If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2657
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7529 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | » | Last
 
  2008-06-07 10:45:33 PM
dottedmint: You want to tax the rich more...

Fine....

They will still be substantially richer than people making $30k.

There will still be a "class structure in America".

You cannot get rid of that.


It's a start. And funny that you don't deny it. I thought everyone had the same chances in this country?


Please Whidbey....

There is not going to be "violent revolution"....


You HOPE. Just keep taking away the middle class's economic power and keep making the rich richer and see how long people take it. Sure, the more brainwashed will keep working like busy little bees, but the truly disenfranchised will take action when they realize that their words are falling on deaf ears.

Either there's going to have to be a compromise, or I assure you there will be real class war.
 
  2008-06-08 12:03:26 AM
"It's a start."

No Whidbey it is not a start because it doesn't actually do anything.

"And funny that you don't deny it."

What is there to deny?

There has always been people who make more money than other people.

"I thought everyone had the same chances in this country?"

For the most part they do.

People work their way up the economic ladder all the time. Most people who you would call "rich" were at one time in the middle class.

People who are in the middle class are not stuck there.

You talk as if there is just no way for anyone who is in the middle class to actually improve their economic outlook.
 
  2008-06-08 12:42:19 AM
dottedmint: No Whidbey it is not a start because it doesn't actually do anything.

Taxing the upper classes and giving the middle class earners a break very much does something: it gives people who work hard and still struggle a sense of actually having power over their lives instead of paying it to the rich, who, for the most part own the credit card companies and banking institutions.


There has always been people who make more money than other people.


Not the point: There will never be a way to achieve any kind of true equality as long as there is such a discrepancy between rich and poor.

People work their way up the economic ladder all the time. Most people who you would call "rich" were at one time in the middle class.

Irrelevant. The point is that there are too many now that have little to no hope of ever reaching that level of opulence. Give them the breaks, let the rich grumble about it. They'll still be rich.


You talk as if there is just no way for anyone who is in the middle class to actually improve their economic outlook.


The fact is that the deck is stacked no matter what. There's only so much an individual can do to improve himself.

This is a call to change the system. It has nothing to do with what the lower classes spend their money on. It's clearly not working as it stands.
 
  2008-06-08 09:18:16 AM
"Taxing the upper classes and giving the middle class earners a break very much does something: it gives people who work hard and still struggle a sense of actually having power over their lives instead of paying it to the rich, who, for the most part own the credit card companies and banking institutions."

You don't get it Whidbey.

Giving someone the "sense of actually having power" does not actually do anything other than just making them feel better. It does not actually solve anything.

And they will still be paying off their credit cards and bank loans because people will continue to have credit cards and bank loans.

"Not the point: There will never be a way to achieve any kind of true equality as long as there is such a discrepancy between rich and poor."

Of course it is the point.

You complain about the "class structure in America" and I simply point out that there has always been a "class structure in America".

And please by all means explain what you would consider "true equality".

Can you define "true equality"?

"Irrelevant. The point is that there are too many now that have little to no hope of ever reaching that level of opulence. Give them the breaks, let the rich grumble about it. They'll still be rich."

1. No. Not everyone is going to be as rich as Bill Gates. Not everyone is going to make $100,000. And what is wrong with that?

2. Instead of encouraging them to work hard and make as much money as they can you tell people that it is hopeless and that the answer to any "inequality" is to punish those who make more than they do.

Sorry but I reject that message.

Someone who comes from the poorest family has the potential to become rich. Maybe they will never be Bill Gates rich but everyone has the potential to become rich.

They will never get there if they feel that things are hopeless.

They will never get there by punishing those who are rich.

And I repeat....

And please by all means explain what you would consider "true equality".
 
  2008-06-08 06:29:31 PM
dottedmint: You don't get it Whidbey.

Giving someone the "sense of actually having power" does not actually do anything other than just making them feel better. It does not actually solve anything.


Your opinion. What am I supposed to be "getting?" I believe in giving hard-working people a break. You're still caught up in the Calvinistic "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" nonsense whether you understand a person's situation or not. You don't feel the need to help anyone, and what's more, you justify it with ridiculous broadbrush stereotypes like "poor people don't live within their means." As if that's any kind of justification to keep them where they are. Sounds to me that YOU'RE the one advocating punishment, not me.

Of course it is the point.

That "There has always been people who make more money than other people"?

It has nothing to do with this discussion. Nor does it justify why it would be right or WRONG to change a system. It's not an answer.


You complain about the "class structure in America" and I simply point out that there has always been a "class structure in America".


Same goes for this. Pointing out that "it's always been that way" is not an argument, either.

And please by all means explain what you would consider "true equality".

Right now, the resources, the wealth, and the almost endless use of infrastructure is locked up in a very small portion of our population. How is that EQUAL to you?

You support an oligarchy because someone told you "that's the way it is" is what I'm getting out of this dialogue.

Instead of encouraging them to work hard and make as much money as they can you tell people that it is hopeless and that the answer to any "inequality" is to punish those who make more than they do.

Yeah, "punishing the rich." Good one. Even after I "punish" them, they're still rich. How is that "punishment?"

And those are your words, not mine. My position is that "encouraging people to work hard" is not enough. It is not realistic thinking, not any more than your premise that everyone can "get rich." They can't. But we can make it so that lower-income earners can at least have some advantages. But you don't want that, because in your mind that would be "unfair."

And please by all means explain what you would consider "true equality".

This society is set up to serve the rich. We work for them, they cash in. This is not equal. By taxing the rich, and giving a break for the lower classes, it is a big step towards leveling the playing field: in other words, EQUALITY. A concept that is simply out of your grasp.

And again, to the lurkers: feel free to jump right in, anytime. Don't all rush the stage at once....
 
  2008-06-08 11:18:59 PM
hmmm I just realized that this thread doesn't save no more than a certain length of posts so I missed out on my whole little debate.

You two are still arguing the same thing as before, which is amusing. The exact same points are being made nearly a week ago.

How about a new topic?
 
  2008-06-09 02:04:20 AM
AR55: The exact same points are being made nearly a week ago.

How about a new topic?


Fine with me. Have a go. What's on your mind?
 
  2008-06-09 11:14:44 AM
I propose an open discussion on the migratory habits of the Snowy Egret of the pacific northwest.
 
  2008-06-09 07:36:36 PM
More than just my opinion Whidbey.

Giving someone the "sense of actually having power" is not the same as giving someone the actual power. Simply having the sense of power is pointless and does nothing.

Also....for the record....

People who work hard actually have power over their lives.

We no longer have slavery in this country.

People are free to decide what they will or will not do with their lives.

You do not need to give anyone the "sense of actually having power" over their lives (let alone actual power) because they already have the power over their lives.

"I believe in giving hard-working people a break."

Alright....Fine....

Someone who makes $35k pays 25% in taxes. Since they work hard I say let's give them a break and cut their taxes to 15%.

Someone who makes $80k pays 28% in taxes. Since they work hard let's give them a break and cut their taxes to 15%.

Someone who makes $170k pays 33% in taxes. Since they work hard let's give them a break and cut their taxes to 15%.

Someone who makes $360k pays 35% in taxes. Again.... Since they also work hard let's give them a break and cut their taxes to 15%.

So.... Sure I agree that we should give hard-working people a break.

When I pointed out that there has always been rich and poor I wasn't only saying that it has always been there. I am pointing out that there has always been classes in the US... that there is nothing that you could do to end economic classes in the US... that there is no example of an economic system / structure that does not have rich and poor.

