It’s the people in the middle getting fucked , the bottom pays no income tax and the top has so many write offs the pay single digit percentage income tax .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
and the top has so many write offs the pay single digit percentage income tax . [/quote]
This doesn’t happen, sorry to say, in the real world the Romney’s and Buffets are few and far between.
So few in fact, adding 15% to their tax rate wouldn’t run the government for a week…
I know it sucks to have fallen for the class warfare bullshit so hard, but you are in good company, shitty leaders have been using it to manipulate citizens for thousands of years now. So in the grand scheme of things, people in America are just as educated as someone who lived 4000 years ago. Some things never change I guess. But the good news is, we keep doing this and we’ll have us our own little Lenin revolution soon, and we can all be equally poor and oppressed.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think as a human race in this country, we have all become pretty spoiled. It isn’t just him. Everyone thinks they are ENTITLED to a “happy life, great job, average looking wife, 2.5 kids and a nice sensible car”.
It is like an entire generation was shocked to find that life is as rough as it is on those Nature shows about gazelles and lions. I guess sheltering your kids and providing gratuitous gold stars just for showing up hasn’t worked out so good.
[/quote]
Because they have been constantly lied to. People in this thread are perpetuating the very myths that make the youth feel entitled. Being constantly told that you can do anything if you just work hard at it has ruined a generation. The corollary is that if you aren’t where you want to be then you are a lazy sack of shit.
Rather than tell disadvantaged people that they have to work far harder than average just to catch up just isn’t the message either political party wants to send. The right doesn’t because it ruins their “trust in the free market” matra. The left doesn’t because “hey that isn’t very nice and won’t get us votes”.[/quote]
You got it wrong, people just want the wealthy to pay their fair share. How we define fair is subjective, just like how you define fair. [/quote]
Perfectly said
[/quote]
Since there are a lot more poor people than rich people “fair” will always mean “more”.
Seld destructive is what that is.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think as a human race in this country, we have all become pretty spoiled. It isn’t just him. Everyone thinks they are ENTITLED to a “happy life, great job, average looking wife, 2.5 kids and a nice sensible car”.
It is like an entire generation was shocked to find that life is as rough as it is on those Nature shows about gazelles and lions. I guess sheltering your kids and providing gratuitous gold stars just for showing up hasn’t worked out so good.
[/quote]
Because they have been constantly lied to. People in this thread are perpetuating the very myths that make the youth feel entitled. Being constantly told that you can do anything if you just work hard at it has ruined a generation. The corollary is that if you aren’t where you want to be then you are a lazy sack of shit.
Rather than tell disadvantaged people that they have to work far harder than average just to catch up just isn’t the message either political party wants to send. The right doesn’t because it ruins their “trust in the free market” matra. The left doesn’t because “hey that isn’t very nice and won’t get us votes”.[/quote]
You got it wrong, people just want the wealthy to pay their fair share. How we define fair is subjective, just like how you define fair. [/quote]
Perfectly said
[/quote]
Since there are a lot more poor people than rich people “fair” will always mean “more”.
Seld destructive is what that is. [/quote]
New England, Denver, Green Bay & Indy have better quarter backs than the other 28 teams. It isn’t fair. We should force them to give points to the other team every game, like for every touchdown they throw, the other team should get 2 of those 6 points.
That would be fair. We need to be fair.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I never said such a thing. I said how much more “fair” do you want it to be? How much more do you want them to pay if the current pay rate isn’t “fair”?[/quote]
I also think it would be fair if supermodels were required to date average guys 40% of the time. They shouldn’t be allowed to date the top 1% all the time.
Why is it so hard to figure out the rules and play within those rules, rather than complaining about how things aren’t fair? You can complain all you want, it’s not going to change. You can change the tax laws all you want, but the dynamics of wealth and power aren’t going to change.
Why not spend your time figuring out how to be wealthy and powerful?
Honestly, I’d rather not waste the money on all the research to figure out how we can spend less.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think as a human race in this country, we have all become pretty spoiled. It isn’t just him. Everyone thinks they are ENTITLED to a “happy life, great job, average looking wife, 2.5 kids and a nice sensible car”.
