Capitalism

Started by Blizzard, March 05, 2015, 01:52:19 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

Blizzard

Since this is quite an interesting subject, it's best we move it from the shoutbox here.

As I already said, I think that redistribution of wealth is unfair, because there are lots of people who worked their asses off to get where they are. This here is a great explanation how it works so you can decide for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6HEH23W_bM

And here are two good videos why capitalism works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6adVQrSUAc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_7Jv2oh9s4
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

chaucer

March 05, 2015, 03:16:24 pm #1 Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 03:20:56 pm by chaucer
umm, Redistribution of wealth is a pretty dumb idea, it doesn't matter how its redistributed, the money will end up falling into the same category as it's in now anyways. The only logical thing to do is to rework the system, if they just do a redistribution like that it will change nothing. However I don't agree completely with blizz, some people did work they're ass off, I'm positive of that. However I'm sure there's some people who work just as hard and never make the money that they should be making, and I'm sure some people barely work at all and get paid more than they should. You can't deny that something is wrong with this picture though. But Just Redistributing wealth like that in the long run isn't going to change anything whatsoever. IMO, The best thing to do is to get rid of the monetary system all together, but hey that's just me.

Spoiler: ShowHide

KK20

I've always wanted a reason to post this video: https://wetheeconomy.com/films/the-unbelievably-sweet-alpacas/

I'm not exactly interested in discussing of such a topic. I know capitalism and the whole redistribution of wealth idea are far from being perfect, but I feel that anything that can be said about it would just be brushed aside and become fuel for someone else's fire (as most political and economic arguments and debates tend to be).





   


   
   


   
   

Other Projects
RPG Maker XP AceUpgrade RMXP to RMVXA performance!
XPA TilemapTilemap rewrite with many features, including custom resolution!



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: 8310-1917-5318
Discord: KK20 Tyler#8901

Join the CP Discord Server!

ForeverZer0

I cannot for the life of me understand why people assume that the poor deserve money, and the rich do not. So what if the 99% of money is held by the 1%, how does that mean that others deserve it? It is a disgusting false sense of entitlement that someone even thinks that. People want to throw the word greed around all the time, I think it is much more greedy to think it is right to take money from the rich for the poor, just because they have it and you do not.
I am done scripting for RMXP. I will likely not offer support for even my own scripts anymore, but feel free to ask on the forum, there are plenty of other talented scripters that can help you.

Blizzard

March 05, 2015, 04:40:39 pm #4 Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 04:52:46 pm by Blizzard
"Greed" is a word invented by lazy people so they can feel better about themselves for not trying harder or trying at all.

@chaucer: I agree that there are people who work their asses off and get nothing in return, but just working your ass off isn't enough. You can't expect to work 40 years as a coal miner, 6 days a week, 12 hours a day AND expect to become rich. Working your ass off doesn't mean just working blindly, it means working intelligently. That coal miner should have invested his time and money into something else like maybe some sort of education that he could have then used to make more money and maybe become more successful. But of course it's always easier not to go to school (or just learn a new language or something like that using the Internet where all the information of humankind is at your fingertips) and complain how the world is unfair and he has to work 72 hour weeks. He will never admit that it's his fault that he didn't do anything about changing his life if it's that unsatisfying for him. He will only say that he's working hard and gets nothing out of it. F0 said it well, it's a disgusting false sense of entitlement.

EDIT: @KK20: You might wanna watch this video, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnEe4oaSC88
Fact is that the "poor" from 50 years ago used to live a lot worse than the "poor" now. Growing inequality my ass. People are just complaining more.

EDIT: I'm not saying that there isn't a growing income inequality, I'm saying that it's a bullshit argument, because people are better off than ever. Poverty is on an all-time low.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Ryex

March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm #5 Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 09:55:53 pm by Ryex
Quote from: ForeverZer0 on March 05, 2015, 04:15:36 pm
I cannot for the life of me understand why people assume that the poor deserve money, and the rich do not. So what if the 99% of money is held by the 1%, how does that mean that others deserve it? It is a disgusting false sense of entitlement that someone even thinks that. People want to throw the word greed around all the time, I think it is much more greedy to think it is right to take money from the rich for the poor, just because they have it and you do not.