"Right now, the resources, the wealth, and the almost endless use of infrastructure is locked up in a very small portion of our population. How is that EQUAL to you?"

I asked you to simply define "true equality" (since that seems to be your goal) and yet you didn't bother to define what "true equality" would be.

"My position is that "encouraging people to work hard" is not enough. It is not realistic thinking, not any more than your premise that everyone can "get rich." They can't. But we can make it so that lower-income earners can at least have some advantages. But you don't want that, because in your mind that would be "unfair.""

And when you constantly tell people that they just can't possibly get rich they probably won't get rich. Why would they even try? They are constantly told that they can't make it on their own.

"This society is set up to serve the rich. We work for them, they cash in. This is not equal."

I asked you this before and I don't recall ever getting an answer.

Who exactly are people supposed to work for?

Should people work for the poor or should they work for people who have more money than they do?

Usually people work for people who have more money than they do.

Why is that bad?

See...

People work for others (typically those with more money) and in return get paid money.

So the workers make money for the rich people but they also make money for themselves.

Again...

Why is that bad?

Should people just get paid for doing nothing?

Should employers not expect their workers to make them money?
 
  2008-06-10 02:09:13 AM
whidbey: Fine with me. Have a go. What's on your mind?

okay I have an idea. How about we each talk about our ideal US military? I suppose we can get really detail oriented when it comes to opinions on foreign policy, branches, conscription, financing, allies, going to war, veterans, and oversea bases.

I think this would be fun to do, we could get really creative and evaluate/critique each other's propositions. And if it works well for this perhaps we can branch it out to other sectors of the government as well. Since everyone has an opinion on how the military should be run, the topic should be fairly easy to evolve and dwell on.

Unless you guys want to still talk about taxes (snore).
 
  2008-06-10 03:05:45 PM
Whidbey-

How can you possibly say: " Right now, the resources, the wealth, and the almost endless use of infrastructure is locked up in a very small portion of our population. How is that EQUAL to you?" when the top 25% of people in the country pay 86% of the taxes? There are a LOT of people who are considered wealthy enough to pay the lion's share of taxes in this country. And, I would add, they use about zero percent of the programmes they pay for, like Medicaid and Food Stamps.

According to the WSJ, when the top tax rate was 70%, the wealthiest only paid 19% of taxes collected. Now the top 1% pay 39%, up from 37% in 2000.

If people work hard and achieve success, who the heck are you to decide they didn't earn it? Are you God? How is it fair in your little Whidbey universe that something someone has spent their life on (like a business) should have a portion of that success taken away and handed off to another person who DIDN'T put the time in? We can all be successful in America, and the levels of success vary but that isn't bad. It's about equality of opportunity, not outcome.

Excelling is possible here, and success is a regular event in America. According to CNN, in 2007 200,000 people became millionaires for the first time; that's 550 new millionaires every day.

Can you tell me what other country has this rate of wealth generation?
 
  2008-06-11 04:21:00 AM
AR55: How about we each talk about our ideal US military?

I believe the military should be primarily for defending these shores. Not meddling around in other countries. We should not have any BASES in other countries unless it is a joint effort and the need is there. The money wasted on what Presidents like Bush think our military should be used for is staggeringly wasteful.

We need to start acting like an equal member of the international community, not the Big Boss.

Linlithgow: Whidbey-

How can you possibly say: " Right now, the resources, the wealth, and the almost endless use of infrastructure is locked up in a very small portion of our population. How is that EQUAL to you?" when the top 25% of people in the country pay 86% of the taxes?


Doesn't matter. The fact is that 1% of this population OWNS a third of the wealth. Even after taxes. You're hung up on the amount they're paying, when the truth is that they still command a lead even after they're supposedly "hosed."

There are a LOT of people who are considered wealthy enough to pay the lion's share of taxes in this country. And, I would add, they use about zero percent of the programmes they pay for, like Medicaid and Food Stamps.

So? How is this relevant? Are you saying the poor should be paying for services they can't even afford?

If people work hard and achieve success, who the heck are you to decide they didn't earn it? Are you God? How is it fair in your little Whidbey universe that something someone has spent their life on (like a business) should have a portion of that success taken away and handed off to another person who DIDN'T put the time in? We can all be successful in America, and the levels of success vary but that isn't bad. It's about equality of opportunity, not outcome.

Hate to break it to you, but not EVERYONE is going to be "successful in America." The status quo assures WORKERS and OWNERS. And no, I"m not "God," but I'll tell you what, these proposals certainly aren't MY idea. It's time to give the middle class a BREAK, seeing as how they are the ones who have less after being taxed.

Excelling is possible here, and success is a regular event in America. According to CNN, in 2007 200,000 people became millionaires for the first time; that's 550 new millionaires every day.


And in "your little world" everyone's doing fine. Well, dude, they're NOT. This is why ideas like "progressive taxation" are being pushed. For every new millionaire you cite, there are people who are working their asses off and going nowhere.

Can you tell me what other country has this rate of wealth generation?


Can you tell ME what other country has this big of a gap between rich and poor?

dottedmint: People who work hard actually have power over their lives.

To a point, yes. But you can also work hard and get NOWHERE.

We no longer have slavery in this country.

I'd say working 40 hours a week IS slavery. Voluntary indentured servitude.


And when you constantly tell people that they just can't possibly get rich they probably won't get rich. Why would they even try? They are constantly told that they can't make it on their own.


They WON'T. It's a fairy tale, a game of musical chairs. And you're also incorrect. The FALLACY is that "anyone can get rich." It's bunk.

People are free to decide what they will or will not do with their lives.

And what happens when they feel that they've reached a saturation point where it doesn't matter how much they work, the fruits of their labor produce disappointing results? NO MATTER WHAT JOB THEY TAKE?


So.... Sure I agree that we should give hard-working people a break.


Once again, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE FLAT TAX. The flat tax benefits the rich far more than it does someone making 30K. I don't understand why you still refuse to accept that.

And none of your other points are relevant. They do not address WHY we should or should not provide tax relief and incentives to people making less than 150K. NONE.
 
  2008-06-11 07:15:32 AM
I find it funny that there seems to be some questions that you just can't bring yourself to answer Whidbey.

Here are some questions that I have yet to see you answer.

If it is wrong for the top 1% to own one third of the wealth how much could they own and have it be fair? a fourth? a fifth? a sixth? How much?

What would "true equality" (since that seems to be your goal) look like in this country?

Why is it wrong for people to work for and make money for people who have more money than they do? And if it is wrong for people to work for others who are rich who exactlty should they work for? the poor?

Now I hope your next comment will include answers to these questions.

"Hate to break it to you, but not EVERYONE is going to be "successful in America.""

This is true. Not everyone is going to be successful. People who have a poor work ethic and are not dependable will not be successful. People who only do the bare minimum in their lives will not be successful. People who don't try to improve themselves will not be successful.

And I'm supposed to give these people a break????

"To a point, yes."

Not just to a point. Everyone has the power over their own lives.

"But you can also work hard and get NOWHERE."

True. So?

"I'd say working 40 hours a week IS slavery. Voluntary indentured servitude."

I really love it when people redefine words in order to try to make a point.

Working 40 hrs a week and getting paid for it is not slavery.

If you don't want to work 40 hrs. Fine. Don't work 40 hrs. It is your choice. You have the power over your life.

