[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]
Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. He of course has the right to a salary, compensation, even a very generous one, but after he finishes coding, he does nothing to earn money from the production, distribution, or sale of the product. Is that hard to understand? Just as you wouldn’t give the manufacturer of the actual discs containing the software any of Gates’ money he got for writing it, Gates shouldn’t expect any money from the actual sale.
And your analogy is wrong. The baker of course has a right to be paid for the bread he bakes, but you’re saying he has a right to license bread, and be paid for every loaf sold anywhere, whether he baked it or not, which I am disputing.
[/quote]
It is not purely coincidence that the most strident supporters of socialism seem to be people with little to no work experience.
I’m not even really sure why this is being debated though because if I remember corectly Ryan admitted a while back that socialism wouldn’t actually work in practice.
He’s probably just bored by his philosophy classes.
LOL up till this point I think only Ryan and Reign seems to be the level headed one here, retaliating shit ppl throw with grace I might add. Man u guys sure read a lot (and obviusly knows a lot) and btw Ryan, ur post have pique my interests in marxism again
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Economics isn’t my forte, so I’m just going to say this.
I’ve wondered why not have a cap on income per year. Realistically no one needs 20+ million dollars a year to live. Seems like it just becomes a power struggle, wanting to control this and that, control the gov’t, set-up monopolies, so-called exploitation (whether you agree with it being labelled that exploitation or not) of people etc.
They do it in sports to keep a level ~playing field(or this is how I understand it to be).
Anyone want to tell me why this would or wouldn’t be a terrible idea?[/quote]
Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.
Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.
And that would be where? You don’t even know what socialism is, and it’s showing. You’re a good drone.
Hmmm…me too. Strange thing you support a system that pays people based on the property they own, while I support a system that pays people according to their actual work.
See? Proof that you don’t have the first fucking idea what you’re talking about. Go to my profile and look through all my posts. When you find one where I say I support equal outcomes, please post it here, but prepare to be disappointed. I have never supported equal outcomes and have several time explicitly come out against them. If you’re too stupid to read, how am I supposed to have a conversation.
Apparently your attitude is “fuck facts, and fuck literacy,” too, because nothing you’ve written applies in any way to me.
But don’t worry–I think even a grade A shithead like you deserves a fair shake.
[/quote]
Because I don’t like communism, socialism and what you spew I’m the shithead? LOL!
This is drivel beyond belief. You are an angry little guy when people tell you Communism sucks huh? Wow.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Economics isn’t my forte, so I’m just going to say this.
I’ve wondered why not have a cap on income per year. Realistically no one needs 20+ million dollars a year to live. Seems like it just becomes a power struggle, wanting to control this and that, control the gov’t, set-up monopolies, so-called exploitation (whether you agree with it being labelled that exploitation or not) of people etc.
They do it in sports to keep a level ~playing field(or this is how I understand it to be).
Anyone want to tell me why this would or wouldn’t be a terrible idea?[/quote]
Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.
Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.
[/quote]
Caps aren’t the answer. More regulation isnt the answer.
Fixing the philosophical problem that our culture provides with its “Owning things is happiness, the more money you have the better a person you are, everyting is competition so you have to take much more than you need because if you dont someone else will take it first and you’ll have nothing” mindset is the answer.
The enevitable conclusion of the “Get more for less” is “Get everything for nothing.” So the richest people in the country set up a system where they can continue getting money without doing work, and those doing work get smaller and smaller portions of the value their work creates while the cost of living continues to increase.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So the richest people in the country set up a system where they can continue getting money without doing work, anquote[/quote]
But, let’s not ignore the fact that the richest people in the country at one time did far and away more work (and most still do) than the average person. And that’s how they became rich.
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
Regulation: All companies that hire fulltime workers must provide healthcare.
Response: Companies only hire, or mostly hire, part time workers.
Regulation: Enforce a minimum wage.
Response: Prices go up.
And so on. I’m convinced the absolute only force powerful enough to effect a change is social condemnation. People want to be super rich because of the social praise they get for it (the improved treatment from society for wearing expensive clothes/driving an expensive car/living in a large home/etc, all the way to the egregious examples of “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” and "Cribs).
