farms that produced enough food to feed the country, and export the surplus food.... were confiscated. The wealthy farm owners left the country. The farms stopped producing food, because shockingly peasants and poor people... don't know how to farm, and nether do the government bureaucrats.

Now they have mass starvation. What makes the assets have value is that someone knows how to make them produce value. You ditch the people who have the money and knowledge to make it work, and it doesn't work. A highly valuable farm, is now worthless.

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

You seem to be operating under the impression that wealth is static. Wealth is not static.

I worked at a Cadillac dealer. We had a poor guy that had been given a car. He wasn't super poor, but he didn't earn enough to own a Cadillac. In order to save money, he gave the car to a no-name mechanic shop, which pulled the motor apart (it needed a timing belt), and when they did that, they broke the engine block.

Expensive car, now a junk yard master piece. The value of the car changed. It wasn't worth, what it was before, when it was owned and could be maintained by a wealthy person.

This idea that you are just going to confiscate their stuff, and keep the wealth... that's not how the world works.

When Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil fields that Exxon was developing, it didn't make the government wealthy... it made the oil fields worthless. The government didn't have the equipment, nor the expertise to develop those oil fields... so they simply didn't get developed.

You know how much an oil field you can't pump oil from, is worth? Nothing.

And here's the thing.... did it hurt Exxon? In the short term, yes because they lost the money they put into those oil fields... .but in the long term it didn't hurt Exxon at all. They simply bought new equipment, and sent their skilled and knowledgeable people elsewhere in the world, and made money there, and developed oil fields there, and paid taxes in those countries, instead of Venezuela.

In the long term, Venezuela lost everything, and Exxon gained, just elsewhere.

Driving out these people, is going to be a net loss to everyone, except for the rich people.

Go back to Cuba even. The wealthy sugar plantations owners were driven out. The result wasn't that they got rich off the sugar fields. In fact, all the harvests declined after that, and Cuba became impoverished.

Meanwhile the wealthy plantation owners, simply left the country, and started businesses elsewhere, and most became wealthy again... just now they didn't benefit the poor Cubans left behind.

Your system, doesn't work. Never has in the past, and never will in the future.

That doesn´t speak in favor of the rich. It only proofs that they sponge up all the money.

If the rich stayed in Venezuela, and the government didn't socialize the food market, they would still be producing enough food to feed their people, and export to the rest of South American, just like they did before Hugo Chavez and Maduro screwed everything up.

Honestly, until you show me even one country that has lots of jobs and wealth... with zero rich people.... then yeah I think it does speak in favor of the rich.

Do tell.... how many impoverished beggars have you gotten a job from? List them all. I'd love to know.

Neither Chavez nor Maduro socialized the food market. Another idiocy by the capitalist guys. Majority of the food economy in Venezula is owened by the capitalists that now play opposition.
Example: Supermarkets

Government:
Abasto Bicentenario
Mercal (charitable)


Private:
Automercados Plaza's
Central Madeirense
Líder
Makro
Mikro
San Diego
De Candido
Unicasa
Excelsior Gama

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

This isn't up for debate. This is fact. You need to stop being stupid, and grow up a bit.

NPR is well known for carrying out government agendas.

 

[Winco]

Businesses don't open up to provide good jobs and wages. Businesses open up to sell products or services. Nobody is going to save the money, invest it, only to end up making as much as his or her employees. If you want to make as much as your employees, you would just get a job as a worker.

You continue to dodge and deflect.
Company C's Business had the Owner making $5 Million. After payroll, after takes.
and 50 employees each made $100,000 (Not the same as the Owner)

 

[Andylusion]

Hitler would have been so proud of you.

If we took all the poor in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would they never be missed, it would benefit society greatly.

If we took all the rich in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country would collapse.

Next time you need a job, ask a homeless man for one.

Hitler was funded by the private companies. He maintained market economy. No idea where you have your nonsense from.
And without the rich the poor would not be poor. People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

Hold on. I'll argue with you about your opinion, but this history rewriting, no....

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

Ludwig Von Mises wrote all the way back in the 1950s..... the National Socialism, was in fact socialism. The Nazis were not capitalist free-market people.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
​

Yeah, it was more "capitalist" than the Russian version, where they just killed everyone and stole their stuff.

But leaving the "shop managers" in place, is about as close to free-market capitalism as it got. The state controlled everything. They controlled what you produced, what prices you charged, and what people got paid.... EVERYTHING. There's a famous (if questionable) statement by Hitler himself, where he said (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter to me if you own the cow.... as long as I own you".

Meaning, yeah on paper you own that manufacturing plant... but I'm telling you what you are going to manufacturer, and what price you'll charge, and who you'll employ, and so on.

And by the way, this is why German Socialism was superior to Russian Socialism. This is why the Russians were handing out rifles to every 5th soldier during the deployment. I told you in the other post, how terrible it is for the people with the knowledge and skills to leave the country.