But of course I'm sure you would like to get paid for 40 hrs. Right?

"The FALLACY is that "anyone can get rich.""

I said that anyone can get rich and that is true. Not everyone will get rich. Give me an example of someone who cannot get rich.

"And what happens when they feel that they've reached a saturation point where it doesn't matter how much they work, the fruits of their labor produce disappointing results? NO MATTER WHAT JOB THEY TAKE?"

What should happen? Should they just give up?

I would say that if they are not happy with where they are they should take steps to change their life.

Remember....

They have control over their life.

"Once again, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE FLAT TAX. The flat tax benefits the rich far more than it does someone making 30K. I don't understand why you still refuse to accept that."

But you said that you wanted to give hard-working people a break.

I guess you didn't actually mean that because I gave you an example of how you could give hard-working people a break.

Or do you think that only people who are poor are ????



 
  2008-06-11 07:16:30 AM
Or do you think that only people who are poor are "hard-working"????
 
  2008-06-11 05:36:33 PM
dottedmint: If it is wrong for the top 1% to own one third of the wealth how much could they own and have it be fair? a fourth? a fifth? a sixth? How much?

What would "true equality" (since that seems to be your goal) look like in this country?


I'll concede that "true equality" isn't a very realistic goal, seeing as how there are people like you who will argue that it's OK for an oligarchy to exist in this country. It's "just the way it is," and trying to change things would be very wrong. Why, I don't know.

At least that's what I'm getting out of your comments: Don't bother changing the status quo, and don't even think of the little guy. He's nothing, after all the "real people" make over 100K. There will always be poor, it's their own fault they're poor because they make stupid life choices. Don't even try to help them, they're not like you--they're LEPERS to be shunned and despised.

People who have a poor work ethic and are not dependable will not be successful. People who only do the bare minimum in their lives will not be successful. People who don't try to improve themselves will not be successful.

More broadbrush, generalized judgmental BS. Not really worth a comment.

And I'm supposed to give these people a break????

Again, you assume that people that aren't rich are stupid and unmotivated.

Why is it wrong for people to work for and make money for people who have more money than they do?

Just pointing out an obvious disturbing fact: There are WORKERS. And there are OWNERS. 1% OWNS, the rest works for them, either directly or indirectly. That isn't fair, that is rule by the few.

"And what happens when they feel that they've reached a saturation point where it doesn't matter how much they work, the fruits of their labor produce disappointing results? NO MATTER WHAT JOB THEY TAKE?"

What should happen? Should they just give up?


No. Demanding relief for hard-working people is a step. It is both a stab and a challenge directed at the status quo to change things.

The rich will STILL be rich. The middle classes will have a sense of empowerment with their additional purchasing power.

Seriously. Why does this bother you so much? What do you care? Do you consider this "cheating" or something?
 
  2008-06-11 05:39:18 PM
Hate to break it to you, but not EVERYONE is going to be "successful in America." The status quo assures WORKERS and OWNERS. And no, I"m not "God," but I'll tell you what, these proposals certainly aren't MY idea.

Right, not everyone will be a millionaire in America. And your point is...? That everyone should be somehow? You are assuming that if someone is poor, they are above reproach, but if you are a business owner, or have some measure of success, you're selfish and evil. That is absolutely fallacious.

You mentioned earlier in this thread that a higher minimum wage and other programmes would give people a 'feeling of empowerment', yet when I point out that America's capitalist system generates an unprecedented and unrivaled number of millionaires, you ignore it. So it's empowerment to raise minimum wage but not to be a millionaire? I guess that's where the 'evil' line in your book is, huh?

Just out of curiosity, how much do you donate to charity? If you like supporting other people blindly so much, why don't you just write an extra cheque to the government on April 15th?


It's time to give the middle class a BREAK, seeing as how they are the ones who have less after being taxed.


So, anyone else besides the middle class who pays taxes ends up with more money afterwards...?

And in "your little world" everyone's doing fine.

Most of America is doing pretty well. Those considered poor in America have a really good standard of living compared with people in most other parts of the world. We also have a terrific network of food banks, homeless shelters, religion based aid programmes, job retaining centres and the like, and it's getting better all the time. Scores of people in other parts of the world die EVERY DAY from preventable disease and hunger, yet it seems you're trying to draw parallels between our poor class, which is small, and true poverty and squalor elsewhere, where there is literally NO hope. Our capitalist system has allowed people to pull themselves up from poverty and move on to be productive citizens who then pay taxes while elsewhere in the world there is no chance of that. Go to Zimbabwe or parts of Central America and ask them if they want to switch their controlling and micromanaging government for citizenship in America and they will. This is why people COME to America and risk life and limb to do so. Because our system WORKS. The streets here aren't paved with gold, only opportunity, and you want to sabotage that and make the barrier for entry into business impossibly high.

There is no middle class in England or most of Europe, if you want to get into the class argument. Guess what? They also tend to lean more towards socialism, liberalism and government intervention. Funny, that. France's reduced work week and guarantees of government entitlements have resulted in a country that is having trouble paying for its programmes.


"The fact is that 1% of this population OWNS a third of the wealth. Even after taxes. You're hung up on the amount they're paying, when the truth is that they still command a lead even after they're supposedly "hosed."


If that were true, than 1.17 million people would own 33% of America's wealth. That's hardly some tiny cabal. How do you think we rate against some place like... Saudi Arabia? Russia even?

Where did you get this number from anyway? Some WWP pamplet? Again, I say that a quarter of the population pays almost 9/10ths of all taxes, which must mean they're doing pretty well, and you try to wave that away. Even if it is only one percent who controls a third of the wealth, so what? As long as they haven't come and taken it out of my pocket (like the government does), I don't care who owns what.

Why are you so sold on government redistribution? What makes government so magical? It's run by flawed, imperfect humans just like corporations are run, yet you're trying to give the government sweeping powers and control, which is VERY misguided and dangerous.
 
  2008-06-11 05:45:36 PM
www.theright-stuff.com
 
  2008-06-11 06:03:13 PM
Linlithgow: Right, not everyone will be a millionaire in America. And your point is...? That everyone should be somehow? You are assuming that if someone is poor, they are above reproach, but if you are a business owner, or have some measure of success, you're selfish and evil. That is absolutely fallacious.

I didn't say any of that. You're the one making assumptions.

If you really care about what I think about this subject, scroll back and read my posts. Thanks to dottedmint, as usual I made the same points over and over again like I do with all my arguments he doesn't get, so they should be clear.

Most of America is doing pretty well. Those considered poor in America have a really good standard of living compared with people in most other parts of the world. We also have a terrific network of food banks, homeless shelters, religion based aid programmes, job retaining centres and the like, and it's getting better all the time.

Irrelevant, really. Nor does this statement justify why we SHOULDN'T be giving the middle class a break. And I never ONCE mentioned increasing the minimum wage. I'm going to have to ask you once again to re-read my postings so that you might get a better sense of what I'm talking about.

"The fact is that 1% of this population OWNS a third of the wealth. Even after taxes. You're hung up on the amount they're paying, when the truth is that they still command a lead even after they're supposedly "hosed."

If that were true, than 1.17 million people would own 33% of America's wealth. That's hardly some tiny cabal. How do you think we rate against some place like... Saudi Arabia? Russia even?

Where did you get this number from anyway? Some WWP pamplet?


No, try the Wall Street Journal:

In the U.S. the top 1 percent own a third of the wealth.