It is like an entire generation was shocked to find that life is as rough as it is on those Nature shows about gazelles and lions. I guess sheltering your kids and providing gratuitous gold stars just for showing up hasn’t worked out so good.
[/quote]
Because they have been constantly lied to. People in this thread are perpetuating the very myths that make the youth feel entitled. Being constantly told that you can do anything if you just work hard at it has ruined a generation. The corollary is that if you aren’t where you want to be then you are a lazy sack of shit.
Rather than tell disadvantaged people that they have to work far harder than average just to catch up just isn’t the message either political party wants to send. The right doesn’t because it ruins their “trust in the free market” matra. The left doesn’t because “hey that isn’t very nice and won’t get us votes”.[/quote]
You got it wrong, people just want the wealthy to pay their fair share. How we define fair is subjective, just like how you define fair. [/quote]
Perfectly said
[/quote]
Since there are a lot more poor people than rich people “fair” will always mean “more”.
Seld destructive is what that is. [/quote]
Eh, people act like there is a dichotomy between profitable and socialism. If I don’t think Walmart is good, I must be a friggin commie socialist scum… Right?
I’m only saying there is room if neither group is greedy. If you are dirt poor and asking for a decent living and willing to work for it, that’s not being greedy.
I’ve been saying that the business model is parasitic. Not one person denies this…
I’ve also given an example of a corporation that isn’t parasitic Costco…
Check out this article from a few years ago,
And they continue to do well.
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=58cfe657-a90e-46cb-9d80-c2960f8c72a5
Cheers…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This doesn’t happen, sorry to say, in the real world the Romney’s and Buffets are few and far between.
[/quote]
I am surprised I have to instruct you the top 1% happens 1 time in a hundred
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
…If the company were responsible to the economy, rather than the stockholders…[/quote]
[/quote]
He is back with the unreasoned so called insult OMG. Man you have over used it to where I can not even follow your reasoning
Oh I get modus operandi 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This doesn’t happen, sorry to say, in the real world the Romney’s and Buffets are few and far between.
[/quote]
I am surprised I have to instruct you the top 1% happens 1 time in a hundred
[/quote]
Sigh… You don’t see it everyday, I do. The “top 1%” starts somewhere arund 300-350k of income a year. I can upload no less than 400 tax returns with AGI’s over that and every single one of them would pay a higher % of income in taxes than anyone that posted on this thread with an AGI under that.
You are a prime example of why class warfare rhetoric is so effective, you want to believe it, because it is human nature to point and blame…
I know I am coming late in the discussion. I will say I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other; I pay what I am instructed to pay. However, there is a certain amount of money generally accepted as money needed to live on (say, 25-35k/year) to pay for housing, clothing, food, etc. Any money above this is ?extra? money. If you count the extra money of someone who makes 40k a year, it is between 5-15k. Whereas, if you count the extra money of someone who makes 100k, it would be between 75-85k. so the percent difference is huge (600-1500% extra money).
So, if you look at the large numbers (100k vs 40k) isn?t as great as the ?extra? money (15k vs 85k, or worse, 5k vs 85k). The top “1%” numbers would look even more significant. Some people could be voicing their issues with this in mind, consciously or subconsciously.
Not even sure if this makes sense.