The Russians killed all the people who knew out to make stuff work. That's why their entire economy imploded. While the German economy was clearly damaged by their socialistic controls, they didn't kill the people who knew how to make the businesses in the country run. They controlled them, yes, and that was harmful, but not nearly as bad as simply killing them all off like the Russians did.

But this mindless stupidity being puked out of universities today, that Hitler had a free-market capitalist economy.... I don't blame you for thinking that given the number of idiots in universities who have spouted this crap... but is crap. The people who were there, like Mises, who documented how the Nazis worked.... it wasn't free-market capitalism.... any more than me putting a gun to your head, and telling you to work.... is really voluntary exchange. BULL CRAP.

And without the rich the poor would not be poor.

Again... the rich left Cuba, and they left Venezuela, and they left N.Korea.

The people there..... are super freakin poor. More poor, than anyone here in the US. The poorest of the poor in the US, I don't see them eating grass like N.Korea. I don't see families, without mental illness, working a job.... and living in a refrigerator box, like they do in Cuba. There was a documentary that came out some years ago, where people were going to University to get a degree.... in order to be a waiter at a restaurant in Cuba.

No rich..... extremely extremely poor.

People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

If they didn't have crappy job, they would have no jobs.

Again, Cuba, Venezuela, N.Korea.... so on... Not having crappy jobs, doesn't mean that you'll magically have a good job.

That's a strange concept at face value. You are implying.... that if you eliminate crappy jobs, that people without skills, will either A: Magically get skills...... Or B: that jobs that require skills, will simply hire people without them..... because there are no crappy jobs, and so they hire people without skills.

This is a stupid ideology. If I run an auto repair bay..... I'm not hiring someone who can't fix a car, just because Walmart and McDonald's no longer exist.

If I need my water heater replaced, I'm not hiring someone who can't replace one.... just because there are no crappy jobs they can work.

The reason people get crappy jobs, is because they have crappy skills. It's not like all these people have degrees in nuclear physics, and are working at Wendy's because it..... well it exists.... and they are all just waiting for you to come along and ban crappy jobs, and then they'll all work NASA or SpaceX or something.

All these Ph.Ds all flipping burgers over, just waiting for the day you'll be elected and ban Wendy's, so they can go get their Quantum Physics job.

It's not happening dude. The reason people work at Wendy's is because they are not qualified to work elsewhere. You eliminating those jobs, doesn't make them qualified elsewhere. So you get rid of no-skill jobs, just means that no-skill people will be unemployed.

Yeah yeah, you capitalism guys insist on that because evil is qual to socialism. But National Socialism is not regular socialism and therefor not comparable. All the companies you know, Messerschmitt, Mercedes, Auto Union, ect were pricately owned. You are just forming your own reality like idiots. I am long enough here and I can say that because it is true.

Right....... ok... so I'm going place my bets on the 50 years plus of research on how the Nazi economy actually worked, research done by world renowned economists and historians..... over the words of random internet poster.

So if you want to play the appeal to authority game.... I gotta let you know, that evidence from people like Mises, verses "Bleipriester" on authority... you lose that game.

Moreover, I just posted an article about how "they were privately owned" only in word, but not in practice. So repeating that they were privately owned, when I already said openly that in practice the government controlled every aspect of the companies..... doesn't make your point any more relevant.

Owning something on paper, doesn't matter, if I can control every single aspect of your life. The whole point of private ownership, is that you can do with your stuff, whatever you want. Because.... you own it.

If I can control when you drive your car, how far you can drive it, what places you can drive it to, and control who is allowed in your car.... do you really own the car? Answer..... No. You don't.

This doesn't seem to be that difficult of a concept, so I'm not sure why you keep stumbling over it. You might give your son, a room to sleep in.... but do they own that room? No. Can you control what they do in that room? Yes. They don't own it.

Similarly, businesses in German might have been their private property on paper.... but the Nazi controlled everything that you did. Who hired, how much you paid, what product you made, where you bought supplies from, and who you sold products to. Yes, on paper, I get it.... it was privately owned on paper. In reality, the Nazis controlled nearly everything.

Now you can keep lying to yourself, in the face of 50 years of research to the contrary, but that just makes you an idiot. Time to grow up..... seriously.

You have no idea about "Nazi Germany" and it will be this way for every so I am saving the trouble of elaborating.
Some simple example:
Junkers was pressured to sell his company when he refused to make war planes.

I appreciate you realizing that your false claims are unwanted. I wish all left-wingers would grasp this, so as to drastically reduce the garbage spewed on this forum.

Junkers was pressured to sell his company when he refused to make war planes.

Um...... if you are going to stop posting lies... please follow through with what you said... and stop posting lies.

In 1934 Junkers was placed under house arrest, and died at home in 1935 during negotiations to give up the remaining stock and interests in Junkers. Under Nazi control, his company produced some of the most successful German warplanes of the Second World War.
​

So.... now your very own example.... proved my entire point.

Will you stop with your failure to convince us of lies now?

 

[Andylusion]

But it is true. It's a statistical, historical fact.

