Democratic Myth No. 2: Those who have done well should pay their fair share

reply to post by pirhanna

The real myth is that excess capital is ever the property of an individual, when in fact it belongs to the workers who created it,

You need to study the operations of corporations then, because corporations are started with Capital from investors, and the owner/CEO has all the financial and legal responsibility of it. Incorporating a business helps deflect individuals from taking the full blows should something legal arise, but when the workers are paid their wages, and they pay an income tax, that is what is they are responsible for. Unless one is a shareholder, they do not have "ownership" of the company.
Of course, you are using the socialist/communist model, not the Capitalist one. And it's no wonder that people are saying this stuff on this thread.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by sealing

 

The Soviet Union was fully communist when it fought as our ally in WWII. Something to think about.

edit on 2-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I see it a little different. The Soviet Union, post Lenin, was from what I can gather Stalinist (for lack of better terminology), masquerading as communist. And, they couldn't be any further apart really. One empowers all workers, where the other, is merely a facade for the strongest form of despotism. I know that's not what we are taught. Hell, it's not what the Soviet citizens were taught either, but from an intellectual perspective, it can't really be escaped that the practices of Stalin and Mao were more despotic than marxist.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by pirhanna

 

The real myth is that excess capital is ever the property of an individual, when in fact it belongs to the workers who created it,

You need to study the operations of corporations then, because corporations are started with Capital from investors, and the owner/CEO has all the financial and legal responsibility of it. Incorporating a business helps deflect individuals from taking the full blows should something legal arise, but when the workers are paid their wages, and they pay an income tax, that is what is they are responsible for. Unless one is a shareholder, they do not have "ownership" of the company.
Of course, you are using the socialist/communist model, not the Capitalist one. And it's no wonder that people are saying this stuff on this thread.

It's you who are mistaken. I know all about capitalist business. I help run a corporation. I have a finance degree. I know all about it. Your mistake is you can't see outside the box that you grew up with. I respect your right to think that capitalism is the greatest, but there are deep systemic flaws if you get down to it, both in macroeconomics and in the morality of production.

reply to post by RealSpoke


The military are serving their country, and get paid wages to do so. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you read the Constitution.

Those who have not done so recently would benefit from studying what the United States Constitution says about the federal government’s responsibility to provide for the common defense. Most Americans had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution when they were children, so they are aware that one of the purposes of the document was to “provide for the common defense.” But they are not aware of the extent to which the document shows the Founders’ concern for national security.

In brief, the Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.

National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy

But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

www.heritage.org...

Alternatively, there are no specific provisions in the Constitution relating to redistribution of income for the benefit of illegals, child protective services, education, housing, Social Security, Medicare or any other socialist program which has been enacted on behalf of International Socialism.

reply to post by pirhanna


I see very clearly, and while my Major is technical, I do have a minor in Business Management and it is you who are misunderstanding the function of business in a free enterprise system. Worker ownership is a socialist/communist union thing, not a function of free enterprise. You should already know that unless your professors are all Marxist.
You are describing at the very best a mixed economy which adds some socialist and Keynesian ideals to the basic Capitalist function of our economy.

So please do not parade around as a business owner and then promote communism.

But then that is just about what the Democrat Party is doing now. I was bold enough to say so in class. I also spoke up in economics class about the trade deficit with China. I unfortunately at the time was not aware of the full scope of the giant debt we were incurring with them as well. However, my econ teacher agreed with me, and I have a letter of recommendation from him.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Ok, Mr. Management Minor. LOL
By all means continue to believe that for no other reason than the grace of god,
some men should own the labors of other men.

Because that's what capitalism is. Don't confuse a free market with capitalism.
They are two very distinct and mutually exclusive ideas.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by neo96

 

Oddly, Ronald Reagan assured us that everything you mentioned would take care of itself if we just embraced deregulation! The rich would get even richer... and in their joy over having gotten richer, they'd happily raise wages, create new jobs, and do all they could to pay back the country that allowed them to become so prosperous!

The reality? They got greedier, stingier, outsourced the jobs, moved their own finances overseas to tax havens and left the rest of us to drown in debt.

~Heff

How do you figure? THe eighties were an expansive economy and those principles lead into the dot-com boom of the 90's.

