[quote]ReignIB wrote:Well, lets not get into investing just yet.
So now, the baker who now has a part time accountant hired and is working 12 hour days to cope with the demand realizes that demand has increased again and he needs some help around the bakery, mostly cleaning stuff. Basically he needs a janitor.
So he sits down with his accountant, they look at the books and figure out that he can hire one and pay him.
He don’t want a high school kid or someone just looking to get by so he is willing to pay over the minimum wage even though obviously the work can be performed by anyone physically capable of wiping their ass. His “Help Wanted” sign attracts a few ppl and he chooses one to work for him full time .
Now he has an accountant and a janitor. So far so good aka no unfair exploitation of proletariat noticed?
[/quote]
So long as the baker is not receiving an extra portion of the income simply because he owns the shop, it is not exploitation. Basically, worker ownership is the idea, so everyone who works there gets to help decide what to do with profits. A cooperative.
Now, in reality, a single bakery with three people working there probably needn’t be a cooperative. Socialism is designed to apply to advanced industrial economies. It doesn’t really come into as much on smaller scales because there’s simply not much room for exploitation. I mean how much could that baker be selling? After he pays the salaries of his two employees, and his wages, and expenses, he probably doens’t have a whole lot left.
On the contrary: this situation would never happen in real life, but even if it did, and even if he paid 50% of his income, he still takes home more than 10 times the median wage in the US and is above the top 1% in income. That’s not fair? Well then cry about it.
[quote]Remember, when we take money from someone who has earned it and give it to someone who has not earned it we harm them both!
[/quote]
That’s just it: if you make $10 million per year (just a random number), you didn’t earn it. You earn money by working, and no one’s labor is that valuable. And the more people get paid, the less valuable they are. Take traders. They contribute virtually nothing to their society, yet many pull in huge incomes. When the top 1% has gotten 58% of the growth in income in the last 30 years, as they have (read it and weep):
then they are rich because others are poor. So yours is a strange definition of “earn,” one that many people do not accept.
But they haven’t, you’re continuing to ignore facts. Income tax contributes only about half the total taxes in this country. Seeing as how they’ve gotten the far greater part of the benefits, they’re getting off easy. They should pay more.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ryan has yet to point out even one major socialist government that has succeeded long-term.
Gee, Ryan, I guess theory is one thing and reality is another -The difference between college and real life.
Calm down now son…keep it calm ;)[/quote]
The United State, if you’re to be believed.
You see, you change your definitions of socialism and capitalism so often as it’s convenient, it would be pointless to name any country. If you want a country to be socialists, then it’s socialist to you. But later, if it’s convenient for you to call it capitalist, then it’s capitalist.
By the way, I would very much love to see you finally start dealing with some numbers, which so far you refuse to do. Probably because they show that you’re wrong.
But they haven’t, you’re continuing to ignore facts. Income tax contributes only about half the total taxes in this country. Seeing as how they’ve gotten the far greater part of the benefits, they’re getting off easy. They should pay more.[/quote]
They also take the brunt of the damage governments do, so that is neither here nor there-
Define damage. It’s not the rich that die in the wars. It’s not the rich that are evicted from their homes, or forced onto food stamps when the bankers crash the economy.
Do you mean their portfolios suffer because of inflation, or they’re taxed too much?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
By the way, I would very much love to see you finally start dealing with some numbers, which so far you refuse to do. Probably because they show that you’re wrong.[/quote]
Cool, let us do that.
The US government has never been able to tax more than 19% of the GDP out of the economy.
Never.
Does not matter what the highest marginal tax rate is, evenm if it was at 80%, they still did not get more out of it.
Obama even admits this, but wants them higher anyway, because it would be more “fair”.
I know you dont believe in the Laffer curve, but it seems that it believes in the US tax system.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Define damage. It’s not the rich that die in the wars. It’s not the rich that are evicted from their homes, or forced onto food stamps when the bankers crash the economy.
Do you mean their portfolios suffer because of inflation, or they’re taxed too much?
I’ll see if I can muster a tear. No promises.[/quote]
Inflation actually redistributes money from the bottom to the top.
No, they suffer the most from regulation, they have to pay a premium to refinance themselves because governments crowd them out of the credit market, they have to deal with the very strong regime uncertainty right now, and so further and so on.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
By the way, I would very much love to see you finally start dealing with some numbers, which so far you refuse to do. Probably because they show that you’re wrong.[/quote]
Cool, let us do that.
The US government has never been able to tax more than 19% of the GDP out of the economy.
Never.
Does not matter what the highest marginal tax rate is, evenm if it was at 80%, they still did not get more out of it.
Obama even admits this, but wants them higher anyway, because it would be more “fair”.
I know you dont believe in the Laffer curve, but it seems that it believes in the US tax system.
[/quote]
then they are rich because others are poor. So yours is a strange definition of “earn,” one that many people do not accept.
[/quote]
There will always be poor and most people will always have to work. It seems you are mad because the rich exist.
If being rich were not allowed we would have few advancements. Why bother to work harder and invent things if you cannot benefit?
You have a massive misunderstanding of history, human nature and facts. Enjoy school while you can because te real world will be a wakeup call.
[/quote]
There might always be poor, but there needn’t be. Look around you. We have the capacity to provide a fantastic standard of living for everyone. By the way, I’m not sure where you got the idea that I don’t want people to have to work. Nothing could be further from the truth. Socialists are not liberals, but support full employment. If you want to work, you will be found a job. There are always things that need to be done.
then they are rich because others are poor. So yours is a strange definition of “earn,” one that many people do not accept.