View attachment 290063
The effective tax rate on the top 1%, isn't much different today, than it was in the 70s or 50s, when tax rates were double what they are today.

What that means is that the share of the tax burden has fallen more on the poor, than the rich, in the past.

View attachment 290064

The poorest 50% of tax payers (that would include the middle class, are paying less of the tax burden today, than they did in the 1970s with the 70% top marginal rate. Equally the top 1% are paying more of the tax burden today, than they did when the top marginal rate was 70%.

This isn't theory.... it is flat out statistical, undeniable, documented fact.

if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Again... that has been tried. They tried it in Venezuela. The rich packed up and left, and the government confiscated their wealth.

What you people don't seem to understand, is that it is the rich people themselves, that know how to make assets have value. That is in fact, exactly why they are wealthy.

Farms that produced enough food to feed the country, and export the surplus food.... were confiscated. The wealthy farm owners left the country. The farms stopped producing food, because shockingly peasants and poor people... don't know how to farm, and nether do the government bureaucrats.

Now they have mass starvation. What makes the assets have value is that someone knows how to make them produce value. You ditch the people who have the money and knowledge to make it work, and it doesn't work. A highly valuable farm, is now worthless.

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

You seem to be operating under the impression that wealth is static. Wealth is not static.

I worked at a Cadillac dealer. We had a poor guy that had been given a car. He wasn't super poor, but he didn't earn enough to own a Cadillac. In order to save money, he gave the car to a no-name mechanic shop, which pulled the motor apart (it needed a timing belt), and when they did that, they broke the engine block.

Expensive car, now a junk yard master piece. The value of the car changed. It wasn't worth, what it was before, when it was owned and could be maintained by a wealthy person.

This idea that you are just going to confiscate their stuff, and keep the wealth... that's not how the world works.

When Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil fields that Exxon was developing, it didn't make the government wealthy... it made the oil fields worthless. The government didn't have the equipment, nor the expertise to develop those oil fields... so they simply didn't get developed.

You know how much an oil field you can't pump oil from, is worth? Nothing.

And here's the thing.... did it hurt Exxon? In the short term, yes because they lost the money they put into those oil fields... .but in the long term it didn't hurt Exxon at all. They simply bought new equipment, and sent their skilled and knowledgeable people elsewhere in the world, and made money there, and developed oil fields there, and paid taxes in those countries, instead of Venezuela.

In the long term, Venezuela lost everything, and Exxon gained, just elsewhere.

Driving out these people, is going to be a net loss to everyone, except for the rich people.

Go back to Cuba even. The wealthy sugar plantations owners were driven out. The result wasn't that they got rich off the sugar fields. In fact, all the harvests declined after that, and Cuba became impoverished.

Meanwhile the wealthy plantation owners, simply left the country, and started businesses elsewhere, and most became wealthy again... just now they didn't benefit the poor Cubans left behind.

Your system, doesn't work. Never has in the past, and never will in the future.

That doesn´t speak in favor of the rich. It only proofs that they sponge up all the money.

If the rich stayed in Venezuela, and the government didn't socialize the food market, they would still be producing enough food to feed their people, and export to the rest of South American, just like they did before Hugo Chavez and Maduro screwed everything up.

Honestly, until you show me even one country that has lots of jobs and wealth... with zero rich people.... then yeah I think it does speak in favor of the rich.

Do tell.... how many impoverished beggars have you gotten a job from? List them all. I'd love to know.

Neither Chavez nor Maduro socialized the food market. Another idiocy by the capitalist guys. Majority of the food economy in Venezula is owened by the capitalists that now play opposition.
Example: Supermarkets

Government:
Abasto Bicentenario
Mercal (charitable)


Private:
Automercados Plaza's
Central Madeirense
Líder
Makro
Mikro
San Diego
De Candido
Unicasa
Excelsior Gama

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

This isn't up for debate. This is fact. You need to stop being stupid, and grow up a bit.

NPR is well known for carrying out government agendas.

This Land Was Your Land

Keep barking. How many links do you want?

 

[Bleipriester]

Hitler was funded by the private companies. He maintained market economy. No idea where you have your nonsense from.
And without the rich the poor would not be poor. People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

Hold on. I'll argue with you about your opinion, but this history rewriting, no....

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

Ludwig Von Mises wrote all the way back in the 1950s..... the National Socialism, was in fact socialism. The Nazis were not capitalist free-market people.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
​

Yeah, it was more "capitalist" than the Russian version, where they just killed everyone and stole their stuff.

But leaving the "shop managers" in place, is about as close to free-market capitalism as it got. The state controlled everything. They controlled what you produced, what prices you charged, and what people got paid.... EVERYTHING. There's a famous (if questionable) statement by Hitler himself, where he said (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter to me if you own the cow.... as long as I own you".

Meaning, yeah on paper you own that manufacturing plant... but I'm telling you what you are going to manufacturer, and what price you'll charge, and who you'll employ, and so on.

