Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   First they came for the wealthy, and I did not speak out because I was not wealthy...come to think of it, I actually lost the little bit of wealth I had to those rich guys. So they basically saved me. Thank you, oppressed billionaires   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 209
    More: Interesting, First they came..., President Obama, Sam Zell, wealths, Tom Perkins  
•       •       •

3852 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2014 at 6:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-07 10:47:08 PM  

DamnYankees: DirkValentine: Lawyers typically work long hours, climb obstacles that they wouldn't be able to without school, and - In my opinion - are generally worth the money they get paid.

THese guys that have so much don't deserve it.  Period.  They have gamed the system .   They are not like you and I.  They are pure farking evil.

I'm not sure I buy that. They aren't evil so much as deluded. For example, most of my work has been done for Private Equity - these are the people who make 8 figures a year. The real 0.01%. And most of them honestly work insanely hard. They do - they probably work harder than us lawyers. Not a LOT harder, but harder. Maybe 10% harder. But of course they don't make 10% more, they make 1000% more.

The question is how you justify that (or if you justify that). And anyone who tries to justify this based on the marginally extra amount of work they do is deluded. On that you and I would probably agree.


I think there should be more discussion about "hard work" and "stressful work"

There are people who work hard  - long physical hours - and to say they aren't working hard and thus deserve a life of bare minimal pay is an insult
There are people who have stressful hours requiring executive skills- and to say they don't earn higher pay is incorrect

Then there are people who, as the farkism goes, move from 3rd to home plate and insist they are worth a king's ransom because they deserve it - this is a falsehood and has nothing to do with work - it is egoism

In the debate over jobs/pay/worth it would be helpful to recognize the 99% can't reconcile "wall street" type pay with what that hard work produces any more than the 1% seem to understand what a "living wage" for long physical labor really means per hour

One outcome of the shrinking of the middle class - the divide between the top and bottom wage earners - is a twisting of the meaning of "hard work", "skills" and a lack of respect for both.,
 
2014-02-07 10:49:10 PM  

jst3p: LectertheChef: Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.

Aside from doctors, many of whom work their asses off, rich people generally don't work any harder than anybody else.

I am not anywhere near rich, but I worked a lot harder when I made 20k a year than I do now at six figures.


Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.
 
2014-02-07 10:53:14 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: jst3p: LectertheChef: Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.

Aside from doctors, many of whom work their asses off, rich people generally don't work any harder than anybody else.

I am not anywhere near rich, but I worked a lot harder when I made 20k a year than I do now at six figures.

Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.


That's kind of the point. The wealthy telling us how hard they work is falling on deaf ears, they should try a new tune. Or just shut up and let those in congress on both sides of the aisle continue to carry their water.

"The one percent are getting pummeled because it's politically convenient to do so," Zell said, adding that the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

EABOD (Zell, not you)
 
2014-02-07 10:54:14 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: coyo: bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

Ford was a bastard you cannot even imagine in today's world.  He never paid his workers so they could buy his car.  He paid them so they would not go elsewhere.  There was an extreme labor shortage then.  He did what he needed to NOT because he was a man of the people.  He killed lots of his workers while they tried to unionize.  I am not sure why Ford is spoken of so fondly by socialists as he was the polar opposite.  Other than than you are right.


Well, I stand corrected. I knew he was an asshole with some sort of dealings with the Nazi regime. Now you are making me wonder if the upper crust has a conscience among them.
 
2014-02-07 10:56:17 PM  
These people are just trying to talk themselves into a bullet. I understand that life gets boring when you're so rich but inviting your own murder isn't that bright.
 
2014-02-07 10:56:38 PM  

DamnYankees: Heads will roll.


You know what? The guillotine is a bit too old-fashioned and inefficient to deal with today's type of plutocrats.

Time for us to bring out the wood-chippers!!!

Charles Koch. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!

David Koch. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!

Tom Perkins. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!
 
2014-02-07 10:58:13 PM  

parasol: DamnYankees: DirkValentine: Lawyers typically work long hours, climb obstacles that they wouldn't be able to without school, and - In my opinion - are generally worth the money they get paid.

THese guys that have so much don't deserve it.  Period.  They have gamed the system .   They are not like you and I.  They are pure farking evil.

I'm not sure I buy that. They aren't evil so much as deluded. For example, most of my work has been done for Private Equity - these are the people who make 8 figures a year. The real 0.01%. And most of them honestly work insanely hard. They do - they probably work harder than us lawyers. Not a LOT harder, but harder. Maybe 10% harder. But of course they don't make 10% more, they make 1000% more.

The question is how you justify that (or if you justify that). And anyone who tries to justify this based on the marginally extra amount of work they do is deluded. On that you and I would probably agree.

