Screw Income Equality

a reply to: Irishhaf

At least they're proposing something. Like I said, right or wrong at least they pretend to give a # instead of the outright hostility and scorn the right gives the poor working man.

I'm aware the left is full of crap on their promisses and many ideas, but the right is outright hostile and vindictive.

I'm independent because both parties are run by monsters. But the right's attitude toward the working man of ever increasing expectations and literally no sympathy for those who can't keep up with the ever rising standards is sickening.

How long before a college education is required to flip burgers?

originally posted by: crayzeed
Well the US is built with capitalism , a free market economy.
There is really only two words to describe this system. That's greed and avarice. Pure and simple .It's a proven fact that the people who succeed in this atmosphere are psychopathic. That's psychopathic as in murderers. "The killer instinct" to make hard decisions. But more importantly NO EMPATHY.
And you think these people will have any empathy for anyone below them, that means the poor. Naaah.

Where do you learn this BS?
Worse than fundamentalist Christian calling secular artists satanic.

The market is wide open. There are millions of opportunities to make products or provide a service for money. Problem is no one is teaching you how to. They keep kids in desk for 8 hours and wear down their imagination till all they can do is quietly submit to a poor example of a corporate system. Jaded they take jobs they hate because that’s what their used to.

a reply to: Observationalist

Right because everybody can be an entrepreneur. It's that kind of condescending bull# that is why the right wings attitude turns people away.

The majority of work is by necessity that of grunt work. A person with a below average IQ can see that.

People simply aren't stupid enough to fall for the lie that everyone can be the boss. It defies any type of basic logic or reasoning.

So it will never be accepted by the majority of workers the excuse that they're just not worth more. Grunts are needed and we're not as dumb as you want us to be to be conned into the claim we deserve to be treated like # because we could all be the boss if we wanted.

It's bull#. It's bull# that leads many into debt and results in ever increasing requirements for even the most basic job.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Bloodworth

Because a universe where all anyone ever does is work is the future we should all hope for and work for.

We'll know we've succeeded as a species when everyone wakes up, goes to work for 15 hours, goes to sleep and then goes back to work, only breaking to eat and shower, seven days a week.

I was working seventy hours a week, I no longer can due to health reasons. I'm such a #ing loser, how dare I and others not be supermen, we need to get with the program. How dare I reduce my hours down to 45.

It is a faulty idea to imagine that one should expect an income regardless of how much work and effort one puts in, and have it come from government, because government does not get it out of thin air; it’s source is the taxpayers. If the taxpayers cannot cover the expense, then the government borrows from the fed who prints it, but in doing so, devalues the dollar, so then we get a hidden tax and inflation. Read G Edward Griffin... he has an excellent analysis and break down of it. Why would you expect another taxpayer to pay for your income if you don’t put in the hours?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Reasonable income for reasonable work. Not buying into accepting the infinity increasing workload loop.

Bob can work six hours but Joe can work seven, so the norm becomes seven. Then hank can work eight, so the norm becomes eight, etc until every working hour becomes the norm. With each increase more and more people get left behind.

You all worry about the death of the middle class yet support ideas that will be the end of it. Once everyone has a degree and can do the middle class jobs as you all think we should push for, the same competition loop will push all the middle class jobs into poverty wages and leave more and more people in college debt with no jobs to fill. It's already happening and none of you care.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Reasonable income for reasonable work. Not buying into accepting the infinity increasing workload loop.

Bob can work six hours but Joe can work seven, so the norm becomes seven. Then hank can work eight, so the norm becomes eight, etc until every working hour becomes the norm. With each increase more and more people get left behind.

You all worry about the death of the middle class yet support ideas that will be the end of it. Once everyone has a degree and can do the middle class jobs as you all think we should push for, the same competition loop will push all the middle class jobs into poverty wages and leave more and more people in college debt with no jobs to fill. It's already happening and none of you care.