The problem with this class warfare of the left, is that it does not work. One of the problem is, that people keep voting expenses and entitlements because it is always "somebody else's money." This is why a progressive incom tax structure is a bad idea. If everyone had skin in the game, then people would make fiscally wiser voting decisions.

Originally posted by pirhanna
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Ok, Mr. Management Minor. LOL
By all means continue to believe that for no other reason than the grace of god,
some men should own the labors of other men.Because that's what capitalism is. Don't confuse a free market with

OK Mr Marxist, go ahead and believe that you are espousing genuine business ownership when in fact you are espousing Marxism don't forget that in true Marxism, no one owns a business, and Marxism abolishes all bourgeois private property. Did your Marxist professors forget to tell you that?

Originally posted by pirhanna
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Ok, Mr. Management Minor. LOL
By all means continue to believe that for no other reason than the grace of god,
some men should own the labors of other men.

Because that's what capitalism is. Don't confuse a free market with capitalism.
They are two very distinct and mutually exclusive ideas.

Bwahahahaha. Only to Marx and Engels.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Do not forget that even in the midst of Eisenhower making that speech, he was nevertheless the first Secretary of Defense to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Every Sec of Defense since then has been a member of CFR and works for the Shadow govt.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by seabag

 

Hey I just noticed that Obama wears a gold wedding band. Muslim men are not supposed to wear gold jewelry. They can wear platinum or silver but not gold.
So that leaves us with he's a marxist leninist. And yes the progressive income tax is part of the communist manifesto and is a communist tool for social justice.

Except the really rich do not pay their fair share, the bulk of taxation comes from the middle class, and third one third of the revenue goes to the global investors, of whom the major players are the ones who want to sink america into third world status.

Originally posted by subject x
I'm against taxes. We did ok for 130+ years without them.

However, if we're going to have taxes at all, I absolutely think the rich should pay more. A lot more.
I'm for a sliding scale that taxes the poor maybe 1 or 2 percent, and taxes the better-off in proportion to what they make, with the super rich paying maybe 75 percent of what they make.

Unfair? Too damn bad.

If you're making $100,000,000 a year, for example, you should pay $75 mil in taxes. Anybody who's going to complain about having to live on $25 million a year needs a kick in the sascrotch.

Don't try to sell me any crap about "stealing the fruits of the rich guy's labor".
There is no work anybody can do that is hard enough to justify that kind of money.
(I'd love to get a Romney or a Rockafeller or some other "elite" rich guy to work with me for a month, assuming they could make it that long)

Were I making that kind of money, I'd be more than happy to give 75% in taxes to support the system that allowed me to be so successful, and I'd retire after one year.
$25 million would last me the rest of my life, and then some.

The rich would still be rich. If it takes them 20 years to amass more money than anybody ever needs instead of just 10 years to amass more money than anybody ever needs, I don't have a problem with that.

I'm sure this won't be a very popular idea, but as I mentioned above, too damn bad.

And then the next year when you retire, someone will say that you do not deserve that intrest you earned and then want to take 75% of that because you don't need more than a few hundred thousand to live well as a retiree, and so forth and so on.

There will always be people who are better off than others and there will always be people who would rather tear others down than build themselves up.

reply to post by pirhanna

Mr. Confusion checking in again. (me, not you)

By all means continue to believe that for no other reason than the grace of god, some men should own the labors of other men.

If someone says, "If you'll cut down my tree, I'll give you lunch," is that a problem? How about "If you cut down a tree every day, Monday - Friday, I'll give you lunch every day?" How about "If you cut down a tree every day, Monday - Friday, I'll give you enough money to buy your own lunch everyday?" How about "If you assemble widgets every day, Monday - Friday, I'll give you enough money for lunch, and a home, and a car, and a little extra?"

Where does it become immoral, and why at that point?

reply to post by charles1952


At the point where the one who owns the widget factory is rolling in wealth and political favor, and turns to me and says "Man, I just read some labor department statistics and a summary in the Wall Street Journal" that says times are about to get tough - so if you don't agree to start working for half a lunch, I'm going to have to cut you back to half time.

And then turns around and yells, at his buddy "Hey, BOB, Guess what??? WE JUST RECORDED A RECORD PROFIT FOR THE QUARTER!"