I think there should be more discussion about "hard work" and "stressful work"

There are people who work hard  - long physical hours - and to say they aren't working hard and thus deserve a life of bare minimal pay is an insult
There are people who have stressful hours requiring executive skills- and to say they don't earn higher pay is incorrect

Then there are people who, as the farkism goes, move from 3rd to home plate and insist they are worth a king's ransom because they deserve it - this is a falsehood and has nothing to do with work - it is egoism

In the debate over jobs/pay/worth it would be helpful to recognize the 99% can't reconcile "wall street" type pay with what that hard work produces any more than the 1% seem to understand what a "living wage" for long physical labor really means per hour

One outcome of the shrinking of the middle class - the divide between the top and bottom wage earners - is a twisting of the meaning of "hard work", "skills" and a lack of respect for both.,


You have to move through third to get to home, so I believe the expression you're looking for is 'born on third base and thinks he hit a triple'.

How much stress is there at the top executive positions?  There may be some, but it isn't the same type of stress that someone working at barely above (or below) the subsistence level faces.  Unless they're completely irresponsible with their money no CEO has to worry about making their next mortgage payment, whether or not they can put off replacing their bald tires for another month until money frees up, or being able to put food on the table for their kids every night.

They also don't have to worry about becoming homeless should they lose their job - if they fark up they'll get a golden parachute and move onto the next highly paid executive position before the money ever gets tight.

As far as workplace stress goes, there are plenty of jobs that pay far less that come with much more stress, like teaching, nursing, or even commissioned sales.
 
2014-02-07 11:02:12 PM  
We're here to make life easier on ourselves and each other, because we're smart enough to.  We are not, according to history, honest enough to.  Because every time we come up with something that could make life easier, longer and better for everybody, we put up and admission turnstile and take the one thing we demand of each other, our little dime store god, money, home in droves for whatever it is we make better.  And your marvelous new idea sits on a high shelf and does nothing.  And that's the lie of corporate capitalism.

Money works two ways and two ways only.


It either flows freely where value and remuneration reflect skill and effort and it goes to where it's needed most, because that's what its for, or, It doesn't work at all.


Skill and effort, by the way, aren't measured in conniving chops or getting your ass out of bed at 10:00 to have your broker move another 20 bn to Upmyassistan.  It's measured in how much better the world is when you hang up the phone.  Stop pretending that the dump gutted, gold  festooned, drawn butter dribbling fat ass you see in the mirror is immortal and maybe they wont install a urinal and a dance floor on your three acre marble tomb.  Cause you're the problem, thief man.  And you are, at the end of the day, by any worthwhile metric, useless to the world.
 
2014-02-07 11:06:46 PM  
Given how many very rich people spends months of the year on their yachts, on holiday skiing, involved in expensive sports, doing all kinds of things that are time consuming as well as expensive.. Im going to go ahead and say they dont work harder than everyone else at all.
 
2014-02-07 11:10:47 PM  

gaspode: Given how many very rich people spends months of the year on their yachts, on holiday skiing, involved in expensive sports, doing all kinds of things that are time consuming as well as expensive.. Im going to go ahead and say they dont work harder than everyone else at all.


Apparently occasionally having to take a phone call on the golf course or change your plans to have a Town Car or private jet pick you up and take you to a well-catered board meeting is now considered working hard.
 
2014-02-07 11:19:49 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: parasol: DamnYankees: DirkValentine: Lawyers typically work long hours, climb obstacles that they wouldn't be able to without school, and - In my opinion - are generally worth the money they get paid.

THese guys that have so much don't deserve it.  Period.  They have gamed the system .   They are not like you and I.  They are pure farking evil.

I'm not sure I buy that. They aren't evil so much as deluded. For example, most of my work has been done for Private Equity - these are the people who make 8 figures a year. The real 0.01%. And most of them honestly work insanely hard. They do - they probably work harder than us lawyers. Not a LOT harder, but harder. Maybe 10% harder. But of course they don't make 10% more, they make 1000% more.

The question is how you justify that (or if you justify that). And anyone who tries to justify this based on the marginally extra amount of work they do is deluded. On that you and I would probably agree.

I think there should be more discussion about "hard work" and "stressful work"

There are people who work hard  - long physical hours - and to say they aren't working hard and thus deserve a life of bare minimal pay is an insult
There are people who have stressful hours requiring executive skills- and to say they don't earn higher pay is incorrect

Then there are people who, as the farkism goes, move from 3rd to home plate and insist they are worth a king's ransom because they deserve it - this is a falsehood and has nothing to do with work - it is egoism

In the debate over jobs/pay/worth it would be helpful to recognize the 99% can't reconcile "wall street" type pay with what that hard work produces any more than the 1% seem to understand what a "living wage" for long physical labor really means per hour

One outcome of the shrinking of the middle class - the divide between the top and bottom wage earners - is a twisting of the meaning of "hard work", "skills" and a lack of respect for both.,

You have to move through third to ...


Yes, t/y "born on third" (sorry, I'm 4 days into a broken wrist and on exciting new meds)

The 1% just no longer understand the current economic division - and that is dangerous

A loss on the market, for example, isn't the same as losing your housing - and insisting it is because you just "work harder" is an exquisitely tone-deaf justification.
 
2014-02-07 11:21:27 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.


This is the most absurd post I've read on Fark all day.  It's pretentious, makes assumptions about the value of other people they don't know based on absolutely nothing (people not being remunerated their worth, either too high or too low, is the point of this entire thread), and claims that Britney Spears adds value to anything.
 