First, I’m not “ you all”. I’m just me. I still believe in free enterprise as people like Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, and the Mises Institute view it. Not as crony capitalism, oligopoly, or public/private partnerships and NGOs. The fed is a private entity though, and our government sacrificed its own control of the printing of money through allowing us to be tied to the private entity. That being said, it should never have have happened that way, and our founding Fathers chose to not have a central bank for a reason. The political class is not supportive of the middle class. That goes for both gop and dnc. They are legislating against the middle class. Just look at the wealth they have. They are NOT doing you any service by raising taxes because they will be exempt just like they are exempt from Obamacare.

a reply to: Puppylove
Having a degree isn’t necessarily a ticket into success. Did you know that Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard? And he’s one of the richest people.
Having a degree in history supposedly has an unemployment rate of 18 % according to this website list25.com...
So wanna teach history or flip burgers your choice.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Observationalist

Right because everybody can be an entrepreneur. It's that kind of condescending bull# that is why the right wings attitude turns people away.

The majority of work is by necessity that of grunt work. A person with a below average IQ can see that.

People simply aren't stupid enough to fall for the lie that everyone can be the boss. It defies any type of basic logic or reasoning.

So it will never be accepted by the majority of workers the excuse that they're just not worth more. Grunts are needed and we're not as dumb as you want us to be to be conned into the claim we deserve to be treated like # because we could all be the boss if we wanted.

It's bull#. It's bull# that leads many into debt and results in ever increasing requirements for even the most basic job.

a reply to: Puppylove

The problem is this defeatist attitude learned at school, sprinkled with Disney “just believe” and your rags can turn Into a gown, This Conditioning to expect money to fall in your lap.

Then In college you learn about Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs and down at the bottom of his pyramid is all this stuff they say you need. The left leaning professors tell you not to worry thats what the government is for, You just sit there and experiment with self actualisation

The liberal education system is the one responsible for making all those grunts. They bought into a flawed hierarchy, and now have a fleet of willing slave that the opportunistic CEOs take advantage of.

I know not everyone can be a boss. But it’s important that you don’t take away that entrepreneurial spirit from anyone. It’s that spirit that is not going to settle because it’s safe. It’s the spirit of continuous learning, experience is education that can replace these “tyrannical CEOs” who have gotten comfortable making good use of these made to order slaves put out by the universities.

I don’t think one deserve martyr status for enduring a job that they choose and continue to choose. I understand it might be hard to star over, but not impossible. Your employer makes no promises for your happinesses. Demanding that they make you safe is one thing but happy, that’s up to you.

a reply to: Puppylove

Here’s a good essay about how socialism has failed and destroys incentive. Note the long line in the pic of current Venezuela www.aei.org...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Oh stop that crap, no one is arguing for pure socialism. Besides it's not like we have pure capitalism either. We've never seen a pure capitalist or socialism system.

Honestly all our arguments are against strawmen.

Every argument against socialism using ANY country that's ever existed is an argument against a strawman.

Every argument against capitalism using ANY country that's ever existed is an argument against a strawman.

It's honestly always been some hybrid or variation combining some bits of each to varying degrees.

We need to stop that crap, including myself. It's not capitalism vs. socialism and it never really has been, it's a false dichotomy that's simply resulted in a stupid ass tug of war resulting in a random mish mash of both usually in it's worst forms, pieced together by people seeking power and ways to control the masses.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Oh stop that crap, no one is arguing for pure socialism. Besides it's not like we have pure capitalism either. We've never seen a pure capitalist or socialism system.

Honestly all our arguments are against strawmen.

Every argument against socialism using ANY country that's ever existed is an argument against a strawman.

Every argument against capitalism using ANY country that's ever existed is an argument against a strawman.

It's honestly always been some hybrid or variation combining some bits of each to varying degrees.