And that was a simple Google, most common search.
 
  2008-06-11 09:54:32 PM
Whidbey: "I'll concede that "true equality" isn't a very realistic goal, seeing as how there are people like you who will argue that it's OK for an oligarchy to exist in this country. It's "just the way it is," and trying to change things would be very wrong. Why, I don't know."

Funny... You still have not answered my question.

I did not ask if "true equality" was a realistic goal or not.

I asked you...

What would "true equality" (since that seems to be your goal) look like in this country?

Now Whidbey please try to actually answer that question.

After all....

If this is what you support / want to see you should be able to explain what it would be.

"At least that's what I'm getting out of your comments: Don't bother changing the status quo, and don't even think of the little guy. He's nothing, after all the "real people" make over 100K. There will always be poor, it's their own fault they're poor because they make stupid life choices. Don't even try to help them, they're not like you--they're LEPERS to be shunned and despised."

That's interesting Whidbey. That's not exactly what I said and yet you criticize Linlithgow for misrepresenting what you said.

"More broadbrush, generalized judgmental BS. Not really worth a comment."

Actually my comments are rather accurate.


If you have a poor work ethic, are not dependable, do the bare minimum in your life, and don't try to improve yourself you (more than likely) will not get rich.

It is actually very simple....

"Again, you assume that people that aren't rich are stupid and unmotivated."

There you go again misrepresenting what I said...

"Just pointing out an obvious disturbing fact: There are WORKERS. And there are OWNERS. 1% OWNS, the rest works for them, either directly or indirectly. That isn't fair, that is rule by the few."

And again....

Who exactly should people work for?

And....

Who exactly should I hire to work in my Widget company????


Now.....

Here are the other questions that you just can't seem to bring yourself to answer.

If it is wrong for the top 1% to own one third of the wealth how much could they own and have it be fair? a fourth? a fifth? a sixth? How much?

Why is it wrong for people to work for and make money for people who have more money than they do? And if it is wrong for people to work for others who are rich who exactlty should they work for? the poor?

And again.....

What would "true equality" (since that seems to be your goal) look like in this country?
 
  2008-06-11 10:11:03 PM
dottedmint: What would "true equality" (since that seems to be your goal) look like in this country?

Now Whidbey please try to actually answer that question.


"True equality" would mean we have no class society, and there would be no real "rich" or "poor."


If this is what you support / want to see you should be able to explain what it would be.


Whatever. For what it's worth. It's not really what I'm proposing now, though. It's a long term goal starting with equalizing lower incomes to have more purchasing power and longterm financial security.


If you have a poor work ethic, are not dependable, do the bare minimum in your life, and don't try to improve yourself you (more than likely) will not get rich.


Like I said, it's generalized thinking, and doesn't justify why we should not provide tax relief and incentives to people making less than 150K. Why do you keep bringing it up? It's your opinion.

And again....
Who exactly should people work for?
And....
Who exactly should I hire to work in my Widget company????


You keep missing the point over and over. I really don't know what you're after. What's your conclusion, here?

I'm just making an OBSERVATION that there is a tremendous disparity between owners and workers. It isn't an issue of "who works for whom." Not the point.

Why is it wrong for people to work for and make money for people who have more money than they do? And if it is wrong for people to work for others who are rich who exactlty should they work for? the poor?

Again. The point. You miss it.
 
  2008-06-11 11:15:53 PM
""True equality" would mean we have no class society, and there would be no real "rich" or "poor.""

Finally....

So.... No class society and no "rich" or "poor".....

Hmmmmm.....

So if I worked 50, 60, and even 70 hrs in a week, (as I have in the past) constantly tried to improve myself, and did everything I could to make my Widget company grow while you only put in 20 hrs a week (since you think working 40hrs a week is slavery) and never did anything to improve yourself it would be wrong for me to be "rich" and you "poor"????

Your house should be as big as my house....

Your car should be as nice as my car....

Your life should be as nice as my life....

Is that what you actually mean when you say "no class society and no "rich" or "poor"?

If that is what you think life should be like in the US why the h@ll would I work so much harder if it doesn't get me anything?

And of course if I didn't work so hard I would probably never get my widget company going and all those people that work for me would be unemployed or at least would have to try to find someone else who would work extremely hard to start a company even though they would not get anything more out of that work.

"Like I said, it's generalized thinking, and doesn't justify why we should not provide tax relief and incentives to people making less than 150K. Why do you keep bringing it up? It's your opinion."

Hmmmm.....

So the person I described WOULD get rich???

Or would they be more likely not to get rich???

Of course you seem to think that nobody can get rich...

And for the record.....

You saying that this, that, and whatever else isn't fair is (um) "your opinion".

"I'm just making an OBSERVATION that there is a tremendous disparity between owners and workers. It isn't an issue of "who works for whom." Not the point."

Of course it is the point....

You complain that so many people work for others.

SO what???

If they want to start their own widget company. Fine. Let them.

And the other thing that I just can't understand is why is it bad for people to work for others?

So what should the ratio of workers / owners be in order for things to be "fair"?
 
  2008-06-12 12:11:53 AM
dottedmint: [insert a bunch of assumptions and generalizations]

Is that what you actually mean when you say "no class society and no "rich" or "poor"?


Uh, no. You just did.

If that is what you think life should be like in the US why the h@ll would I work so much harder if it doesn't get me anything?

Why would that be the case? Just because someone enacts a policy where people making less than 150K get tax breaks and incentives?

And of course if I didn't work so hard I would probably never get my widget company going and all those people that work for me would be unemployed or at least would have to try to find someone else who would work extremely hard to start a company even though they would not get anything more out of that work.

Again, what does this have to do with the topic?

So the person I described WOULD get rich???
Or would they be more likely not to get rich???


I'm sure, if you had a fantastic widget to sell, yes you would get rich off it. So what?

Of course you seem to think that nobody can get rich...

You're very adept at misunderstanding my points, I've noticed. I don't think I'm being unclear. It's more like you choose to read in certain things that aren't even part of my argument.

And the other thing that I just can't understand is why is it bad for people to work for others?

It isn't.

So what should the ratio of workers / owners be in order for things to be "fair"?

I really don't know. I have some ideas, certainly, on how to level the playing field, such as the practice of turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit, I'm sure that would put you in stitches with a bunch of ridiculous questions, so I won't go there.

I would eventually like to see our society change from a profit-driven one to a society where resources are better managed and are available first to the citizenry of this country instead of being "exported" out of this country where there's a demand or not instead of this "global economy" nonsense. If commerce were more isolated instead of so dependent on cheap labor from other countries, people could focus their work more locally or regionally, cutting down transportation costs, particularly airline-industry related.

That's all speculation. I'd like to see workers have more of a stock in companies than just grunts that work 40 hours a week and collect a paycheck.

But whether you see it as a concern, the truth is that there is a n ever-growing gap between the rich and the middle class, and it's going to lead to some real tensions in this country. Those tensions are already here. What I'm telling you will be even more commonplace as this awareness trickles down to the masses.
 
  2008-06-12 07:10:44 AM
"You're very adept at misunderstanding my points, I've noticed. I don't think I'm being unclear. It's more like you choose to read in certain things that aren't even part of my argument."

Actually Whidbey you have been very unclear on certain things.

You bring up the idea of "true equality" and I ask you to define that.

After several times of you ignoring my question of "true equality" you finally answer me. Sorta....