And by the way, this is why German Socialism was superior to Russian Socialism. This is why the Russians were handing out rifles to every 5th soldier during the deployment. I told you in the other post, how terrible it is for the people with the knowledge and skills to leave the country.

The Russians killed all the people who knew out to make stuff work. That's why their entire economy imploded. While the German economy was clearly damaged by their socialistic controls, they didn't kill the people who knew how to make the businesses in the country run. They controlled them, yes, and that was harmful, but not nearly as bad as simply killing them all off like the Russians did.

But this mindless stupidity being puked out of universities today, that Hitler had a free-market capitalist economy.... I don't blame you for thinking that given the number of idiots in universities who have spouted this crap... but is crap. The people who were there, like Mises, who documented how the Nazis worked.... it wasn't free-market capitalism.... any more than me putting a gun to your head, and telling you to work.... is really voluntary exchange. BULL CRAP.

And without the rich the poor would not be poor.

Again... the rich left Cuba, and they left Venezuela, and they left N.Korea.

The people there..... are super freakin poor. More poor, than anyone here in the US. The poorest of the poor in the US, I don't see them eating grass like N.Korea. I don't see families, without mental illness, working a job.... and living in a refrigerator box, like they do in Cuba. There was a documentary that came out some years ago, where people were going to University to get a degree.... in order to be a waiter at a restaurant in Cuba.

No rich..... extremely extremely poor.

People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

If they didn't have crappy job, they would have no jobs.

Again, Cuba, Venezuela, N.Korea.... so on... Not having crappy jobs, doesn't mean that you'll magically have a good job.

That's a strange concept at face value. You are implying.... that if you eliminate crappy jobs, that people without skills, will either A: Magically get skills...... Or B: that jobs that require skills, will simply hire people without them..... because there are no crappy jobs, and so they hire people without skills.

This is a stupid ideology. If I run an auto repair bay..... I'm not hiring someone who can't fix a car, just because Walmart and McDonald's no longer exist.

If I need my water heater replaced, I'm not hiring someone who can't replace one.... just because there are no crappy jobs they can work.

The reason people get crappy jobs, is because they have crappy skills. It's not like all these people have degrees in nuclear physics, and are working at Wendy's because it..... well it exists.... and they are all just waiting for you to come along and ban crappy jobs, and then they'll all work NASA or SpaceX or something.

All these Ph.Ds all flipping burgers over, just waiting for the day you'll be elected and ban Wendy's, so they can go get their Quantum Physics job.

It's not happening dude. The reason people work at Wendy's is because they are not qualified to work elsewhere. You eliminating those jobs, doesn't make them qualified elsewhere. So you get rid of no-skill jobs, just means that no-skill people will be unemployed.

Yeah yeah, you capitalism guys insist on that because evil is qual to socialism. But National Socialism is not regular socialism and therefor not comparable. All the companies you know, Messerschmitt, Mercedes, Auto Union, ect were pricately owned. You are just forming your own reality like idiots. I am long enough here and I can say that because it is true.

Right....... ok... so I'm going place my bets on the 50 years plus of research on how the Nazi economy actually worked, research done by world renowned economists and historians..... over the words of random internet poster.

So if you want to play the appeal to authority game.... I gotta let you know, that evidence from people like Mises, verses "Bleipriester" on authority... you lose that game.

Moreover, I just posted an article about how "they were privately owned" only in word, but not in practice. So repeating that they were privately owned, when I already said openly that in practice the government controlled every aspect of the companies..... doesn't make your point any more relevant.

Owning something on paper, doesn't matter, if I can control every single aspect of your life. The whole point of private ownership, is that you can do with your stuff, whatever you want. Because.... you own it.

If I can control when you drive your car, how far you can drive it, what places you can drive it to, and control who is allowed in your car.... do you really own the car? Answer..... No. You don't.

This doesn't seem to be that difficult of a concept, so I'm not sure why you keep stumbling over it. You might give your son, a room to sleep in.... but do they own that room? No. Can you control what they do in that room? Yes. They don't own it.

Similarly, businesses in German might have been their private property on paper.... but the Nazi controlled everything that you did. Who hired, how much you paid, what product you made, where you bought supplies from, and who you sold products to. Yes, on paper, I get it.... it was privately owned on paper. In reality, the Nazis controlled nearly everything.

Now you can keep lying to yourself, in the face of 50 years of research to the contrary, but that just makes you an idiot. Time to grow up..... seriously.

You have no idea about "Nazi Germany" and it will be this way for every so I am saving the trouble of elaborating.
Some simple example:
Junkers was pressured to sell his company when he refused to make war planes.

I appreciate you realizing that your false claims are unwanted. I wish all left-wingers would grasp this, so as to drastically reduce the garbage spewed on this forum.

Junkers was pressured to sell his company when he refused to make war planes.

Um...... if you are going to stop posting lies... please follow through with what you said... and stop posting lies.