We need to stop that crap, including myself. It's not capitalism vs. socialism and it never really has been, it's a false dichotomy that's simply resulted in a stupid ass tug of war resulting in a random mish mash of both usually in it's worst forms, pieced together by people seeking power and ways to control the masses.

So you are telling me that the failed examples of the Soviet Union, Venezuela and Cuba are not enough to convince you? When is enough socialism enough ? We have a mixed economy yes.... so you want a ubi too? When is enough enough ? It is a bottomless pit. And a failure.

a reply to: Observationalist

What's stupid is any system basing success on people fitting into a specific idealized personality type. We're all different with different strengths and weaknesses.

Not everyone has what it takes or the innate talents or desires to be an entrepreneur, nor is it reasonable to expect or require them to for success. Some people are just simple followers. Which is good because without them 90% of any entrepreneurs ideas would fail miserably as they'd lack the foundations necessary to see their idea get off the ground.

We need to stop demanding and requiring people to be something their not, and unfairly punishing those that fulfill a necessary role in society.

The very fact that your ideal version of a capitalist system is base upon everyone being entrepreneurs makes it a failed system, same as the idealized version of a socialist system is based upon everyone being followers.

Both fail because that expectation and requirement on either end is #ing retarded.

If we want a truly successful system we need to be able to account for and support both these extremes because frankly they will always exist and we need both and everything inbetween for maximum efficiency.

Playing to one strength while subjugating the other is not only wrong it's stupid because once follower types become desperate enough they'll find some strong personality that seems to have their best interest and rise up as a fanatical group overthrowing the government and instituting some half baked nonsense as a replacement following their lead.

The elite play dangerous games with us all.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

When is enough is enough goes both ways.

The problem is, we haven't figured out the perfect system because people are too #ing busy playing capitslism vs socialism when we've never even had a pure either. It's stupid.

The capitalists will never accept or recognize any strength in socialism and vice versa. Each play the game as opposed forced playing tug of war and cheering for any aspect of their side they can get implemented, and fighting anything the other side wants no matter what it is. As a result we get randomly put together systems guided by people with none of our best interests.

It's not Capitalism vs Socialism. It's finding something that works. Which means trying to find the ideal combination that actually succeeds best, not picking a side and stubbornly fighting the other side no matter what.

If you only ever fight all socialist policies you'll never have any real influence on the ones that get implemented or how, the same is true for the socialist with capitalist policies. It also means both sides will always have blinders on when the other sides policies actually accomplished something positive and worked better, or where your side failed and needs adressing.

So busy trying to get your own policies in and blocking the others, they never end up put together in tandem in ways to properly complement each other to work together to both bolster each others strengths and combat their weaknesses.

We end up with a economy of two forces fighting each other rather than improving each other.

For example I seem to be constantly painted as some kind of pure socialist despite constantly hating on things often considered socialist policies like Obama Care and the welfare trap. Both horribly implemented policies that as is cause more harm than good. I see strengths and weaknesses in both capitalism and socialism and recognize when things are implemented poorly. I don't supportva policy or bemoan a policy simply because it's socialist or capitalist cause that would make me a short sighted moron. Which frankly is what I consider anyone that can only see things through a capitalistic or socialistic lense.

I'm not saying I know the perfect balance or what's best where, but I do know we'll find the answer sooner if we stop tossing either sides ideas in the trash by default and start trying to find that perfect balance together instead.

I completely agree! Most people dont appreciate what's given to them freely....that which is worked for is cherished and gives that person a sense of pride and purpose!

a reply to: Puppylove

Why do we need a solution for everyone?
Of course not everyone can own their own business.
I think there is a disconnect on what it means to meet expectations and what it means to go beyond expectations.
Everyone gets rewarded for meeting expectations but what do we do with those who exceeded expectations

At work you may find a fellow employee who works harder and shows a bit more initiative than the others. That person has an entrepreneurial spirit. Yet in a union, this guy is demonised by his fellow workers because his extra effort makes the other workers look bad. This guy gets punished for trying to show he has more value than just what’s expected. The other workers are quick to remind him he’s just a grunt like them.