And there in lies a fundamental flaw in modern day thinking, that idea that the wealthy are entitled or in some way deserve their money. The flaw lies not in the idea that they have earned their money but in thinking that it's theirs to begin with. Did they print it? bit they establish the currency they transact in? Do they back it's value? did they distribute it? did they provide the structure under-which they were able to start earning it? The answers to all of those is no. Money as it currently exists is the property of the people. If one is wealthy then one is wealthy only because they took advantage of pre-existing societal and economic structure, and are thus reasonable for maintaining it and are financially obligated to pay back.

Lets look at it from the point of view of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). GDP is a methodology of measuring the value of a economy. Lets start off with an idealized perfectly balanced economy where everyone started with he same amount of wealth, where everyone can and does fill some role necessary for the continued operation of that society. Lets assume for the purposes of our though experiments that there are 100 families and at the start each contributes 1/100 of the GDP and owns 1/100 of the total wealth. One day one of the families decides to up their prices, they can do that, it's capitalism, after all their product/services are needed by everyone, there is a limited supply and a contained demand so they raise prices a little bit to what their services are worth. everyone else quickly follows suit. "oh what I do requires specialized training, not everyone can do it", "this items requires special materials and I can only make so much", "it's hard work and not many people do it". these are all valid reasons for supply to be limited. but now we have a problem you see we've developed a class structure overnight, we have low income people doing mundane but none the less necessary work, middle income people doing more specialized work, high income people doing specialized work with rare materials, and extremely high income people buying and trading, investing, loneing out money, making gambles and getting lucky. everyone is still only doing 1/100 of the total work in the economy. but despite contributing equally there is growing income inequality in our little seneriao but that not really that big of a problem so lone as even the poorest of them can live semi-comfortably and not fear for their financial security.

what WOULD be a problem is if people did not contribute to societal improvements according to their income. for example lets go back two decades to with only 14% of the total annually income was attributed to the 1% (now it 23%) and make the rather extreme assumption that our 100 person idealized society where everyone is capable of contributing equally. and assume that one person of thous 100 has made 14% of the annual GDP income through fair business practices and intelligent ceasing of opportunity. Should not this person contribute 14% of the burden of maintaining the society? because if they don't everyone else has to pick up the bill.

Income inequality is not an Issue of who deserves what, it's an issue of a tiny portion piling up money and not paying their share of civilizations burdens.

Time for some charts.

Pulled form Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_policy_and_economic_inequality_in_the_United_States
U.S. Income Share of Top 1% of Households: ShowHide

Income inequality isn't only in the US: ShowHide

Average wealth of families in the bottom 90% and the top 1%: ShowHide


Also that video about the rich paying their fair share? absolute bullshit Blizz. First off every last one of those statistic is skewed and biased. Prager University (the videos publisher, also the publisher of the tax rate video) is NOT an academic institution, it's a propaganda machine founded by Dennis Prager, Dennis Prager is a "syndicated, politically conservative radio talk show host"

Tax rates of 50% that's a laugh, you see there's this thing called effective tax rate "the term is used in financial reporting to measure the total tax paid as a percentage of the company's accounting income, instead of as a percentage of the taxable income." ~ wikipedia
Effective Payroll Tax rate for Different Income Percentiles: ShowHide

The top 0.1% pays less 1% of their income in taxes. the middle 70% pays 10% of their income in taxes. that's the Effective tax rate.

and it's not just individuals, it's cooperations too.
take a look at this http://public.tableausoftware.com/profile/chuntlyg#!/vizhome/corporatetaxes/Dashboard1

also, lets look at REAL inequality. forget the top 1% lets jump an order of magnitude and talk about the top 0.1%
Spoiler: ShowHide

that's right the top 0.1% has as much as the bottom 90%, 1/1000 of our population has 50% of the wealth

but all that ins't actually BAD, so what if the rich are getting richer, the economy's grown right? well yes, but here's the thing. while the rich have been getting richer for the last 50 years, everyone else has not.
Change in real income versus selected goods and services: ShowHide

Productivity and Real Median Family Income Growth 1947-2009: ShowHide
It only goes to 2009 but you can bet you lucky horse shoes the trend continued the last 6 years
inflation adjusted household incomes: ShowHide


Now that we have some cold hard factual data lets counter the stupidity.