Instead of giving a clear answer you say that you would like to see "no class structure and no "rich" and no "poor"" and since I didn't understand what you meant by that I gave you a couple of examples and asked if what I posted is what you meant.

Instead of explaining what you meant by "no class structure and no "rich" and no "poor"" you say that what I posted isn't what you mean.

And you actually wonder why I misunderstand your posts???

You don't explain your posts.

Instead you make vague idealistic statements and wonder why I misunderstand you.

So again......

"true equality" would mean what exactly?

"no class structure" would mean what?

"no rich and no poor" would mean what?

If I worked 70 hrs a week and you only worked 20 hrs a week where exactly would we fall in your "true equality" society?

"such as the practice of turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit, I'm sure that would put you in stitches with a bunch of ridiculous questions, so I won't go there."

Since they are not ridiculous I am going to ask them.

So after I make a certain amount of money you would steal my company and give it to the workers?

And what if just before I make that limit of money I sell off everything in my company to some company in China?

Then when I reach my limit of money and you steal my company and give it to the workers there wouldn't be anything for the workers to continue to operate and they would go out of business.

Then of course I need to wonder why people would even start companies.

Why wouldn't they just be workers and wait until you steal the company from the person who started the company and give it to them?

"I would eventually like to see our society change from a profit-driven one to a society where resources are better managed and are available first to the citizenry of this country"

If there would not be profit, why would I work 70 hrs a week to open my widget company?

Why would anyone work hard if there was no profit?
 
  2008-06-13 06:17:22 PM
Oh and Whidbey....

I can't help but wonder what would happen if I simply sold off my company just before I reached your magical "limit" in income? Then after I sold off my widget company I opened up my new fidget company and then of course sold off that company just before I reached your magical "limit".

And????

If I reached your magical "limit" and you stole my company and gave it to the workers how long would the workers have the widget company?

What would happen if the workers also reached your magical "limit"?

Would you then steal it from them and give it back to me?
 
  2008-06-13 06:35:04 PM
dottedmint: Instead you make vague idealistic statements and wonder why I misunderstand you.

I think you make too much of them. Usually I'm describing a very realistic short-term goal, and your way is to trap me into admitting some kind of unworkable utopian fantasy.

dottedmint: So after I make a certain amount of money you would steal my company and give it to the workers?

I thought you weren't going to ask a bunch of ridiculous questions.

And what if just before I make that limit of money I sell off everything in my company to some company in China?


You're putting Americans out of work so some Chinese company can profit off cheap labor. There should be some mechanism in American business where it would be very difficult to do this, if not outright put big corporations out of business for such shrewd, social darwinistic type of behaviors. Sure it makes you a lot of money, but it's not ethical. It should be illegal.

Why wouldn't they just be workers and wait until you steal the company from the person who started the company and give it to them

Obviously, you would be BOUGHT OUT, so I don't get where you're getting the "steal" part. Although you probably wouldn't get as much as you'd like. You'd still do well, although I'm sure you'd find some way to object.

Why would anyone work hard if there was no profit?

See, you have this annoying way of taking an idea to some absurd conclusion. Where did I say that companies shouldn't profit?

I have a problem with your taking my arguments to ridiculous conclusions. Please try and focus on the here-and-now, and not some time in the future.

And back to my point: not one of of your arguments justifies why we shouldn't be offering people who make less than 150K breaks and incentives.

You have an annoying tendency to wear down participants of these discussions with irrelevant fodder.
 
  2008-06-13 08:01:43 PM
"You have an annoying tendency to wear down participants of these discussions with irrelevant fodder."

Irrelevant????

There is nothing irrelevant about my questions.

You bring up the concept of "true equality" and I try to get you to explain what the heck you are talking about.

You try to explain what you mean by "true equality" by saying that there would be no "class structure" or "no rich or poor".

And since I didn't understand what you meant by that I figured (gee) I'd ask you.

And as usual you can't seem to bring yourself to give a clear answer to what you mean.

Then you bring up the idea of "turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit". You know.... that magical limit that you want to set.

And finally you bring up the idea of having our "society change from a profit-driven one".

Again Whidbey what the heck do you mean by that?

You say,

"Usually I'm describing a very realistic short-term goal, and your way is to trap me into admitting some kind of unworkable utopian fantasy."

...but that's just it Whidbey, none of these issues that you have brought up are "very realistic short-term goals".

You are talking about an "unworkable utopian fantasy".

"Sure it makes you a lot of money, but it's not ethical. It should be illegal."

Fine Whidbey I wouldn't sell my company off to China. I'd just sell my company off to some US interest and I'd just start a new company before I reached your magical "limit".

"Obviously, you would be BOUGHT OUT, so I don't get where you're getting the "steal" part."

Well Whidbey when you say "the practice of turning over businesses to workers" it sure sounds like you are just handing it over to the workers without paying me. If the workers are going to pay me for my company, fine. What if they don't have enough money? Let's say that the company is valued at (oh I don't know) $5billion but the workers can't even come up with $1billion. Would you force me to sell my company for less than it is worth?


"Where did I say that companies shouldn't profit?"

Well again Whidbey when you say that you want our "society [to] change from a profit-driven one" it sure sounds like you want to do away with profit.

If it is not driven by profit what exactly would it be driven by?

And would you have magical "limits" on how much profit a company could make?

Oh wait.... I already know that answer.

So you don't want to do away with all profit. You just want to put a "limit" on profit.

Right????

"And back to my point: not one of of your arguments justifies why we shouldn't be offering people who make less than 150K breaks and incentives. "

First, I have so moved past the whole tax issue.

Second, I am more than happy to give breaks to people making less than $150k. I've said it before. Cut their taxes down to 15%. Of course I want to cut everyone down to 15%.

Finally, to turn your comment back on you....

Not one of your arguments justifies why we should tax people who make more than $150k at a higher rate than anyone else.

In any case Whidbey I am much more interested in your "unworkable utopian fantasy" of....

"true equality"...

"no rich and no poor"...

"no class structure"...

"turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit"...

"society change from a profit-driven one"...


If you can't explain these I don't know how anyone could think they were anything other than an "unworkable utopian fantasy".
 
  2008-06-14 07:40:04 PM
Whidbey, all of your ideas have been tried before in the Soviet Union and other Communist nations around the world. Guess what? They all eventually failed, and/or the necessary government regulations needed to control the populace resulted in some of the worst human rights violations in history.

In France and Germany, with their mandatory shortened work weeks and paid vacation, as well as high minimum wages, they have double the U.S.'s unemployment rate, comparatively tiny economic growth, and much more in the way of what my dad used to call (when he was being polite) freeloaders.

Btw, just to fix some of your facts. The top 1% earners make about 17% of the nation's income and pay 33-35% of all taxes.
Jobs lost to outsourcing since 2000-- less than 10 mil.
Other jobs created since 2000 -- more than 40 mil.


The sad fact is that in a free society, you will NEVER be able to create "true equality" with regards to monetary success. No matter what the Declaration of Independence says, people are NOT born equal in anything except their natural right to freedom. Some people are just inherently smarter, more creative, more driven, more talented, or are born in families and environments that better impart these virtues on them. Some parents force their children to read many, challenging books, and some parents let their children watch 6 hours of MTV a day. Guess which child is going to likely be more successful, or at least have a higher SAT score? I don't need to explain how having a higher SAT score increases chances for success, do I?