Oh goodie another 1% type argument. The problem with the left on this is they want the GOVERNMENT to solve the problem of inequality when the government creates the problem of inequality. Why do you think uber wealthy companies and people have so many lobbyists? So they can MANIPULATE the government and profit from it. The government is way too huge to operate even remotely efficiently so we have tons of room for exploitation of it. I’m not sure we want the government solving a problem that they make worse, though I would love to listen to reasons for why the government is going to get this right.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh goodie another 1% type argument. The problem with the left on this is they want the GOVERNMENT to solve the problem of inequality when the government creates the problem of inequality. Why do you think uber wealthy companies and people have so many lobbyists? So they can MANIPULATE the government and profit from it. The government is way too huge to operate even remotely efficiently so we have tons of room for exploitation of it. I’m not sure we want the government solving a problem that they make worse, though I would love to listen to reasons for why the government is going to get this right. [/quote]
I will help you paddle this canoe all day long, H.[/quote]
The thing is I won’t disagree income inequality is an issue or something that has gotten consistently worse. The problem is I don’t ever read arguments that aren’t centered around market interference fixing it. It’s like going to a doctor to fix your leg and while trying to fix your leg he breaks your arm so you go to the same doctor to fix your arm and he breaks your other leg so you say I need to go back to that doctor now to fix my other leg! The problem is the damn doctor created new problems over and over. And you STILL have faith in him.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I know I am coming late in the discussion. I will say I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other; I pay what I am instructed to pay. However, there is a certain amount of money generally accepted as money needed to live on (say, 25-35k/year) to pay for housing, clothing, food, etc. Any money above this is ?extra? money. If you count the extra money of someone who makes 40k a year, it is between 5-15k. Whereas, if you count the extra money of someone who makes 100k, it would be between 75-85k. so the percent difference is huge (600-1500% extra money).
So, if you look at the large numbers (100k vs 40k) isn?t as great as the ?extra? money (15k vs 85k, or worse, 5k vs 85k). The top “1%” numbers would look even more significant. Some people could be voicing their issues with this in mind, consciously or subconsciously.
Not even sure if this makes sense.
[/quote]
Actually, this is one of the main tenets of modern welfare theory, that you just described here, that money is a good of decreasing marginal utility, meaning, the wealthy do not need it as much because their basic needs are met.
Its fallacious as fuck, though you could go the “well maybe utility is subjective but, since we are all human beings the coincidence of tons of subjective wishes can look a lot like objective needs in the aggregate” route if you wanted to, but most redistributionist could not make that argument anyway so why spell it out for them.
I would be such a clever little socialist…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It’s like, you own stock in Walmart don’t you Beans? [/quote]
No. I wouldn’t invest in company that has such a small PM, and is such a large target for lefty wing nuts that don’t understand economics.
You are a wingnut that thinks there is some utopian paradise out there. There is a Santa Claus too in your world.
News flash: if people didn’t shop at evil greedy WalMart, this whole “problem” would go away… [/quote]
If people always spent their money politically, it seems they would demand some kind of transparency in terms of things like, who the corporation donates money to.
I’m all for people making informed decisions, many things we do in our lives have major impacts that we are ignorant to. Does that mean we somehow tolerate things we are ignorant of? If you want to play like that, then that means you would ‘tolerate’ your girlfriend or spouse (or both) cheating on you when you didn’t know it. I mean, your still with her (them) right?
People are either oblivious to their support, are aware but jaded because they understand only from a selfish standpoint where they believe they as an individual can make no change, or they are only partially aware of the consequences of shopping at one.
Taking advantage of people’s ignorance is short game, because people can always wise up (You see I believe in the potential of people)
The majority might never understand that the problem with walmart is the business model itself which puts money in the hands of the stockholder rather than the employee vs. Costco’s which at the end of the day pays it’s employees higher wages with the idea that better paid employees are more productive, and less wasteful/likely to steal.
All I know is, you don’t hear about Costco employees going on strike during Black Friday…
I mean… Think about what strike on black friday implies? It means the employee understands his own plight and want’s to stick it to his employer that he doesn’t respect. He understands he will be getting paid the same wage while investors anticipated black friday, so he planned to stick it to them where it hurt more then they could imagine, so that they could feel a little bit of his pain (see, employees wised up and tried to sabotage profits)
Vs. Costco where the Employee is well paid, and the employee feels well taken care of is going to treat his workplace more like something he depends on, and is going to want to see it do well. He isn’t going to look the other way when he sees someone stealing, and he’s more likely to try and foster a work dynamic that is good for the company and others he is around.
The other thing is. Investors see this as well. So, as touted as Costco’s business plan is, it might not be as good as people claimed, they aim to keep their employees minimally happy, and as a result they have issue with employee productivity… I mean people hate to work for them and it costs them money via picket, employee theft, lack of productivity etc.
Also, you look to the neighborhoods where Walmart employees tend to live, and can afford. Why are they like that? Well, that money is in the investors pocket, so it gets spent on the boys tuition, daughters ballet lessons, jewelry for the wife, in neighborhoods throughout the country that may not even have a Costco within 100 miles (like where I live).