2014-02-07 11:25:04 PM  

meyerkev: b) That increasingly cheap tech is killing entire industries and replacing them with entire new industries that by and large depend on employees being WAY smarter than the old industries (but pay accordingly), marginalizing an increasingly large subset of the population that either is unable to acquire or culturally prevented from acquiring a decent education.


At some point, one of three things WILL happen: (1) We concede our position as the dominant species and accept being our machines' (very, very well looked after) pets. (2) We attempt to secure existing society by limiting machine intelligence by legislative fiat. (3) We merge with the machines.

Tip before placing a bet: mind-machine interface is already a very active field of research...
 
2014-02-07 11:25:33 PM  

WraithSama: bigsteve3OOO: Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.

This is the most absurd post I've read on Fark all day.  It's pretentious, makes assumptions about the value of other people they don't know based on absolutely nothing (people not being remunerated their worth, either too high or too low, is the point of this entire thread), and claims that Britney Spears adds value to anything.


Truly, the reason britney spears is anything to think about is because of centralized control of media distribution, and we've all seen the lengths the media cartels go to to snuff out competition, distort the market, and use ultra fine print legal agreements to swindle 99.9% of the talent they touch.

not a good example of hard work.
 
2014-02-07 11:26:11 PM  
(pardon me, i meant, honest work. I don't really care how hard someone works at a dishonest outcome)
 
2014-02-07 11:31:48 PM  

WraithSama: bigsteve3OOO: Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.

This is the most absurd post I've read on Fark all day.  It's pretentious, makes assumptions about the value of other people they don't know based on absolutely nothing (people not being remunerated their worth, either too high or too low, is the point of this entire thread), and claims that Britney Spears adds value to anything.


Britney Spears? really?

I've added to the bank accounts of quite a few entertainers and sports figures via ticket purchases - but, much like corporate CEO's their compensation-to-value or, better, indispensable-to-replacement value is as skewed as an empty teeter-totter.

The public can chose what performers are worthwhile - I don't recall having a vote on who runs the incestuous corporate industry (even via stock holdings)
 
2014-02-07 11:51:02 PM  

parasol: WraithSama: bigsteve3OOO: Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.

This is the most absurd post I've read on Fark all day.  It's pretentious, makes assumptions about the value of other people they don't know based on absolutely nothing (people not being remunerated their worth, either too high or too low, is the point of this entire thread), and claims that Britney Spears adds value to anything.

Britney Spears? really?

I've added to the bank accounts of quite a few entertainers and sports figures via ticket purchases - but, much like corporate CEO's their compensation-to-value or, better, indispensable-to-replacement value is as skewed as an empty teeter-totter.

The public can chose what performers are worthwhile - I don't recall having a vote on who runs the incestuous corporate industry (even via stock holdings)


You vote with your dollars, just like with entertainers.
 
2014-02-08 12:01:43 AM  

DamnYankees: Weatherkiss: You could see it that way. I know I certainly do. It just gets muddled in American schools where we're led to believe that the colonies were some kind of unique situation while the rest of Britain was fairly represented and saw the colonies as their lapdog. The truth was quite the opposite, where the entirely of Britain was faced with government corruption from the top down and people in general were not fairly represented no matter what part of the Empire they were in (except for the nobility).

Fair enough.

It's also worth pointing out that the Stamp Act and the other taxes that the British imposed on the US (which ignited the revolution) do seem to be incredibly reasonable. It's very hard to understand in retrospect how they made people so upset.


Probably a boiling frog.
 
2014-02-08 12:08:35 AM  

jst3p: parasol: WraithSama: bigsteve3OOO: Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.   Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.

This is the most absurd post I've read on Fark all day.  It's pretentious, makes assumptions about the value of other people they don't know based on absolutely nothing (people not being remunerated their worth, either too high or too low, is the point of this entire thread), and claims that Britney Spears adds value to anything.

Britney Spears? really?

I've added to the bank accounts of quite a few entertainers and sports figures via ticket purchases - but, much like corporate CEO's their compensation-to-value or, better, indispensable-to-replacement value is as skewed as an empty teeter-totter.

The public can chose what performers are worthwhile - I don't recall having a vote on who runs the incestuous corporate industry (even via stock holdings)

You vote with your dollars, just like with entertainers.


Yes
So do others (see bolded, above)
 
2014-02-08 12:40:00 AM  
Poor Steve Wynn.  He should spend more time at his casinos in Macau.  He'll be safe there.
 
2014-02-08 12:59:50 AM  

WraithSama: Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.

That is the single argument of the rich that pisses me off the most.  If some rich asshole tells me he's rich simply because he "works harder" than the poor, it would take a not-insignificant amount of effort to not throat punch him on the spot.  It does (usually) take hard work to become rich, but it takes an equal measure of opportunity (plus the random factor of luck), and opportunity is not something everyone has.  That's kind of the point.

Besides, I've heard it said before that if all it took to be wealthy was hard work, then unwed single mothers would among the world's richest.  I don't doubt it.