Also, your argument for "turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit".
is also pretty ridiculous. It's kinda like telling Kobe Bryant "Ok, you've made enough money playing basketball, so we [the government] are appropriating your remaining contract and giving your spot on the team to the guy who sells popcorn. By the way, the guy is 5'6", weighs 275 pounds, is 42 years old, and his only basketball experience is playing NBA Live on his Playstation." The point of this analogy is to say that the workers are workers because they don't know how to successfully run their company, and the owners own the company and get rich because they do. Giving the business to the workers would most likely cause the company to fail.
 
  2008-06-17 10:13:49 PM
dottedmint: In any case Whidbey I am much more interested in your "unworkable utopian fantasy" of....

Well, I'm not. I don't think we're going to get anywhere on the flat tax idea either. I'll simply put it out there (once again) that while I believe that working people should pay into the system, they are not reaping the benefits that the rich and the super-rich are. Hence they should be taxed at a lower rater than their higher-earning counterparts. A flat tax of 15% isn't even an acceptable compromise. Not unless you rework it that those making 30-70% be taxed 0% or are eligible for exemptions or write-offs.

And it's obvious to me that you can't even fathom a progressive society as anything more than a utopian fantasy, it proves we aren't even ready to try such a thing as a society right there. You can't even imagine it without striking it down.

reimanr06: Whidbey, all of your ideas have been tried before in the Soviet Union and other Communist nations around the world. Guess what? They all eventually failed, and/or the necessary government regulations needed to control the populace resulted in some of the worst human rights violations in history.

No, my ideas have not been tried. Period. But thanks for poisoning the topic by such an overused, dishonest comparison.

We are not talking about military dictatorships that betrayed whatever goals they lied about to get in power. We are talking about a social democracy/republic where debate is encouraged and is an essential part of the process.

The sad fact is that in a free society, you will NEVER be able to create "true equality" with regards to monetary success.

Why is that "sad"? Because someone told you it wasn't possible? I maintain that we are then not living in a free society. It is an oligarchy where the most powerful control this country. Further, I believe that awareness is the key to breaking up this system.

The more people become educated, the more they realize that they're more like cogs in a wheel as to their stake in this world. I'll say that much. Whether it takes 10, 20 or 100 years depends on how long people are willing to put up with this comfortable kind of slavery where the super-rich pretty much own it all and the underlings are tossed occasional crumbs to tempt them as to what "real living" is.

Right now, that awareness is focusing on giving the real working peoples a break with their lives and achieve more power as consumers and financial security. This is the direction I'd like to see the leading nation on planet Earth take instead of the other "unworkable utopian fantasy": Expensive wars of aggression against invented enemies.


Also, your argument for "turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit".
is also pretty ridiculous.


No, it really isn't. After a certain time, after a certain profit, something in the upper double or lower triple-digit billions, the widget factory would be phased out so that the workers own and operate it.

The point of this analogy is to say that the workers are workers because they don't know how to successfully run their company, and the owners own the company and get rich because they do. Giving the business to the workers would most likely cause the company to fail.

Sorry, I disagree, and find that rather presumptuous. Oftentimes, upper management are the ones who take the credit for what "the little people" do. It's completely conceivable that a transitional plan could be established, but the real problem is the people in control of said company being expected to relinquish power.

And if such an outright transferal isn't practical or ultimately workable, the very least that should happen is that businesses offer an honest profit-sharing program for their employees.


Btw, just to fix some of your facts. The top 1% earners make about 17% of the nation's income and pay 33-35% of all taxes.
Jobs lost to outsourcing since 2000-- less than 10 mil.
Other jobs created since 2000 -- more than 40 mil.


Then it looks like the 1% own even more than previously stated. I'd like to see the sources on the outsourced jobs, and whether your 40 million "other jobs" were the kind of jobs the mere outsourced "10 million" could have transitioned into after losing theirs...

I don't believe the current system benefits ordinary people. You're going to hear this a lot from me if you stick around...excuse me if I get a little heated up.
 
  2008-06-17 11:58:30 PM
"And it's obvious to me that you can't even fathom a progressive society as anything more than a utopian fantasy, it proves we aren't even ready to try such a thing as a society right there. You can't even imagine it without striking it down."

I'm trying to get you to explain how your ideas would work Whidbey.

You brought up these ideas and I am simply trying to get you to explain why they aren't a utopian fantasy.

And yet.....

You still refuse to explain what you mean....

And since you can't seem to explain yourself why should I not think your ideas are only an unworkable utopian fantasy?

So.....

I'll try this again....

Please try to explain these issues that you have brought up.

"true equality"...

"no rich and no poor"...

"no class structure"...

"turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit"...

"society change from a profit-driven one"...

And again Whidbey....

If my widget company is valued at $5billion but the workers can't even get together $1billion would I have to sell my company for less than it is worth?

And if I find someone to buy my widget company (before I reach your magical limit) for $5billion what happens when I sell my company and simply start a new one?

And if your society is not driven by profit what exactly is it driven by?

What motivates people to work hard?

And you still have not explained how in your society there would be no rich and no poor.

If I work 70 hrs a week and you only work 20 hrs a week since you feel working 40hrs a week is slavery how would we fit in your society?

Now again Whidbey please do us all a favor and explain these topics that you have brought up....

"true equality"...

"no rich and no poor"...

"no class structure"...

"turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit"...

"society change from a profit-driven one"...

See....

The reason I have a hard time trying to imagine your ideas is because you won't explain them.
 
  2008-06-18 03:47:59 AM
I'll summarize Whidbey's platform in one word so he won't have to waste any more energy.

Marxism.
 
  2008-06-18 09:43:37 AM
reimanr06: The point of this analogy is to say that the workers are workers because they don't know how to successfully run their company, and the owners own the company and get rich because they do

I beg to differ. The "owners" are simply the source of operating capitol. The "workers" provide every bit of the necessary knowhow to successfully manage and run the company. It is extremely rare, even in small business, that the person who has the knowledge to operate the company also has the capitol to fund the operation without investors. You won't find many of those investors down on the factory floor machining parts for widgets because they don't know how the machines work. And most of them will have to hire a book keeper to do the payroll because they don't have a clue how that's done either.

In a successful company you have three groups of people:
1) A small group of managers (Board of Directors) who know the overall operation and actually run things.
2) Investors/owners/advisers who provide the necessary capitol to operate, who think they know how to run things, and who generally just get in group 1's way.
3) The laborers who are experts at their individual roles in the overall scheme of things and actually produce something that hopefully generates a profit.

Now the problem with turning ownership of a company over to it's workers is that no one can remember which group they belong in anymore. Nobody knows a bit more than they did before but everybody wants to run the show. That nice small board of directors becomes a committee of the whole. And anything run by a committee is doomed.

This is not to say that you can't have a successful employee owned company, just that it's a lot more involved than simply handing over a going business to it's workers.
 
  2008-06-19 12:29:08 PM
Hey, why did that McCain wants nuke plants article get delisted from the politics lighter page? I read some articles and comments and then poof they are gone from lighters at least. Sometimes it makes me feel that I am loosing my mind. I'm just curious and not trying to break any rules or stir the pot.
 
  2008-06-19 04:01:04 PM
The article was probably a repeat wingnut. Most common reason why redlights happen I believe.

RainForest, while the workers may have the intimate knowledge of knowing how a company works they didn't have the burden of starting the company. Since they did not take the risk of starting the company they shouldn't get the extended benefits or ownership.