If asinine displays of gross excess were responded to with distain, I doubt we’d see so much of it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
…
[/quote]
Ppl in the top 10% income bracket pay like 80% of all taxes.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So the richest people in the country set up a system where they can continue getting money without doing work, anquote[/quote]
But, let’s not ignore the fact that the richest people in the country at one time did far and away more work (and most still do) than the average person. And that’s how they became rich.
[/quote]
I disagree. Please expound on this point.
The poor tend to do “more work” in terms of lifetime hours spent working and physical labor.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
…
[/quote]
Ppl in the top 10% income bracket pay like 80% of all taxes.
[/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power,and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
[/quote]
Yes, of course that’s why one in five families are currently being fully or at least partially subsidized by the US government. Yes, the rich people really blew it that time -Maybe they were on vacation in their big yachts and didn’t notice. Why not every other cliche is used by socialist might as well throw the yachts in too.
[quote]And so on. I’m convinced the absolute only force powerful enough to effect a change is social condemnation. People want to be super rich because of the social praise they get for it (the improved treatment from society for wearing expensive clothes/driving an expensive car/living in a large home/etc, all the way to the egregious examples of “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” and "Cribs).
If asinine displays of gross excess were responded to with distain, I doubt we’d see so much of it.[/quote]
And neither would we see individuals taking chances and starting a small business. Nor would we see innovation which brings with it great reward.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
…
[/quote]
Ppl in the top 10% income bracket pay like 80% of all taxes.
[/quote]
So?[/quote]
So that’s the regulation that is helping the poor.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power,and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
[/quote]
Yes, of course that’s why one in five families are currently being fully or at least partially subsidized by the US government. Yes, the rich people really blew it that time -Maybe they were on vacation in their big yachts and didn’t notice. Why not every other cliche is used by socialist might as well throw the yachts in too.
[quote]And so on. I’m convinced the absolute only force powerful enough to effect a change is social condemnation. People want to be super rich because of the social praise they get for it (the improved treatment from society for wearing expensive clothes/driving an expensive car/living in a large home/etc, all the way to the egregious examples of “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” and "Cribs).
If asinine displays of gross excess were responded to with distain, I doubt we’d see so much of it.[/quote]
And neither would we see individuals taking chances and starting a small business. Nor would we see innovation which brings with it great reward.
The socialist myth lives on…[/quote]
I’d say one in five families being on some government assistance means a failing economic system.
Also, the idea that extreme excessive wealth is the only driving force of “innovation” is cynical even for me.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
…
[/quote]
Ppl in the top 10% income bracket pay like 80% of all taxes.
[/quote]
So?[/quote]
So that’s the regulation that is helping the poor.
[/quote]
and in response the rich “downsize”, cut hours, cut benefits, “outsource”, and raise prices.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Economics isn’t my forte, so I’m just going to say this.
I’ve wondered why not have a cap on income per year. Realistically no one needs 20+ million dollars a year to live. Seems like it just becomes a power struggle, wanting to control this and that, control the gov’t, set-up monopolies, so-called exploitation (whether you agree with it being labelled that exploitation or not) of people etc.
They do it in sports to keep a level ~playing field(or this is how I understand it to be).
Anyone want to tell me why this would or wouldn’t be a terrible idea?[/quote]
Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.
Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.
[/quote]
I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.
I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
…
[/quote]
Ppl in the top 10% income bracket pay like 80% of all taxes.
[/quote]
So?[/quote]
So that’s the regulation that is helping the poor.
[/quote]
and in response the rich “downsize”, cut hours, cut benefits, “outsource”, and raise prices.
Which ends up hurting the poor.[/quote]
In response to what? Market pressure maybe? Would you like them to go belly up so their employees lose their jobs and those “filthy rich” stop paying taxes on which the poor rely?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
…
[/quote]
Ppl in the top 10% income bracket pay like 80% of all taxes.
[/quote]
So?[/quote]
So that’s the regulation that is helping the poor.
[/quote]
and in response the rich “downsize”, cut hours, cut benefits, “outsource”, and raise prices.
Which ends up hurting the poor.[/quote]
In response to what? Market pressure maybe? Would you like them to go belly up so their employees lose their jobs and those “filthy rich” stop paying taxes on which the poor rely?
[/quote]
In response to tax increases.
Think about it: You’re a business owner. You make a million dollars a year. Your taxes go up. Do you (a) take the hit personally and just have less money, or (b) do one of the aforementioned things to make up the difference?