This! I admonish those among us, those who truly admit to the justness of sui generis, to overthrow the shackles oif Saint 666, and to TAX THE RICH FECKS (corporations particularly)!!!
 
2014-02-08 01:35:25 AM  
not going to be fixed
as long as there is a public tendancy to worship the powerful
 
2014-02-08 01:45:35 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.


They work more, not harder. Their cubicle drones only work 40 hours a week because they work hard.
 
2014-02-08 01:54:10 AM  

DamnYankees: Weatherkiss: You could see it that way. I know I certainly do. It just gets muddled in American schools where we're led to believe that the colonies were some kind of unique situation while the rest of Britain was fairly represented and saw the colonies as their lapdog. The truth was quite the opposite, where the entirely of Britain was faced with government corruption from the top down and people in general were not fairly represented no matter what part of the Empire they were in (except for the nobility).

Fair enough.

It's also worth pointing out that the Stamp Act and the other taxes that the British imposed on the US (which ignited the revolution) do seem to be incredibly reasonable. It's very hard to understand in retrospect how they made people so upset.


You would do well to read the pamphlets of Edmund Burke. I'm a GA for a professor whose current interest/research is on 3 of Burke's pamphlets (Speech on American Taxation, Speech on Conciliation with America, and  Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol) and the contemporary responses, so obviously I'm getting a kick out of your back and forth with Weatherkiss. The explanation that Burke put forward is that while the British Crown/Parliament had always had and exercised the right to control and tax the colonies, they had always done so in an unobtrusive manner. That is, the taxes had been collected in England rather than in the colonies, whereas the Stamp Act etc changed the point of collection to the colonies. While Parliament was not actually exercising a new right, they were exercising an old right in a new manner. He urged Parliament to stop this new and alarming (for the colonists) method of taxation in favor of the old system (Burke is sometimes called the father of conservatism as his political philosophy was to carefully try new things and conserve what worked best by test).

As to the actual burden of the various tax acts, Burke makes a fairly sophisticated and surprisingly economically sound argument. He says that the tax was laid on a few items such as printers colors and the like which were good (low elasticity of demand coupled with reasonable level of consumption or British monopolies) and some items such as tea which were bad (non-necessity therefore higher elasticity). These various taxes were repealed piecemeal (Burke didn't approve), but they left the tea tax rather than one of the "good" taxes. They left the tea tax as something of a proof of concept that they could tax the colonists directly (there was a preamble to the act which stated the right of Parliament to tax the colonies). The actual amount of the tax was 25% of the original (1s/lb reduced to 3p/lb). Moreover, part of the act allowed the East India Trading Company to sell directly to the colonists (originally EITC ships had to go to England first to pay the tariff) which further lowered the price. Unfortunately for the Empire, by collecting it in the colonies it made it more visible and, therefore, more odious.

/Side note to Weatherkiss' point:  Burke represented two different rotten/pocket seats in Parliament where a wealthy patron controlled the electors
 
2014-02-08 02:06:00 AM  

bertor_vidas: The actual amount of the tax was 25% of the original (1s/lb reduced to 3p/lb).


To clarify, the tea tax existed before the various and sundry tax acts we learn about in American grade school. It was simply collected in England. When tea was added as one of the items in the Townshend Acts, they removed the tax on tea entering/leaving Britain (1 shilling per pound at the time) and instead levied a tax on tea entering American ports (3 pence per pound, or 1/4 the original amount).
 
2014-02-08 02:13:49 AM  

Old enough to know better: [www.dimensionsinfo.com image 391x512]

Here, let me play a song to ease their suffering.


Something from the first Metallica album?
 
2014-02-08 02:34:28 AM  

meyerkev: Obama just raised the capital gains rate from 15% to ~23.8% (You need to include the extra taxes from Obamacare) which then combines with CA's extra stuff to get you to ~37%.


There's some serious omissions in your statement. The capital gains rate did not go from 15% to 24.8%.

Capital gains taxes are progressive like income tax brackets.

0% if taxable income falls in the 10% or 15% marginal tax brackets
15% if taxable income falls in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% marginal tax brackets
20% if taxable income falls in the 39.6% marginal tax bracket (which starts at $432,201 of adjusted income, i.e. after deductions)

There's an additional 3.8% tax from the ACA on income over 200k (250k for families, adjusted income).

CA's new tax brackets higher are also for people making large incomes, starting at a quarter million dollars.

The ~37% number you mention is for capital gains for individual making making more than half a million dollars a year or for families making more than a million dollars (again, adjusted income).
 
2014-02-08 02:35:17 AM  

bertor_vidas: DamnYankees: Weatherkiss: You could see it that way. I know I certainly do. It just gets muddled in American schools where we're led to believe that the colonies were some kind of unique situation while the rest of Britain was fairly represented and saw the colonies as their lapdog. The truth was quite the opposite, where the entirely of Britain was faced with government corruption from the top down and people in general were not fairly represented no matter what part of the Empire they were in (except for the nobility).

Fair enough.