/don't really know what your stance is on this whole affair, but I'll throw that little tidbit out there.
 
  2008-06-19 07:39:48 PM
I'm not even that concerned if the workers would be able to run the company or not.

I suspect that some workers could while others couldn't.

I'm more interested in how the hand-over would happen and what would happen in different situations.

Whidbey had told me that I would get paid by the workers for my widget company that would be turned over to them.

So one question that came to my mind was what would happen if the workers were not able to come up with as much as my company was worth. If my company was worth $5billion but the workers could only come up with $1billion would I be forced to sell my company for less than it was worth?

Another question that I had was what would happen if I simply sold my company (for the $5billion that it was worth) before I reached the limit that would force my company being turned over to the workers.

Now of course I had others questions about some of the issues that Whidbey mentioned and I hope he will at some point explain those issues that he mentioned.
 
  2008-06-19 10:42:50 PM
Just got here, so pardon me while i try not to stick my foot in mouth

Whidbey, what you're proposing, how would that be sustainable for long term? do you have a plan for encouraging long term investments in the comapny, say the workers/committee found they needed to expand the capacity to tripple their widget output, how do you propose to encourage invenstment in such a company so it can grow?

how would said company be managed? not everyone would be qualified to guide the company, would a manager have to brought in? brought from the rank and file? or do you suggest it become employee owned, and yet retain the services of the founder?

Whidbey I don't believe the current system benefits ordinary people.

that is true, it benefits certain groups, those who were lucky to be born to families with money, and those who are willing to take a risk. While the former annoys me (ie kennedys, hiltons, etc) it would not benefit society to penalize them for being rich, much less stupid. If you mean the risk takers, does Jose Camarena deserve you taking his company from him? (http://www.taqueriasarandas.com) he did start out with next to nothing when he started his resteraunts, now there's a chain of them.

I thinbk if you wanted to improve society via work and comapnies encourage risk takers, to start new ventures, and businesses.

/i have more, but it's late, i'll have to remember my train of thought regarding it.
 
  2008-06-21 02:53:18 AM
good man bush
 
  2008-06-21 09:35:04 PM
dottedmint: Please try to explain these issues that you have brought up.

"true equality"...
"no rich and no poor"...
"no class structure"...
"turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit"...
"society change from a profit-driven one"...


Seriously? I don't know if you're just naturally dense, or if you revel in pretending to be ignorant of these concepts to make these discussions a big joke.

At any rate, if you haven't got the gist of them down after WEEKS of back and forth debate, you never will. Try using a little brain power instead of just playing dumb, would be my best advice. Google them. Go to Wikipedia.

Open_Mouth_Inert_Foot: Whidbey, what you're proposing, how would that be sustainable for long term? do you have a plan for encouraging long term investments in the comapny, say the workers/committee found they needed to expand the capacity to tripple their widget output, how do you propose to encourage invenstment in such a company so it can grow?

Investment would most likely be done locally or regionally. And no, you probably wouldn't get a JD Power category of investor. But you might get interested people in the community willing to be a part of it, and make it happen.

Part of the problem is that many "widget businesses" believe if they don't reach a particular quota, they're somehow a "failure" economically, even if they pull in billions in profit.

I do not believe we can have a massive global economic system and at the same time manage resources wisely. We're going to have to start thinking more locally and regionally as to what we produce. We can't have a "sky is the limit" kind of thinking anymore. Yes, I know it makes people like dottedmint rich...;)

Businesses are going to have to be more mid-size as opposed to hugely corporate and transnational. I shouldn't have to remind you of the huge waste of resources in SE Asia, Indonesia and both North and South America just so people can buy cheap furniture or some knicknack at WalMart. Stuff that gets chucked into a landfill when they upgrade to something more expensive, or just plain replace that cheap junk.

This country alone sends massive amounts of raw materials to other countries so they can process them into products that they just sell back to us.

We can't just "live with less" in this country. That's the attitude. Everyone's got to be a millionaire, and we're pitted against each other in some kind of neurotic game of musical chairs.

does Jose Camarena deserve you taking his company from him? (http://www.taqueriasarandas.com) he did start out with next to nothing when he started his resteraunts, now there's a chain of them.

I don't know. My guess is that he's probably doing fine and could stand to hand it over to someone under him. He's gotten his slice of the pie.


I thinbk if you wanted to improve society via work and comapnies encourage risk takers, to start new ventures, and businesses.


I also believe that our educational/social system raises people to be stupid and dependent on people with power. No one actually "learns" anything but how to beg to the big ol' corporation how to make them rich. That isn't education, that's indoctrination. If people were REALLY taught math, science, social skills, fiscal economics, they'd go a lot further in life than what we have now.

I contend that the current system is just creating drones, it's been that way for 40-50 years at least.
 
  2008-06-21 10:05:29 PM
dottedmint: So one question that came to my mind was what would happen if the workers were not able to come up with as much as my company was worth. If my company was worth $5billion but the workers could only come up with $1billion would I be forced to sell my company for less than it was worth?

I don't see why you couldn't hammer that at the bargain table. If they can raise a billion, maybe they could get the funding they need from a loan or perhaps the new ownership could pay off the 4 billion in 5, 10, 20 years. Maybe you'd get a percentage of the profit.

But maybe you wouldn't get anything, and the community would determine what happens through mitigation or a citizen/workers lawsuit. Depends on the strength of the community.
 
  2008-06-21 10:44:04 PM
"At any rate, if you haven't got the gist of them down after WEEKS of back and forth debate, you never will."

How on Earth Whidbey would I get the gist of what you are talking about when you have NEVER explained what you mean.

This all started on 2008-06-08 12:42:19 AM when you said,

"There will never be a way to achieve any kind of true equality as long as there is such a discrepancy between rich and poor."

So I asked you (several times) what you meant by "true equality".

Eventually on 2008-06-11 10:11:03 PM you actually answered my question (sorta) and said,

""True equality" would mean we have no class society, and there would be no real "rich" or "poor.""

OK....so what does that mean???

So far you haven't actually explained those ideas.....

Then on 2008-06-12 12:11:53 AM you brought up some other ideas and said,

"such as the practice of turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit,"

and....

"I would eventually like to see our society change from a profit-driven one to a society where resources are better managed and are available first to the citizenry of this country instead of being "exported" out of this country where there's a demand or not instead of this "global economy" nonsense. "

And since then I have asked you several questions about those issues and you haven't actually explained how your ideas would work in the real world.

Would you force me to sell my widget company for less than it is worth?

What would happen if I sold my widget company to someone else before I reached you magical limit?

How would a society that is not profit driven work?

Where would a person who works 70 hrs a week and a person who works 20 hrs a week fit into your society?

What would a society look like with "true equality"?

How would a society operate in order to get no rich and no poor or no class structure?

I cannot simply google these issues or look them up in wiki because I am not interested in what someone else would say.

I want to know how YOU would answer these questions since you are the one that brought up these issues.

It would be nice if you would simply explain what you meant when you brought up these issues....

"true equality"...
"no rich and no poor"...
"no class structure"...
"turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit"...
"society change from a profit-driven one"...
 
  2008-06-21 11:06:10 PM
"But maybe you wouldn't get anything, and the community would determine what happens through mitigation or a citizen/workers lawsuit."

So maybe I wouldn't get anything????

So maybe you would steal my company from me and hand it over to the workers.....

Right???

After all.....