I think People too severely link their identity to their jobs, As they were told it would during school. So people surrender their ambitions because of situations like above. Someone told them they were grunts and they believe it.


I’m saying that we need that entrepreneurial spirit back in everyone. Not so they can own a business but so they can move with ambition and not surrender their will to a job description.

Ambitions may not be for everyone but for the few that it is, let them alone and stop bringing them down to some arbitrary level playing field.

There is no solution that will fit everyone. It gets dangerous when you think there should be. Then you start looking for a king who decides who’s pulling their weight to support his kingdom. In that world you would then truly have grunts. I don’t think we have grunts now, we have people who bought a lie and lead into the maze with promises of meeting their needs.


Those who have that entrepreneurial spirit will reach down and see those who are trying and pull them along. The ones with their arms crossed and a hand out get passed up. Let’s teach these grunts that they’re not grunts.

Money is far from happiness. Rip off that name tag they gave you, and find out who you really are. That’s true happiness.

a reply to: Observationalist

The entrepreneur spirit you mention is beaten out of most people when they learn that at 90% of jobs the only thing they gain for working harder is the expectation to keep up that pace and being yelled at and punished if they dare to have an off day and do the same work as everyone else.

The reason workers get pissed is because if a job could get away with having everyone work themselves to death and then once they die, toss them on the street for the next warm body they would. Jobs love to increase standards and expectations.

If most jobs would actually recognize someone working harder and reward it instead of punishing it by giving them incentives rather than expecting that same workload everyday, people would have a different attitude. The working world has beaten that attitude out of people, because we're not #ing retarded, and fool me once... well you know the saying.

Accepting an increasing workload for no gain is a path to #ing over everyone and allow for company abuse. More of the same crap from the apologists, it's always the workers not willing to put in their all, it's never #ing abuse by bosses and their team leaders, managers and supervisors.

There's no limit to what's allowed to be expected of employees as long as they can con anyone desperate enough to meet those standards. Any attempt by the working class to place limits, and place expectations on what is allowed must be flat out fought tooth and nail to protect the poor put upon employers of the world. It's entirely up to the workers to work harder and harder constantly one upping each other til eternity until only a select few can even manage to scrape by. Any who can't can't keep up with these even increasing standards deserves suffering and then death, because heaven forbid the employers ever be put upon to sacrifice anything for the well being of those in their employ.

All the things that create a worker/employer balance does not and cannot exist in a massive population, there's always fresh bodies, there even would be were people allowed to be worked to death, thankfully we're not that bad... yet. Even if the entire work force could go on strike, there's always others in such a massive population desperate enough to accept a horrible work environment at least temporarily waiting in the wing to take their place.

Another thing that doesn't work with massive populations is boycotting. It doesn't work, because with such huge populations it's impossible to get everyone focused on the same travesty at the same time to properly boycott something. Any major corporation can easily afford to just weather it out because they don't have all their eggs in one basket.

That's the issue and is why we need laws and regulations to protect the common man, because the things that usually restrict a capitalistic system cannot work in such a giant population, especially once you bring in multiple different economies all tied together throughout the world.

Laws and regulations exist because they have to, otherwise the common man would have no protections at all. The very purpose of these things is to create a way to protect the common man, as the tools the common man has are utterly trashed by a larger population while the tools that strengthen and empower the employers, well the mega employers anyway is unfairly boosted by larger populations.

The biggest issue is the regulations affecting small business the same as big businesses as the regulations unfairly benefit big business over small business. Which is why a balance needs to be formed. We need more ability to break up big businesses, or a way to regulate big businesses more than small business. Better yet, increase taxes on businesses, and close any loopholes to avoid taxation except for incentives that lower that tax rate, even down to zero if they take proper care of their employees. After all they more than pay their fair share of taxes if the cover their employees medical costs either through insurance or straight out...