[/quote]
There will always be poor and most people will always have to work. It seems you are mad because the rich exist.
If being rich were not allowed we would have few advancements. Why bother to work harder and invent things if you cannot benefit?
You have a massive misunderstanding of history, human nature and facts. Enjoy school while you can because te real world will be a wakeup call.
[/quote]
There might always be poor, but there needn’t be. Look around you. We have the capacity to provide a fantastic standard of living for everyone. [/quote]
I do not know if you noticed, but we do.
Not compared to your fairyland nirvana, just compared to pretty much any other time period ever.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
By the way, I would very much love to see you finally start dealing with some numbers, which so far you refuse to do. Probably because they show that you’re wrong.[/quote]
Cool, let us do that.
The US government has never been able to tax more than 19% of the GDP out of the economy.
Never.
Does not matter what the highest marginal tax rate is, evenm if it was at 80%, they still did not get more out of it.
Obama even admits this, but wants them higher anyway, because it would be more “fair”.
I know you dont believe in the Laffer curve, but it seems that it believes in the US tax system.
[/quote]
What does that tell you? Well, it tells you what you want to hear: that rich people deserve more money for nothing. What it tells a reasonable observer is that the tax code doesn’t usually change significantly from year to year, and that most changes are small compared to GDP, hence small fluctuations. At the current size of the GDP to even raise revenues by 1% of GDP would require $140 billion in tax increases. Are you surprised it doesn’t change much?
I do notice, however, that in the two years following Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts, receipts fell from 19.6% in 1981 to 19.1% in 1982, to 17.5% in 1983, while GDP grew each year.
then they are rich because others are poor. So yours is a strange definition of “earn,” one that many people do not accept.
[/quote]
There will always be poor and most people will always have to work. It seems you are mad because the rich exist.
If being rich were not allowed we would have few advancements. Why bother to work harder and invent things if you cannot benefit?
You have a massive misunderstanding of history, human nature and facts. Enjoy school while you can because te real world will be a wakeup call.
[/quote]
There might always be poor, but there needn’t be. Look around you. We have the capacity to provide a fantastic standard of living for everyone. [/quote]
I do not know if you noticed, but we do.
Not compared to your fairyland nirvana, just compared to pretty much any other time period ever.
[/quote]
No fairyland here. Just the ability to get medical care if you become seriously ill, or ill for an extended period of time, without having to file for bankruptcy. Just the ability to give retirees enough money so they don’t have to choose between buying food and their prescription medications.
If this is fairyland to you, you’ve got more problems than I thought.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:Well, lets not get into investing just yet.
So now, the baker who now has a part time accountant hired and is working 12 hour days to cope with the demand realizes that demand has increased again and he needs some help around the bakery, mostly cleaning stuff. Basically he needs a janitor.
So he sits down with his accountant, they look at the books and figure out that he can hire one and pay him.
He don’t want a high school kid or someone just looking to get by so he is willing to pay over the minimum wage even though obviously the work can be performed by anyone physically capable of wiping their ass. His “Help Wanted” sign attracts a few ppl and he chooses one to work for him full time .
Now he has an accountant and a janitor. So far so good aka no unfair exploitation of proletariat noticed?
[/quote]
So long as the baker is not receiving an extra portion of the income simply because he owns the shop, it is not exploitation. Basically, worker ownership is the idea, so everyone who works there gets to help decide what to do with profits. A cooperative.
Now, in reality, a single bakery with three people working there probably needn’t be a cooperative. Socialism is designed to apply to advanced industrial economies. It doesn’t really come into as much on smaller scales because there’s simply not much room for exploitation. I mean how much could that baker be selling? After he pays the salaries of his two employees, and his wages, and expenses, he probably doens’t have a whole lot left.
[/quote]
k, then so a baker with 2 employees is OK.
good.
now his neighbor who also has a bakery decides to retire and move to Florida.
our baker sees an opportunity and decides to buy neighbor’s bakery as well.
he however doesn’t have enough cash so he decides to apply for a business loan.
he sits down with his accountant, they put a business plan together and go to the bank.
long story short - he gets a loan in his name and buys his neighbor’s bakery.
there is some risk involved since he’s not 100% sure the demand will stay high enough to pay for the increased cost of operation which now includes loan payments but he takes the risk.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:Collectively yes, but that has nothing to do with a guy who starts out with nothing, makes 1 million a year and is now taxed just about 50% depending on the state he lives in. Unfair, and harmful to a healthy economy.
On the contrary: this situation would never happen in real life,[/quote]
You’ve just shown your inexperience and naivete. Read a few books other than the ones your liberal (or should I say socialist) professors hand you. Start with a book called “The Millionaire Next Door.” When you’re done roll right into “The Millionaire Mind”. It seems that just about 80% of all new millionaires have done it just the way I’ve described, beginning with nothing. How about that?
How is it faire to take 50% of what the guy worked really hard to get? And then give it to the clown (way) down the street who can’t get his ass out of bed in the morning?
It’s beyond not fair - It’s criminal!
[quote]Remember, when we take money from someone who has earned it and give it to someone who has not earned it we harm them both!
That’s just it: if you make $10 million per year (just a random number), you didn’t earn it. You earn money by working, and no one’s labor is that valuable. And the more people get paid, the less valuable they are. [/quote]
Wrong, you make money from your labor AND wise investments with the money that you made with your labor (stock market investments promote growth for that company). Saying that a guy who grosses 10 mil per year because he owns 10 ice cream shops (for example) doesn’t deserve it
is an insane comment to make.