Doesn't taking something from an owner without concent and without compensation mean you are stealing it?

Oh and while I hate to bring up another issue that you will probably never explain I am curious about your idea of a "citizen/workers lawsuit".

So the citizens of the city that I am based in would sue me to get me to hand over my company to my workers????

Or is it that the workers would be the ones to sue me to get my company handed over to them????

And I just recalled another question that you never answered.....

After my widget company is handed over to the workers would there be some sort of "magical limit" of profit (like you set for me) where after that it is turned back over to me?

Or would there be no limit for the workers????
 
  2008-06-22 12:17:13 AM
dottedmint: So maybe you would steal my company from me and hand it over to the workers.....
Right???

Wrong.

After all.....

Doesn't taking something from an owner without concent and without compensation mean you are stealing it?

Or it means you willingly hand it over because the community makes a judgment in favor of the workers who want to control it. It can mean lots of things. Stating that they are "stealing" it is another targeted phrase you use in an attempt to deflate the argument. It's just so inconceivable to you that any other system of business or economics is possible. Depends on what kind of business owner you are. If you're a company that treats its workers like crap, maybe you deserve to have your company wrested away. If you're a benevolent owner who gives to the community and doesn't act too greedy, you might get a good deal on your return. But no, you might not be allowed to sell your business to some outfit in China just because you can. Maybe your decision to sell is what prompted the community takeover.
 
  2008-06-22 12:19:10 AM
dottedmint: So maybe you would steal my company from me and hand it over to the workers.....
Right???
.

Wrong.

After all.....

Doesn't taking something from an owner without concent and without compensation mean you are stealing it?


Or it means you willingly hand it over because the community makes a judgment in favor of the workers who want to control it.

It can mean lots of things. Stating that they are "stealing" it is another targeted phrase you use in an attempt to deflate the argument. It's just so inconceivable to you that any other system of business or economics is possible. Depends on what kind of business owner you are. If you're a company that treats its workers like crap, maybe you deserve to have your company wrested away. If you're a benevolent owner who gives to the community and doesn't act too greedy, you might get a good deal on your return. But no, you might not be allowed to sell your business to some outfit in China just because you can. Maybe your decision to sell is what prompted the community takeover.
 
  2008-06-22 01:07:17 AM
I'd like to return to this whidbey


how would said company be managed? not everyone would be qualified to guide the company, would a manager have to brought in? brought from the rank and file? or do you suggest it become employee owned, and yet retain the services of the founder?

I feel that mgmt or mismanagment is what makes or breaks a lot of companies
 
  2008-06-22 09:28:13 AM
"Or it means you willingly hand it over"

But that's just it Whidbey. I don't want to "willingly hand it over". I don't want my wiget company being given to the workers because it is my widget company.

So if you are going to take it away from me against my will and not even give me any sort of compensation that is stealing.

If I came to you and said that I was going to take your house away from you and I was going to give it to a bunch of homeless people without even paying you for your house that would be stealing.

You say that you would take my widget company from me, hand it over to the workers and I possibly " wouldn't get anything" for it and yet that somehow is not stealing????

If the workers can pay me the $5billion that my company is worth then no that is not stealing but if I "wouldn't get anything" for my widget company then yes that is stealing.

Also.....

I said before Whidbey that I would not sell my company off to someone overseas.

And so I asked what would happen if I sold my company off to someone in the US.

If at some point before I reached your magical limit Open_Mouth_Insert_Foot came to me and offered me the $5bill that my company was worth what would happen?

Could I sell my company off to Open_Mouth_Insert_Foot or is a business owner simply not allowed to ever sell off their business?

And again I'm still waiting......

"true equality"...
"no rich and no poor"...
"no class structure"...
"turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit"...
"society change from a profit-driven one"...

and....

If my widget company is handed over to the workers would they have the same "magical limit" for profit that I had?
 
  2008-06-22 01:42:15 PM
www.hawaii.edu
 
  2008-06-22 05:28:17 PM
dottedmint: And again I'm still waiting......

"true equality"...
"no rich and no poor"...
"no class structure"...
"turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit"...
"society change from a profit-driven one"...


Take a good guess. I'm not going to fall into another one of your traps. You clearly do not understand or appreciate a single one of those concepts. Discussing them with you is a waste of time.
 
  2008-06-22 06:04:35 PM
So I am trying to trap you by having you explain your own ideas????

WOW.....

And yes....

I admit that I do not understand how these concepts would work in the real world.

That's why I am trying to get you to explain them.

But you see that as me trying to trap you....

Interesting....



You explained "true equality" by saying that there would be "no class structure" and "no rich and no poor".

Yet you won't explain how that would work.

If I worked 70 hrs a week and you only worked 20 hrs a week (since you think working 40 hrs a week is slavery) how would we fall in the same "class structure"? How would we not have different levels of wealth? Would I be "rich" and you be "poor"?

You have explained the basic concept of your handing businesses over to workers idea but you can't seem to bring yourself to discuss the details.

What would happen if I sold my widget company to Open_Mouth_Insert_Foot before I even came close to your magical limit?

I also for the life of me can't figure out how taking my company against my will and not paying me anything for it is not stealing my company.

You also haven't explained if the workers would be faced with some magical limit of profit also. I can only make "X" before you take my company from me but the workers can make more than "X" and the company is never taken from them or what????

And finally I have no idea how a society that is not driven by profit would work.

Ya see Whidbey...

If you honestly support these concepts....

If you honestly think that these concepts would be good for this country....

If you honestly think that these concepts would help people....

you should be more than willing to explain / discuss / defend them.

And yet you (for some strange reason) feel that you might be trapped by explaining these concepts.

How the heck can you get trapped by explaining what you actually support???
 
  2008-06-22 06:18:49 PM
whidbey: Take a good guess. I'm not going to fall into another one of your traps. You clearly do not understand or appreciate a single one of those concepts. Discussing them with you is a waste of time.

In all fairness you have done nothing but counter his points by saying it is a "waste of time" or "I shouldn't have to explain it." You're like this in nearly every thread I see you post in, dismissing everyone as inferior. Are you the Prince of Wales or just a wanker?
 
  2008-06-22 09:34:28 PM
dottedmint: I admit that I do not understand how these concepts would work in the real world.

That's why I am trying to get you to explain them.


Like I said, if you're really that interested, you can Google them.

But you see that as me trying to trap you....

You are. You often take a small portion of a point I make, that has little or nothing to do with the discussion, and proceed to attack it until the entire conversation is worthless.

AR55:
In all fairness you have done nothing but counter his points by saying it is a "waste of time" or "I shouldn't have to explain it."


If you've been following this forum at all, you'd understand my frustration with dottedmint. I'm not the only one, either. We did have some pretty sensible posters in here for a while.

You're like this in nearly every thread I see you post in, dismissing everyone as inferior. Are you the Prince of Wales or just a wanker?

And this is just uncalled for and not worth a response. If you actually have something to add to this discussion, by all means, do so.

My basic points have been covered. I've made some good arguments up there ^^, and I don't care if this forum completely dies before we talk about something else, I'm not going to repeat myself again.
 
  2008-06-23 12:55:46 PM
real quick, whidbey, is this coming from a particular econimic/social philosophy, or is this something you're working on?

if you're working on it, you seem to have a big picture i dea, but you need to start laying down some of the skeletal framework to support what you're implementing

or i could be late to the whole thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 2657 comments

First | « | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report