It's also worth pointing out that the Stamp Act and the other taxes that the British imposed on the US (which ignited the revolution) do seem to be incredibly reasonable. It's very hard to understand in retrospect how they made people so upset.

You would do well to read the pamphlets of Edmund Burke. I'm a GA for a professor whose current interest/research is on 3 of Burke's pamphlets (Speech on American Taxation, Speech on Conciliation with America, and  Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol) and the contemporary responses, so obviously I'm getting a kick out of your back and forth with Weatherkiss. The explanation that Burke put forward is that while the British Crown/Parliament had always had and exercised the right to control and tax the colonies, they had always done so in an unobtrusive manner. That is, the taxes had been collected in England rather than in the colonies, whereas the Stamp Act etc changed the point of collection to the colonies. While Parliament was not actually exercising a new right, they were exercising an old right in a new manner. He urged Parliament to stop this new and alarming (for the colonists) method of taxation in favor of the old system (Burke is sometimes called the father of conservatism as his political philosophy was to carefully try new things and conserve what worked best by test).

As to the actual burden of the various tax acts, Burke makes a fairly sophisticated and surprisingly economically so ...


Well you know more about the topic than me. I just understood a few basic points that differed greatly from public school history.

Namely that the thing with the colonies was not unique, that the entire parliamentary system was corrupt in Britain. So at the time the 'general public' of Britain didn't know what was up the Americans' ass because they were being treated the same way everyone else was (who wasn't nobility).

The particulars of the Stamp Act I'm not familiar with, but I understood that the taxes in America were actually fairly reasonable (and even lower than elsewhere in the British Empire), but that it was used as a rally cry and a propaganda tool for the Patriots to dissent from the rest of the Empire because of the 'alarming' way the taxes were being handled. What you said seems to mesh with what I've learned. I'm guessing the normal working Joe in New England isn't going to be familiar with the rights that Parliament had at the time, so he wouldn't know the difference between a "new" tax (or way of collecting taxes) and an "old" way of collecting taxes that was being used again.

And I'm also going to guess that Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, etc., used that to their advantage to stir up the revolution.

It was my understanding that the Boston Massacre, the corrupt government, and in particular the Townshend Acts (like the Quartering Act) that generated the friction needed to set the tone for the revolution.

The Stamp Act was a visible sign of British rule that needed to be abolished, but as a reason alone it didn't have much merit, because the taxes were actually fairly reasonable (they were used to pay the salaries of the government officials in the colonies themselves, etc.), but was one of the convenient scapegoats to paint a more hostile picture of the crown. As a 'visible' sign of the crown's power it was too tempting of a target for the Patriots to ignore, but as far as slights against the colonies go, from what I read it was very very minor once you get past the jingoistic bluster.
 
2014-02-08 02:36:43 AM  
Wow. Just wow.

The article, the apologists... I just can't process it.

The pathological obsession with exponential wealth is a horrifying enough prospect to deal with without the 'woe-is-us' bullshiat.

Jump, you farkers.
 
2014-02-08 03:03:27 AM  
I used to own a business - a motorcycle dealership.  Okay it was a fun industry, but the hours were insane - 6-7 days a week, 8-10 hour days, and I didn't get paid until everyone else got paid, so I made about $50k a year (plus the business paid nearly all my travel and lifestyle bills).  I shut that down in 2009 when it was clear this wasn't a normal recession.  The stress before that was pretty awful, keeping it running and then shutting it down.

Now I work in real estate, and made $241k in 2013, it says here, and will fairly easily continue to do so.  I work from home, have maybe 1 site visit or meeting a week at best, and put in maybe 15 hours a week total.  I sleep late, get lots of down time, and get to set my own schedules.

I worked exceptionally hard at the dealership and it paid squat.  Granted, I did work exceptionally hard getting the real estate thing going, but now it's on cruise control.  Point is, there is zero connection between work performed and wages earned.  It's all what you do, where and when.  Not how hard you work.

The extra fun part is, due to legit tax rules (the ones these aristocrats are complaining about) I don't have to pay anything but modest payroll taxes (on a stated personal income of $35k), because I'm carrying a large tax loss from the last few years of the dealership.  Ooh, I hate tax laws to pieces!
 
2014-02-08 03:05:26 AM  

DamnYankees: In all seriousness, I highly recommend reading Twilight of the Elites, a great book by Chris Hayes (which I read before I'd ever heard of him or seen him on TV). It's all about how our elite structures have convinced themselves of their own worthiness, and have (for now) gotten people to buy in, but why that's now starting to break down.


I'll second this. It's a good read that offers fair criticticisms of the status quo.
 
2014-02-08 03:09:43 AM  

kidgenius: DamnYankees: TopoGigo: Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.

It depends where you live. The math is pretty simple to do. I make 210K, and 50% of that goes to taxes, so that gets me $8,750 per month for spending. I've lived in NY and SF, so a big chunk of it goes to rent (about 3K per month). Then there's student loans, which take another 1K. That leaves me with $4,750 per month for food, clothing, toys and charity, basically.

I'm extremely lucky - I've chosen to live in big cities where its expensive but I enjoy it, my wife and I can pretty much buy whatever we want on a micro-scale (iPads, a new computer every 18 months or so), and I can build up some savings.