Actually, one of the biggest complaints people have is people on the lower end spending their money stupidly blowing it on crap. Maybe we need to change how employers pay employees. First there's the standard paycheck, which is minimum wage, higher at employers discretion if the employee does well. After that the employer can offer other incentives, each that lowers their tax rate based on what's offered. This is money that's allotted but can ONLY be spent on certain things. It's treated like a bank account, it gets a set amount of money from the employer and an employee can charge certain things to that account by creating a direct withdrawal from that account. It can be used to pay rent, utility bills, medical bills/insurance (though I think that should be a separate thing from this) and car payments (if the job is not proving it's own transportation) to and from work or put towards whatever retirement plan the company offers. It cannot be used for entertainments or junk food, or going out, or anything else. Your paycheck is your money, this is company money that exists only to keep you up and running. This can lead to employers offering other incentives for tax rates, like gyms or the like. The bigger the company the more they are expected to offer for their tax breaks.

Companies can get creative to save money on this by finding alternate ways to offer these things. Like company vehicles the employee can use responsibly while employed. No cost to the employee but they don't get to keep it if they leave the company, and it has some restricted use and protections for the employer while in the employees use. Etc.

Prevent stupidity by adding incentives that take such outside the employee's hands.

It creates that stability people need, while still offering some pay that the employee still controls as well.

Just throwing more money at people will, as you all say, not fix anything because people are #ing stupid with money. Throwing more money with restricted use in addition to some that is not restricted however...

a reply to: Puppylove

Dont get me wrong, I have been independent since I was 18 (currently 46 going on 47), recently joined the VPOA I just dont see a distinction... lip service is still just lip service doesn't matter which side it comes from.

a reply to: Puppylove

What's stupid is any system basing success on people fitting into a specific idealized personality type. We're all different with different strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, we are, and did you know that John Dewey, the father of our modern educational system believed that we exist for the State and that in school, children should learn to be cogs in the wheel of society and the State ? Antony Sutton on the State and John Dewey www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

a reply to: Puppylove

The entrepreneur spirit you mention is beaten out of most people when they learn that at 90% of jobs the only thing they gain for working harder is the expectation to keep up that pace and being yelled at and punished if they dare to have an off day and do the same work as everyone else.

The progressive income set up by the Marxists means that just when you’re getting ahead, you have to pay a higher tax in a higher income bracket. What’s the incentive in that? That is not the fault of capitalism but socialism.

Actually, one of the biggest complaints people have is people on the lower end spending their money stupidly blowing it on crap. Maybe we need to change how employers pay employees. First there's the standard paycheck, which is minimum wage, higher at employers discretion if the employee does well. After that the employer can offer other incentives, each that lowers their tax rate based on what's offered. This is money that's allotted but can ONLY be spent on certain things. It's treated like a bank account, it gets a set amount of money from the employer and an employee can charge certain things to that account by creating a direct withdrawal from that account. It can be used

Um no. This is not free enterprise. It’s government bureaucracy. Or even if set up
By your employer, it’s a ridiculous control and draconian, as they say. Why would you want that?

a reply to: Puppylove

The very fact that your ideal version of a capitalist system is base upon everyone being entrepreneurs makes it a failed system, same as the idealized version of a socialist system is based upon everyone being followers.

Its not based on everyone being entrepreneurs, it’s based on people being able to be entrepreneurs if they want.
There is no genuine income equality under any system ... it’s just that under socialism you don’t get that choice and everything is set by an arbitrary government control. So even if you wanted to make more money you would still be under the Progressive income tax.
“Jobs” don’t increase demands, people do. And if you were really an entrepreneur who employs others, would you really even consider trying to set up the system you just described? Sounds like a nightmare to me. It’s also very arbitrary, which goes against the principle of limitless abundance. The PTB have set up a system based on the concept of limited resources.