I'm sorry Blizz but this, this right here?
Quote from: Blizzard on March 05, 2015, 04:40:39 pm
"Greed" is a word invented by lazy people so they can feel better about themselves for not trying harder or trying at all.


is the epitome of delusion

do you seriously believe that all ANYONE needs to do to be successful is TRY HARD? what sort of perfect world do you live in? Opportunities are NOT equally distributed. Education is NOT of universal quality, value, or even equally easy to obtain. The same level of work does NOT equate tot eh same level of compensation across the world. Whats disgusting is not the supposed "false sense of entitlement" of thous who aren't successful. whats disgusting is eh false sense of superiority of those who are. America and the western world has a pervasive ideal sometimes called "The American Dream" along with a strong sense that it's obtainable by everyone. and if you havn't obtained it you arn't working hard or smart enough. and that WRONG.

Quote from: Blizzard on March 05, 2015, 04:40:39 pm
Fact is that the "poor" from 50 years ago used to live a lot worse than the "poor" now. Growing inequality my ass. People are just complaining more.

EDIT: I'm not saying that there isn't a growing income inequality, I'm saying that it's a bullshit argument, because people are better off than ever. Poverty is on an all-time low.


Bull-fucking-shit,

you see that data up there? the last 50 years has been any thing but successful at improving the poverty situation only made it harder to contain.

now I present BOTH side of the welfare argument here so please read carefully, this first link to the Kosh funded Heritage foundation, it draws all the wrong conclusions and is biased a fuck but it still uses data we can put in context.
The second is a White House Paper trying to tell the opposite story so it's also biased, but it uses the same data and then adds a whole lot more and relies a lot less on conjecture.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/50th_anniversary_cea_report_-_final_post_embargo.pdf

that first link contains this chart
Spoiler: ShowHide


Now lets look at this chart carefully the poverty level has stayed consistent for 40 years and only dropped for the first 10 after the US implemented welfare
but lets lay that chart over the "Productivity and Real Median Family Income Growth 1947-2009" from above and study the welfare spending line. note that the welfare spending line is calculates in 2012 dollars so it has adjusted for inflation just like the median family income chart. do you notice that around 1971 where median family income splits form the GPD growth is right where poverty starts flat lining and welfare spending starts rowing rapidly to keep that income line somewhat level? remember that the "real income" calculates in that chart INCLUDES welfare.

Adjusted for inflation the median family makes LESS today than in 1970. and contrary to the heritage foundation's claims that the welfare system itself is responsible; we can clearly see that the income inequality that started diverging around the same time has a much stronger correlation.

The White House paper (also bias as it's trying to tell the opposite story) contained many of the same charts but introduces a supplemental estimation of poverty that says it has dropped form 22% to 16% but it ALSO goes and points out the link between the change between rapidly dropping trend from 1959-1968 and it's subsequent flat line and the start of the income divergence.

in the 1960's CEOs made 25 times their lowest paid worker now its around 280 times. do the CEO's work 255 times harder now than 60 years ago?

Poverty is perhaps at an all time low but if it's decline had contained as it did form 1959 to 1968 it would of dissipated altogether by 1985, were it not for income inequality.



PS: anyone else see a strong correlation between Reaganomics and our current situation? <humor> Boondocks was right, Reagan was the Devil. </humor>


PPS: I meant what I said in the shoutbox Capitalism is the best we have, it forces innovation and solves civilization's problems. but it only solves profitable problems and if not regulated it WILL force all the money to the top. and if all the money is at the top not being spent then it falls apart.  

"Income inequality was cited as one of the causes of the Great Depression by Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis in 1933. In his dissent in the Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee (288 U.S. 517) case, he wrote: 'Other writers have shown that, coincident with the growth of these giant corporations, there has occurred a marked concentration of individual wealth; and that the resulting disparity in incomes is a major cause of the existing depression.'"
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

ForeverZer0

Can someone please show me an example where "redistribution of wealth" or similar ideas have ever successfully worked. I don't understand why it is argued so strongly when it has been proven to be an absurd idea. Perhaps a few examples could dissuade my thinking. I will wait quietly for them.
I am done scripting for RMXP. I will likely not offer support for even my own scripts anymore, but feel free to ask on the forum, there are plenty of other talented scripters that can help you.