I think anyone who complains about making even a decent amount of money is out of their farking minds. And I work with a lot of them - people who think we are farked by the government, that we don't make enough money. I have colleagues who are pissed as hell that they *only* have 5K of spending money every month. Why? They compare themselves to their clients, who make more. They don't think about people like you. It honestly makes me a little sick when I hear them talk like that. People who make even a decent living in this country have no farking idea how good they have it.

I clock in at 60/hr for my job. I get paid really well for the ...


::waves:: 

 Hi! That's us over here. And a few of our friends. I've picked up some tips over the years and thought I'd jot a few down to give you an idea of it all. 

 You're right. Keeping food on the table is a challenge, especially even sort of healthy food. Don't be shy about food stamps (or free school meals) if you can get them, and if you can't, Costco is your friend. Plan meals like crazy, hit manager/sale items always. If you live in an area where hunting is an option, don't be shy about exercising your predator rights. A couple of bucks for a tag can get a lot of quality organic meat. Butcher it yourself. 

 If you have the option, have chickens and let them roam your garden. Their poop is good fertilizer and they eat the bugs off your plants. (Make sure they don't eat your plants though.) Eggs are tasty and can be sold too. Fruit trees are also good, if you have neighbors who don't pick theirs, ask to pick it in exchange for cleaning up the rotting fruit on the ground. Pick berries on public land and freeze them.

 As far as kids go, that I did figure out. There's a couple ways to do it for the secondary income earner (usually mom). First, you can work for your school district. This ensures you're off when the kids are and you don't really need to pay for daycare. Saves you snow day panic as well. Bus driving lines up pretty well with the hours and even gives you time in the middle of the day to catch up on house work. Second, work online. Lot's more places outsourcing IT, transcription, Customer service these days and you can actually find legit work. Whatever you do, start up a secondary source of income as soon as possible. Whether it's making crafts/jewelry to sell online, or running a blog with ads. Do *something* to get some residual income coming in. Ideally, an online business of sorts that you can eventually automate to generate income. (There's lots of options there, it depends on your passion/patience.). You'll keep your head above water with job 1, but you're chance to actually move ahead is with job 2. Plan accordingly. 

 Also, get a jeep with a 4.0 inline 6. Yes, like any car they eventually break down, but it is one of the easiest cars for a newbie to fix and those engines can take a helluva lot of abuse before they quit. Hit up forums if you need help, lots of folks willing to help you troubleshoot. Remember a  mechanic is $100/hr. That's generally worth taking a Saturday or even a weekend to fix something yourself. Gas mileage can be rough, so if you have a long way to travel consider getting a smaller car, just make sure the engine bay is nice and roomy for working in. (If you're traveling 40 minutes for a min/low wage part time job, you're either doing this wrong, or you have one rough local economy). But if you need four wheel drive where you live, jeeps are pretty handy. 

 Buy vitamins, protein powder, and meal replacement bars in bulk/Costco. Balance "feeling full" with crappy food (like ramen with egg) to "feeling hungry with healthier food" using vitamins and these. Put protein powder in smoothies to help make you feel full for a while. This will slow your rate of decline with your health. And since losing your health means losing energy to do the 5 million things that need to get done in a day, you minimize this as much as possible.

 And the last one...don't pinch pennies to the point where it makes it more expensive. Case in point, don't buy a cheap product that you'll need to replace soon because it's a piece of crap. Save up for something that will last a bit. You'll save money in the long run.

/good luck everyone!
 
2014-02-08 03:33:00 AM  

BMulligan: ongbok: Time to sharpen up the gold pitchfork

Please, let's show a little respect for our betters.


Actually, I think it's high time my "betters" learned a little respect for regular people like me - one way, or another.
Being a gentle, and reasonable man, who harbors no ill will towards anyone, I would much prefer to do it the easy way - but it's not my choice.
I believe that we Americans are better - I do believe that, as a people, we still embrace democracy, even though some interests don't.
I don't think we will resort to the pitchforks and guillotines, and I am proud of that. Bloody revolutions are for stupid peasants ruled by invulnerable tyrants - and we are not that.We can fix America without blood and fire, I do believe.

But I could be wrong.
 
2014-02-08 03:42:08 AM  

jso2897: BMulligan: ongbok: Time to sharpen up the gold pitchfork

Please, let's show a little respect for our betters.

Actually, I think it's high time my "betters" learned a little respect for regular people like me - one way, or another.
Being a gentle, and reasonable man, who harbors no ill will towards anyone, I would much prefer to do it the easy way - but it's not my choice.
I believe that we Americans are better - I do believe that, as a people, we still embrace democracy, even though some interests don't.
I don't think we will resort to the pitchforks and guillotines, and I am proud of that. Bloody revolutions are for stupid peasants ruled by invulnerable tyrants - and we are not that.We can fix America without blood and fire, I do believe.

But I could be wrong.


We don't have to go it alone as Americans. People are pissed off about wealth inequality around the world. This is a globally corrupt system of capitalism that's only working for a few people on the planet.
 