In 1934 Junkers was placed under house arrest, and died at home in 1935 during negotiations to give up the remaining stock and interests in Junkers. Under Nazi control, his company produced some of the most successful German warplanes of the Second World War.
​

So.... now your very own example.... proved my entire point.

Will you stop with your failure to convince us of lies now?

You proved what I said. You are not serious, a liar in fact. Unwanted, false claims is what you post here.

 

[Bleipriester]

That doesn´t speak in favor of the rich. It only proofs that they sponge up all the money.

If the rich stayed in Venezuela, and the government didn't socialize the food market, they would still be producing enough food to feed their people, and export to the rest of South American, just like they did before Hugo Chavez and Maduro screwed everything up.

Honestly, until you show me even one country that has lots of jobs and wealth... with zero rich people.... then yeah I think it does speak in favor of the rich.

Do tell.... how many impoverished beggars have you gotten a job from? List them all. I'd love to know.

Neither Chavez nor Maduro socialized the food market. Another idiocy by the capitalist guys. Majority of the food economy in Venezula is owened by the capitalists that now play opposition.
Example: Supermarkets

Government:
Abasto Bicentenario
Mercal (charitable)


Private:
Automercados Plaza's
Central Madeirense
Líder
Makro
Mikro
San Diego
De Candido
Unicasa
Excelsior Gama

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

This isn't up for debate. This is fact. You need to stop being stupid, and grow up a bit.

NPR is well known for carrying out government agendas.

This Land Was Your Land

Keep barking. How many links do you want?

foreign policy, sounds neutral. Care using your toilet for crap?

 

[Winco]

What I am saying is...... DO IT......

This is the problem with you people. You spout off about things you don't know.... but you never put your money where your mouth is.

Stop preaching...... and DO IT..... shut your yapping mouth flopping around all the time..... AND DO IT YOURSELF.

I owned a business where I installed putting greens for people at their homes.
It was hard work. Now I'm older and don't do it anymore.
Materials, not labor, cost me $4 per square foot, and I sold the finished product for $15-$18 per square foot.
There were parts of the job that required more than 1 person, so I hired HS athletes at $15 per hour, in 2001.
I could have paid them $10 per hour, but I choose to pay them more. Is that ok with you.
I still made a good profit for the particular job.
Profit and expenses depended on the size of the putting green.
So, I've been that small business owner.

 

[Bleipriester]

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated. But I think that the whole story is a hoax. You know US law? You have to pay up anyway, no matter where you got to. They´d have to give up on their citizenship. Also, not every rich is this unpatriotic.

But it is true. It's a statistical, historical fact.

View attachment 290063
The effective tax rate on the top 1%, isn't much different today, than it was in the 70s or 50s, when tax rates were double what they are today.

What that means is that the share of the tax burden has fallen more on the poor, than the rich, in the past.

View attachment 290064

The poorest 50% of tax payers (that would include the middle class, are paying less of the tax burden today, than they did in the 1970s with the 70% top marginal rate. Equally the top 1% are paying more of the tax burden today, than they did when the top marginal rate was 70%.

This isn't theory.... it is flat out statistical, undeniable, documented fact.

if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Again... that has been tried. They tried it in Venezuela. The rich packed up and left, and the government confiscated their wealth.

What you people don't seem to understand, is that it is the rich people themselves, that know how to make assets have value. That is in fact, exactly why they are wealthy.

Farms that produced enough food to feed the country, and export the surplus food.... were confiscated. The wealthy farm owners left the country. The farms stopped producing food, because shockingly peasants and poor people... don't know how to farm, and nether do the government bureaucrats.

Now they have mass starvation. What makes the assets have value is that someone knows how to make them produce value. You ditch the people who have the money and knowledge to make it work, and it doesn't work. A highly valuable farm, is now worthless.

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

You seem to be operating under the impression that wealth is static. Wealth is not static.

I worked at a Cadillac dealer. We had a poor guy that had been given a car. He wasn't super poor, but he didn't earn enough to own a Cadillac. In order to save money, he gave the car to a no-name mechanic shop, which pulled the motor apart (it needed a timing belt), and when they did that, they broke the engine block.

Expensive car, now a junk yard master piece. The value of the car changed. It wasn't worth, what it was before, when it was owned and could be maintained by a wealthy person.

This idea that you are just going to confiscate their stuff, and keep the wealth... that's not how the world works.

When Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil fields that Exxon was developing, it didn't make the government wealthy... it made the oil fields worthless. The government didn't have the equipment, nor the expertise to develop those oil fields... so they simply didn't get developed.

You know how much an oil field you can't pump oil from, is worth? Nothing.

And here's the thing.... did it hurt Exxon? In the short term, yes because they lost the money they put into those oil fields... .but in the long term it didn't hurt Exxon at all. They simply bought new equipment, and sent their skilled and knowledgeable people elsewhere in the world, and made money there, and developed oil fields there, and paid taxes in those countries, instead of Venezuela.

In the long term, Venezuela lost everything, and Exxon gained, just elsewhere.

Driving out these people, is going to be a net loss to everyone, except for the rich people.