Oh, and that's after the bit of my lunch that I've been putting into the "pool" - shared by all my fellow widget makers was just used to bail the boss and Bob both out of bankruptcy because they were cooking the books and playing games with the business. ( the bailouts. )



~Heff

Originally posted by subject x
I'm against taxes. We did ok for 130+ years without them.

However, if we're going to have taxes at all, I absolutely think the rich should pay more. A lot more.
I'm for a sliding scale that taxes the poor maybe 1 or 2 percent, and taxes the better-off in proportion to what they make, with the super rich paying maybe 75 percent of what they make.

Unfair? Too damn bad.

Just because france wants this, it makes it ok? Do you think france could even dream of enforcing such outright lunacy, when all one has to do is start a trust, take their money to monaco for example, deposit the money in some private bank account, launder the money via offshore shell companies?

Come on, it is all a goddam ruse to fool people into thinking the government could give a rat's ass about ordinary folks when that is absolutely the last thing they could want. Europeans are notorious for their hypocrisy, much worse than america.

A 50%-55% maximum tax would be plenty AND THEN go after the global capitalist pigs!

If you're making $100,000,000 a year, for example, you should pay $75 mil in taxes. Anybody who's going to complain about having to live on $25 million a year needs a kick in the sascrotch.

Don't try to sell me any crap about "stealing the fruits of the rich guy's labor".
There is no work anybody can do that is hard enough to justify that kind of money.
(I'd love to get a Romney or a Rockafeller or some other "elite" rich guy to work with me for a month, assuming they could make it that long)

Were I making that kind of money, I'd be more than happy to give 75% in taxes to support the system that allowed me to be so successful, and I'd retire after one year.
$25 million would last me the rest of my life, and then some.

The rich would still be rich. If it takes them 20 years to amass more money than anybody ever needs instead of just 10 years to amass more money than anybody ever needs, I don't have a problem with that.

I'm sure this won't be a very popular idea, but as I mentioned above, too damn bad.

The best thing to do would be to have a protectionist mixed economy with public banking. Again the globalists do not want to hear this so they will give you the 75% tax bracket AS A MEANINGLESS DISTRACTION! Actions always speak louder than words.

People get fooled with such empty words it is mind boggling.

reply to post by campanionator


Or you could boycott Chinese goods from wal mart

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by campanionator

 

Or you could boycott Chinese goods from wal mart

Most people cannot afford to boycot chinese goods from walmart due to the $7.25 mininum wage which is not even enforced half the time. Unless you like spending 60% of your money on domestic items and the remaining 40% paying off the debt to the bankers.

The people up top know what they are doing. It is no accident!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Corporations in America have the hightest taxation in the world. On top of that indviduals who work for the corporation pay income tax. The govt gets plenty of taxes from corporations. Do not confuse corporate taxes with the private taxation of individuals.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by campanionator

 

Or you could boycott Chinese goods from wal mart

Most people cannot afford to boycot chinese goods from walmart due to the $7.25 mininum wage which is not even enforced half the time. Unless you like spending 60% of your money on domestic items and the remaining 40% paying off the debt to the bankers.

The people up top know what they are doing. It is no accident!

I remember a time when Wal Mart proudly had the little American flag insignia on its merchandise showing it was American made. Somewhere along the way that all changed, and I'm thinking it was while the Marxist Progressive Hillary Clinton served on the board of Wal Mart.
But do you see the point I am making, that jobs have gone overseas because of excessive taxation, regulations, and the unions...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by campanionator

 

Or you could boycott Chinese goods from wal mart

Most people cannot afford to boycot chinese goods from walmart due to the $7.25 mininum wage which is not even enforced half the time. Unless you like spending 60% of your money on domestic items and the remaining 40% paying off the debt to the bankers.

The people up top know what they are doing. It is no accident!

Of course that employer who is paying that minimum wage( what people think they deserve instead of the actual worked performed) then has to pay their unemployment insurance,then has to pay 6% of their social security expenses, then has to pay rent,utilities, everything else that business owner has to deal with so all that person has to do is come in fill out an application, do what they "think is work" go home.

All the while someone else is footing the bill and taking all the risks, then has to contend with regulations,devaluation of the dollar, and if they are lucky make more than all those expenses ad up to to "give" that job.