2014-02-08 04:15:05 AM  

jso2897: I believe that we Americans are better - I do believe that, as a people, we still embrace democracy, even though some interests don't.
I don't think we will resort to the pitchforks and guillotines, and I am proud of that. Bloody revolutions are for stupid peasants ruled by invulnerable tyrants - and we are not that.We can fix America without blood and fire, I do believe.

But I could be wrong.


We don't have the resources to fix it. It would take massive amounts of re-education and anti-propaganda. We simply can't compete against a media empire that keeps us divided and stupid.
 
2014-02-08 04:41:38 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: jso2897: I believe that we Americans are better - I do believe that, as a people, we still embrace democracy, even though some interests don't.
I don't think we will resort to the pitchforks and guillotines, and I am proud of that. Bloody revolutions are for stupid peasants ruled by invulnerable tyrants - and we are not that.We can fix America without blood and fire, I do believe.

But I could be wrong.

We don't have the resources to fix it. It would take massive amounts of re-education and anti-propaganda. We simply can't compete against a media empire that keeps us divided and stupid.


I hope you are wrong, but I can only make one prediction I am sure of - this cannot be sustained, and will not be for much longer. It's going to end - what remains to be seen is whether it ends well, badly - or very, very, very badly.
 
2014-02-08 04:45:32 AM  

MayoSlather: jso2897: BMulligan: ongbok: Time to sharpen up the gold pitchfork

Please, let's show a little respect for our betters.

Actually, I think it's high time my "betters" learned a little respect for regular people like me - one way, or another.
Being a gentle, and reasonable man, who harbors no ill will towards anyone, I would much prefer to do it the easy way - but it's not my choice.
I believe that we Americans are better - I do believe that, as a people, we still embrace democracy, even though some interests don't.
I don't think we will resort to the pitchforks and guillotines, and I am proud of that. Bloody revolutions are for stupid peasants ruled by invulnerable tyrants - and we are not that.We can fix America without blood and fire, I do believe.

But I could be wrong.

We don't have to go it alone as Americans. People are pissed off about wealth inequality around the world. This is a globally corrupt system of capitalism that's only working for a few people on the planet.


I hope you are right - the thing about capitalism - it never should have become a "system" - it's a great way to make money, and obtain material progress, and God bless it - but it's not a social system you can run a civilized society by. Laissez Faire Capitalism is simply the law of the jungle with cops and jails to protect to apex predators.
 
2014-02-08 04:55:53 AM  

Mike_LowELL: DamnYankees: Heads will roll.

And how do you expect this to happen without the factories to make the guillotines?  The workers to sharpen the blades?  The children to take the heads away?  EVEN WHEN YOU WANT TO KILL ME, YOU NEED ME.  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.


"We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sold us." -- Lenin, allegedly
 
2014-02-08 07:25:54 AM  

LectertheChef: Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.

Aside from doctors, many of whom work their asses off, rich people generally don't work any harder than anybody else.


The super rich aren't doctors, or lawyers, or anything else that is productive to society. The super-rich are mostly bankers.
 
2014-02-08 07:30:46 AM  
"The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they are holding too much money," he added. "You know, we haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody is afraid of the government and there is no need soft-pedaling it. It is the truth. It is the truth."

They are scoffing it and calling it "socialism", but that doesn't obfuscate the fact that it is true. The whole purpose of the "supply side economic theory" was rather than the government to redistribute the wealth, that taxes would be cut and private industry would redistribute it. Theory being they knew better how to do it and the lower taxes would lead to massive hiring an economic growth.

Well none of that happened. The buck stopped at their bank accounts. While their income rose exponentially, the pay to the masses has remained stagnant. Supply side economics basically sucks all the money out of the economy and sticks it in the hands of a few who hoard it while playing a millionaire pissing contest over who hoards the most. The end effect is a crippled economy that cannot grow or create "wealth" through production because the lack of consumer demand.

Heck it's happening right now. Look at how Christmas profits have been going down year after year. It's because each year the working class can afford less and less. It's not just the "poor" families. Now it is families who are thought of as middle class and fueled the Christmas buying of the past. Now Christmas celebration is being able to afford to buy the food for Christmas dinner and still pay the regular bills like utilities and rent/mortgages.
 
2014-02-08 07:31:00 AM  

Jackson Herring: wow, i've never before encountered a group of people who so desperately need to kill themselves


And then....

If you think that anybody would be better off, other than those who take over after "the evil rich" are dead (and you won't be one of them), you're kidding yourself.
 
2014-02-08 07:41:59 AM  

DrPainMD: Jackson Herring: wow, i've never before encountered a group of people who so desperately need to kill themselves

And then....

If you think that anybody would be better off, other than those who take over after "the evil rich" are dead (and you won't be one of them), you're kidding yourself.


That's the fundamental problem with humanity: the sociopaths always wind up in charge.
 