Go back to Cuba even. The wealthy sugar plantations owners were driven out. The result wasn't that they got rich off the sugar fields. In fact, all the harvests declined after that, and Cuba became impoverished.

Meanwhile the wealthy plantation owners, simply left the country, and started businesses elsewhere, and most became wealthy again... just now they didn't benefit the poor Cubans left behind.

Your system, doesn't work. Never has in the past, and never will in the future.

That doesn´t speak in favor of the rich. It only proofs that they sponge up all the money.

If the rich stayed in Venezuela, and the government didn't socialize the food market, they would still be producing enough food to feed their people, and export to the rest of South American, just like they did before Hugo Chavez and Maduro screwed everything up.

Honestly, until you show me even one country that has lots of jobs and wealth... with zero rich people.... then yeah I think it does speak in favor of the rich.

Do tell.... how many impoverished beggars have you gotten a job from? List them all. I'd love to know.

Neither Chavez nor Maduro socialized the food market. Another idiocy by the capitalist guys. Majority of the food economy in Venezula is owened by the capitalists that now play opposition.
Example: Supermarkets

Government:
Abasto Bicentenario
Mercal (charitable)


Private:
Automercados Plaza's
Central Madeirense
Líder
Makro
Mikro
San Diego
De Candido
Unicasa
Excelsior Gama

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

This isn't up for debate. This is fact. You need to stop being stupid, and grow up a bit.

Venezuela GDP (purchasing power parity) - Economy

 

[Meister]

Bloomberg ^ | November 15, 2019

No excerpt from Bloomberg allowed, story here. She wants a 59% top income tax rate and to tax unrealized capital gains yearly, including real estate and business holdings.

REMEMBER VOTE DEMONRAT SO YOU CAN GO BROKE AND HAVE TO GIVE YOUR HOUSE TO AN ILLEGAL INVADER, OR MUSLIM TERRORIST!

That bitch knows what she is doing
Long overdue

Also tax Capital Gains at the same rate as personal income

How do you feel about the 'unrealized' capital gains tax? Hmmm?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Bloomberg ^ | November 15, 2019

No excerpt from Bloomberg allowed, story here. She wants a 59% top income tax rate and to tax unrealized capital gains yearly, including real estate and business holdings.

REMEMBER VOTE DEMONRAT SO YOU CAN GO BROKE AND HAVE TO GIVE YOUR HOUSE TO AN ILLEGAL INVADER, OR MUSLIM TERRORIST!

That bitch knows what she is doing
Long overdue

Also tax Capital Gains at the same rate as personal income

That Bitch is going to kill the Middle Class. And, by further taxing capital gains on after-tax dollars invested, you are going to kill the economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What I am saying is...... DO IT......

This is the problem with you people. You spout off about things you don't know.... but you never put your money where your mouth is.

Stop preaching...... and DO IT..... shut your yapping mouth flopping around all the time..... AND DO IT YOURSELF.

I owned a business where I installed putting greens for people at their homes.
It was hard work. Now I'm older and don't do it anymore.
Materials, not labor, cost me $4 per square foot, and I sold the finished product for $15-$18 per square foot.
There were parts of the job that required more than 1 person, so I hired HS athletes at $15 per hour, in 2001.
I could have paid them $10 per hour, but I choose to pay them more. Is that ok with you.
I still made a good profit for the particular job.
Profit and expenses depended on the size of the putting green.
So, I've been that small business owner.

Right.....and how much competition was there in installing putting greens?

 

[Winco]

What I am saying is...... DO IT......

This is the problem with you people. You spout off about things you don't know.... but you never put your money where your mouth is.

Stop preaching...... and DO IT..... shut your yapping mouth flopping around all the time..... AND DO IT YOURSELF.

I owned a business where I installed putting greens for people at their homes.
It was hard work. Now I'm older and don't do it anymore.
Materials, not labor, cost me $4 per square foot, and I sold the finished product for $15-$18 per square foot.
There were parts of the job that required more than 1 person, so I hired HS athletes at $15 per hour, in 2001.
I could have paid them $10 per hour, but I choose to pay them more. Is that ok with you.
I still made a good profit for the particular job.
Profit and expenses depended on the size of the putting green.
So, I've been that small business owner.

Right.....and how much competition was there in installing putting greens?

Plenty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Businesses don't open up to provide good jobs and wages. Businesses open up to sell products or services. Nobody is going to save the money, invest it, only to end up making as much as his or her employees. If you want to make as much as your employees, you would just get a job as a worker.

You continue to dodge and deflect.
Company C's Business had the Owner making $5 Million. After payroll, after takes.
and 50 employees each made $100,000 (Not the same as the Owner)

So where is Company C located, in fantasy land?

If it's one thing I learned in life, the more you have, the more insurance you need.

If you get out of school and live with your parents, you don't need much. A car, a phone, money for board perhaps.

When you move out and get an apartment, you need a couple of months rent in the bank just in case something goes wrong like an injury, illness, or loss of work.