If you have less money, and are poor, you spend less money and are poor right where you live. It isn’t good for local business or local economy to not get paid, neighborhoods that house people that make minimum wage workers speak for themselves.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It’s like, you own stock in Walmart don’t you Beans? [/quote]
No. I wouldn’t invest in company that has such a small PM, and is such a large target for lefty wing nuts that don’t understand economics.
You are a wingnut that thinks there is some utopian paradise out there. There is a Santa Claus too in your world.
News flash: if people didn’t shop at evil greedy WalMart, this whole “problem” would go away… [/quote]
If people always spent their money politically, it seems they would demand some kind of transparency in terms of things like, who the corporation donates money to.
I’m all for people making informed decisions, many things we do in our lives have major impacts that we are ignorant to. Does that mean we somehow tolerate things we are ignorant of? If you want to play like that, then that means you would ‘tolerate’ your girlfriend or spouse (or both) cheating on you when you didn’t know it. I mean, your still with her (them) right?
People are either oblivious to their support, are aware but jaded because they understand only from a selfish standpoint where they believe they as an individual can make no change, or they are only partially aware of the consequences of shopping at one.
Taking advantage of people’s ignorance is short game, because people can always wise up (You see I believe in the potential of people)
The majority might never understand that the problem with walmart is the business model itself which puts money in the hands of the stockholder rather than the employee vs. Costco’s which at the end of the day pays it’s employees higher wages with the idea that better paid employees are more productive, and less wasteful/likely to steal.
All I know is, you don’t hear about Costco employees going on strike during Black Friday…
I mean… Think about what strike on black friday implies? It means the employee understands his own plight and want’s to stick it to his employer that he doesn’t respect. He understands he will be getting paid the same wage while investors anticipated black friday, so he planned to stick it to them where it hurt more then they could imagine, so that they could feel a little bit of his pain (see, employees wised up and tried to sabotage profits)
Vs. Costco where the Employee is well paid, and the employee feels well taken care of is going to treat his workplace more like something he depends on, and is going to want to see it do well. He isn’t going to look the other way when he sees someone stealing, and he’s more likely to try and foster a work dynamic that is good for the company and others he is around.
The other thing is. Investors see this as well. So, as touted as Costco’s business plan is, it might not be as good as people claimed, they aim to keep their employees minimally happy, and as a result they have issue with employee productivity… I mean people hate to work for them and it costs them money via picket, employee theft, lack of productivity etc.
Also, you look to the neighborhoods where Walmart employees tend to live, and can afford. Why are they like that? Well, that money is in the investors pocket, so it gets spent on the boys tuition, daughters ballet lessons, jewelry for the wife, in neighborhoods throughout the country that may not even have a Costco within 100 miles (like where I live).
If you have less money, and are poor, you spend less money and are poor right where you live. It isn’t good for local business or local economy to not get paid, neighborhoods that house people that make minimum wage workers speak for themselves.
[/quote]
You are far too worried about corporations my friend. Keep one thing in mind they won’t break into your house with guns and cart you off to prison.
Fear your government!
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If you want to play like that, then that means you would ‘tolerate’ your girlfriend or spouse (or both) cheating on you when you didn’t know it. I mean, your still with her (them) right? [/quote]
Well, yes in that case I would be ‘tolerant’ due to my ignorance. However tolerance doesn’t mean that I approve of it.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
A post about Costco being a better employer, to which I largely agree
[/quote]
The simple solution is to go work for Costco rather than WalMArt.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are far too worried about corporations my friend. Keep one thing in mind they won’t break into your house with guns and cart you off to prison.
[/quote]
Corporations don’t act like that in the US because the government stops them.
I worked in China for a few years… and corporations will imprison you, or murder you, or ensure you can’t get a job, if you cause too much trouble.
What we need is a strong, but small, government. And people have no faith that the Republican party can create a strong and small government. The last presidential election was pretty much a vote of no-confidence in the party. NOT representative of a shift in our (as a nations) fiscal and social beliefs.