2014-02-08 07:51:02 AM  

heavymetal: Well none of that happened. The buck stopped at their bank accounts. While their income rose exponentially, the pay to the masses has remained stagnant. Supply side economics basically sucks all the money out of the economy and sticks it in the hands of a few who hoard it while playing a millionaire pissing contest over who hoards the most. The end effect is a crippled economy that cannot grow or create "wealth" through production because the lack of consumer demand.


The scary thing is, what exactly are they going to do with it? About the only thing they don't own is complete armies.
 
2014-02-08 08:00:52 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: heavymetal: Well none of that happened. The buck stopped at their bank accounts. While their income rose exponentially, the pay to the masses has remained stagnant. Supply side economics basically sucks all the money out of the economy and sticks it in the hands of a few who hoard it while playing a millionaire pissing contest over who hoards the most. The end effect is a crippled economy that cannot grow or create "wealth" through production because the lack of consumer demand.

The scary thing is, what exactly are they going to do with it? About the only thing they don't own is complete armies.


I really think they are caught up in the "whoever dies with the most toys win" mentality.  The irony is the more money they hoard, the less it will be worth as the economy shrinks.
 
2014-02-08 08:28:13 AM  

heavymetal: Well none of that happened. The buck stopped at their bank accounts. While their income rose exponentially, the pay to the masses has remained stagnant. Supply side economics basically sucks all the money out of the economy and sticks it in the hands of a few who hoard it while playing a millionaire pissing contest over who hoards the most. The end effect is a crippled economy that cannot grow or create "wealth" through production because the lack of consumer demand.


Yeah well, a lot of those people are jewish, so you're a nazi for pointing this out.
 
2014-02-08 09:12:41 AM  

Weatherkiss: Noone in England were represented fairly either, but they didn't revolt over it.


Apparently not including English subjects circa 1688 or 1642 or 1381.

/not sure if 1215 was technically a revolt
 
2014-02-08 10:59:19 AM  
Weatherkiss: tl;dr.

To be fair, I probably wrote way more than you needed or wanted, and that isn't even all I could write on the subject. I could also write similarly lengthy pieces explaining why the British political system was and is, as you put it, "corrupt" (short answer: the Magna Carta and electoral system were designed to increase and insure the power of the nobility). The rottenness of the British electoral system, of course, explains the issues in our own as we inherited it from them (short version: waiving land requirements did not improve the system, only shifted the balance of power from the landed to the wealthy). The obvious response to this is calls for electoral reform which fails to explain why the Lib-Dems asked the Tories for an Alternative Vote referendum rather than for some form of Proportional Representation (short version: AV is not much more PR than Weeners the Post but would create a permanent hung government, requiring a permanent L-D/C or L-D/L coalition to create a governing majority). While I would rather enjoy discussing all of these topics, they are only tangentially related to the article. I should probably mention that I am not an English-, Scots-, Welsh-, or Irishman; someone from the UK might likely have a different opinion and interpretation.
 
2014-02-08 07:07:48 PM  
We are witnessing the fall of Capitalism.

Supply and demand is what sets workers wages, and we have innovated so much, and made worker productivity so high, that workers are no longer worth hardly anything. With our technology, one worker can produce far more than they were able to years ago. We have way more workers than we need, and hence, low wages.

This is not necessarily greed. This is a feature of Capitalism..... paying workers more than you have to simply means that your competition will put you out of business. With or without greed, we still wind up with the same result.

If our factories are automated, our warehouses are automated, our shipping is automated, our office work is done by computers automatically, and stores are self-checkout..... We will be able to keep up "supply" of all the goods that people want, but, unemployment will be so high that most of us will be starving.

The question really is how can we transition our economy to something that works, even with our gains in productivity? Is there a solution that doesn't transition us to heavy-handed government Marxism?
 
2014-02-08 07:23:22 PM  
What a "hard-worker" might look like in the 21st century:
Factory worker.....
img.fark.net
Warehouse worker.....
img.fark.net
Truck driver......
img.fark.net
Store clerk.......
img.fark.net
I think I may have found the problem.
 
2014-02-08 07:29:02 PM  

Sammichless: We are witnessing the fall of Capitalism.

Supply and demand is what sets workers wages, and we have innovated so much, and made worker productivity so high, that workers are no longer worth hardly anything. With our technology, one worker can produce far more than they were able to years ago. We have way more workers than we need, and hence, low wages.

This is not necessarily greed. This is a feature of Capitalism..... paying workers more than you have to simply means that your competition will put you out of business. With or without greed, we still wind up with the same result.

If our factories are automated, our warehouses are automated, our shipping is automated, our office work is done by computers automatically, and stores are self-checkout..... We will be able to keep up "supply" of all the goods that people want, but, unemployment will be so high that most of us will be starving.

The question really is how can we transition our economy to something that works, even with our gains in productivity? Is there a solution that doesn't transition us to heavy-handed government Marxism?


minimum guaranteed income. at that level of automation, the basics needs of life should be free.. and trust me, people will still work their asses off for the luxuries -- all the stuff that ISN'T about just staying alive.

the idea you have to threaten starvation to profit off of cheap labor is exactly what keeps our economy DOWN.. the innovation we'd get, if we were not preoccupied with paying to breathe..
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report