When you buy a house and move out of the apartment, you need more backup money not only in case you get sick, but if you have a big expense like a roof, new sewer lines, new driveway if the city cites you for too many cracks, extensive repairs if a water line breaks while you're not home.

When you have a business, you need a lot of backup money. A million dollar machine might break down beyond repair, an industrial size roof repair is tens of thousands of dollars. You may be hauled into court for a lawsuit, the economy may turn south, or a new competitor may be moving in close to you.

If you think that when a business profits 10 million dollars a year, the owner takes most of it home, you have no idea how it works. Out of that money, the owner may take home a million a year, and the rest stays in the company account for items mentioned, or perhaps future expansion or product development. That's how it really works.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What I am saying is...... DO IT......

This is the problem with you people. You spout off about things you don't know.... but you never put your money where your mouth is.

Stop preaching...... and DO IT..... shut your yapping mouth flopping around all the time..... AND DO IT YOURSELF.

I owned a business where I installed putting greens for people at their homes.
It was hard work. Now I'm older and don't do it anymore.
Materials, not labor, cost me $4 per square foot, and I sold the finished product for $15-$18 per square foot.
There were parts of the job that required more than 1 person, so I hired HS athletes at $15 per hour, in 2001.
I could have paid them $10 per hour, but I choose to pay them more. Is that ok with you.
I still made a good profit for the particular job.
Profit and expenses depended on the size of the putting green.
So, I've been that small business owner.

Right.....and how much competition was there in installing putting greens?

Plenty.

So why didn't you expand? Hire people to do the grunt work for you. double, triple or more your business?

If it was so competitive, I'm sure another business owner did it. And do you know how? By paying his workers less than you did.

 

[Andylusion]

People with the financial IQ's to create and maintain billion dollar nest eggs, they don't get there by hoarding their money away in a vault. The only time the money of a super wealthy individual lays dormant is if said individual doesn't see any opportunity to turn that money into more money. Want the rich to invest more? Stop disincentivizing investment.

Waltons, Heirs of WalMart Founder. All worth 50+ Billion.
Rob , Alice , Jim each over 70 years old and living in mansions.
These people pay most of their employees a minimum wages, and many have to work multiple jobs.
This is NOT ok.

Microsoft paid their employees.
Even the Janitors that started out with Microsoft are millionaires today.
This is what Capitalism is or should be.
Allen and Gates could have paid the Janitors minimum wages, but they didn't, and
they still were the richest men in the world.

Not entirely true. You claim that Microsoft paid their employees... and even the janitor ended up millionaires.

You are implying that Microsoft was dishing out the cash. That is not true. Microsoft paid their employees very little at the start, and barely average wages once the company was growing considerably.

The way in which these employees became millionaires, is that Microsoft had company stock, as part of the compensation package. This is no different than Walmart's employee stock purchase program, where you can buy company stock (for I believe just $1).

The reason is because Microsoft grew dramatically as a company, this resulted in the value of that stock growing dramatically as well. Thus all those employees ended up millionaires.

But Microsoft was not paying the Janitor $100/hour to clean toilets. The Janitor simply was taking advantage of the company stock compensation, when the company was growing.

Walmart, and Microsoft, are treating their employees identically. The only difference is, Microsoft grew dramatically, and Walmart is not.

The irony of this conversation is that if Walmart did grow dramatically, you people on the left, would be screaming and throwing a hissy fit.... and we know this because every time Walmart gets larger, you protest it.

And here's the problem with you complaining about wealthy people.

Do you know what would happened, if the Walton heirs were poor? Nothing.

How many people gain something, when a wealthy person loses money? Zero.

Do remember back in 2008, when the Walton's lost a huge portion of their wealth when the stock market crash? I remember this. You know how many people, woke up the next day with a new car, because the Walton's lost money? None.

View attachment 290196

From 2007 to 2009, the richest 400 people in this country, collectively lost half a Trillion dollars. Almost 1/4th their total net worth.

Remember all those Americans that woke up the next morning, with new homes, new cars, and so on? No? Me neither.

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

They lost their investments meaning they lost value

Now, what happens if the loss goes to tax revenue dedicated to healthcare, education, infrastructure?

All society benefits

Wut.........

They lost their investments, meaning they lost value. <---- agreed. I'm with you.

Now, what happens if the loss goes to tax revenue dedicated to healthcare, education, infrastructure? <-------- What the crap are you talking about.

How does a loss............ go to tax revenue?

This is like AOC saying they are going to take the tax subsidies for Amazon, and give it to schools and such.

You can't take money.... from a tax deduction.... and give it to someone else. There is no money. A tax deduction, is a reduction of the total taxes paid. If they don't show up at all.... they pay zero tax. How do you take zero... and pay for a school with it?

Similarly.... how can you take a "loss" and pay for a school with a loss?

Let me spin this around....

You own a home, and the home has a porch or a deck. You don't have insurance on it (which would be crazy, but roll with the example), and it catches fire.

You don't have the money to fix it, so you just scrap it, and that's it.

The value of your investment, your house... goes down. You lost value.

Now if I came to you and said.... "Well we need that loss to go to taxes, so we pay for a school". Do you not see how that is insane, and stupid?

Dumb statement. Very dumb.

 

[Andylusion]

People with the financial IQ's to create and maintain billion dollar nest eggs, they don't get there by hoarding their money away in a vault. The only time the money of a super wealthy individual lays dormant is if said individual doesn't see any opportunity to turn that money into more money. Want the rich to invest more? Stop disincentivizing investment.

Waltons, Heirs of WalMart Founder. All worth 50+ Billion.
Rob , Alice , Jim each over 70 years old and living in mansions.
These people pay most of their employees a minimum wages, and many have to work multiple jobs.
This is NOT ok.

Microsoft paid their employees.
Even the Janitors that started out with Microsoft are millionaires today.
This is what Capitalism is or should be.
Allen and Gates could have paid the Janitors minimum wages, but they didn't, and
they still were the richest men in the world.

Not entirely true. You claim that Microsoft paid their employees... and even the janitor ended up millionaires.

You are implying that Microsoft was dishing out the cash. That is not true. Microsoft paid their employees very little at the start, and barely average wages once the company was growing considerably.

The way in which these employees became millionaires, is that Microsoft had company stock, as part of the compensation package. This is no different than Walmart's employee stock purchase program, where you can buy company stock (for I believe just $1).

The reason is because Microsoft grew dramatically as a company, this resulted in the value of that stock growing dramatically as well. Thus all those employees ended up millionaires.

But Microsoft was not paying the Janitor $100/hour to clean toilets. The Janitor simply was taking advantage of the company stock compensation, when the company was growing.

Walmart, and Microsoft, are treating their employees identically. The only difference is, Microsoft grew dramatically, and Walmart is not.

The irony of this conversation is that if Walmart did grow dramatically, you people on the left, would be screaming and throwing a hissy fit.... and we know this because every time Walmart gets larger, you protest it.

And here's the problem with you complaining about wealthy people.

Do you know what would happened, if the Walton heirs were poor? Nothing.

How many people gain something, when a wealthy person loses money? Zero.

Do remember back in 2008, when the Walton's lost a huge portion of their wealth when the stock market crash? I remember this. You know how many people, woke up the next day with a new car, because the Walton's lost money? None.

View attachment 290196

From 2007 to 2009, the richest 400 people in this country, collectively lost half a Trillion dollars. Almost 1/4th their total net worth.

Remember all those Americans that woke up the next morning, with new homes, new cars, and so on? No? Me neither.

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

Pure baloney, super duper. after 35 years of give away to the rich and screwing everyone else, we now have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever anywhere and our infrastructure is falling apart. Great job! Education and training has never been more expensive and we have the worst perks of any citizens in the modern world. All to save the greedy idiot GOP rich and giant corporations from paying their fair share. Only brainwashed functional GOP moron voters make this possible....

We need to stop being afraid to hurt the feelings of the wealthy
They can take it
Working Americans have been taking it for 35 years and making due with less. I’m sure our wealthiest can survive in that scenario

We're not 'afraid of hurting the feelings of the wealthy'.

We're afraid of you, operating on the lunacy of "Use a loss, to pay for schools and healthcare", destroying the entire country. That's what is scary. People like you, operating on economically suicidal policies, have destroyed entire countries. You are who we are afraid of, and rightly so. We'll be digging through trash cans for moldy bread, with the stupidity you keep pushing.

 

[airplanemechanic]

This would be why nobody takes the bitch with the grill seriously.

 

[Andylusion]

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

What a bunch of nonsense.
I want more Americans to be successful.

Business plan A with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 8 million, while paying the average worker $40,000 for that year.

Business plan B with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 6 million, while paying the average worker $80,000 for that year.

Business plan C with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 5 million, while paying the average worker $100,000 for that year.

I see Company C as a very successful Business, an Owner making Millions per year, and workers that are in the upper middle class.
I see Company A as a very successful Business, and Owner making Millions per year, and workers making millions for the owner while themselves making less than a median salary Nationwide.

Tell me you support business Plan C and can agree that Business Plan A's owner has a Greedy and Uncaring attitude for his/her workers.​

But your argument is based on nothing. There is no Business plan A B and C.

Let's use real numbers.

CEO of Walmart made $24 Million.
Total Walmart employees 2.2 Million.

Even if you confiscated the entire CEO compensation package, that's just $10. That's $10 more for the employees, for the entire year.

And by the way.... that CEO compensation is mostly in stocks, not cash. So unless you plan to pay Cashiers at Walmart, with stocks they can't sell........ You can't even give them the $10.

$10 for a the entire year, is going to change no one's life. No one.

Again... pretty easy for you arm chair generals, that have never run so much as a lemonade stand, to make up these mythical BS situations, and claim you know how everyone else should live.

Either do it yourself.... or stop preaching hypocrite.