Ryex

March 05, 2015, 10:29:46 pm #7 Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 11:03:41 pm by Ryex
proven to be an absurd Idea? um.. when an where? actually a better question to ask is, when has it ever been tried? are we talking about taxes? za?

because if you ask the question when has it been tried and start answering that question you start to see.

Lets look at Taxes as a form of wealth redistribution.
Taxes have wholly payed for ALL of the following:
Roads - do I even need to explain the benefits
Public Education - before free public education just how much opportunity do you think there was
Court system
Police Force
Fire Department
CDC - we eradicated Polio for goodness sake, would of gotten mesals too if not for those pesky anti-vaxers
and on and on and on....

What did we do to fix the Great Depression? Redistribute wealth. massive public works projects across the nation employing people and infusing money to the middle class. worked great, just look at the data.

The great Recession? Redistribute Wealth,
course we kinda did it wrong. bailed out the banks? would of worked better is we's split the money equally and started handing out money, a preposterous idea but the broad spectrum cash infusion would of driven the economy far better the preventing the too big to fall banks form falling. should of stuck with the Great Depression plan.
Baling the auto industry was a better Idea, kept the auto workers employed and stared a boom of american auto manufacturing. It's better than ever now.

What did we do after we flattened Japan? Gave them money to rebuild now they are the Tech center of the world.

Do I NEED more examples?

My argument isn't for redistribution so much as it is for regulation.

for example
Minimum wage fixed to inflation and above the poverty line is a must. increasing it even to 10.10 in the US would bring 900,000 people out of poverty and bump the income of 16.5 Million people living just above it.

preventing tax dodging and other loop holes to bring the effective tax rate of the 1 & 0.1% to an acceptable 10% like the rest of us would mean the US would stop running a deficit and have money to spare. heck eliminate the tax loopholes and you could cut the tax rate to 2/3 and still have money. The fact is that Capitalism only works if EVERYONE has money to participate. right now that's not true. Capitalism relies on the fact that the majority of the population has disposable income to drive the market. that means income AFTER food and rent and utilities. did you know that 40% of the US population spends 50-60% of their income on rent or mortgage payments? and 20% there after on bills? subtract 10% for tax and suddenly your looking at someone with only 10% of their income to spend on anything more than the necessities of life. if we assume they make 50,000 a year like most of us that means 5000 a year to spend on non necessities. of course those figures change as you look across the country getting better and worse as the economy changes. but that paints a bleak situation for a economy driven disposable income. and if we make the assumption that those unlucky 40% are smart and instead of spending save and/or invest that 5k that means 40% of the population is NOT PARTICIPATING in the economy outside of food, rent, utilities and bills.

Under these facts is it not possible to see that some redistribution/regulation is critical to keep the economy heaths and away form collapse?
These are NOT new idea, it didn't suddenly become cool. This kind of thinking goes all the way back to Greese and Rome. and in fact was the Prominent and culturally accepted norm up until the turn of the 20th centurey (1900). Those who do not learn from history are blind to the future.
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

Kiwa

I think that people misunderstand "greed". Greed is always assumed to be 'Evil' but greed is parallel with desire. It may be selfish by definition but not evil.
you don't have to hurt anyone to want more. be it a new suit for work to make more money for your family or for yourself, or the newest gadget.

these 'greedy' capitalists want as much money as possible of course so they want the product to reach as many people as they can, making it as cheap as they can. then competition comes in and drives it lower.
They will pay better wages if the employee is worth it to keep the talented from going to a competitor.

'Greed' gives us ambition and presents goals.
Ambition without goals is fruitless.

giving people everything without teaching them how to set goals and prepare for long term gratification leads to greed without ambition.
greed without ambition creates entitlement.

also working hard and being valuable are 2 different things.
at what point are you the best fucking moper in the world and deserve 20 bucks an hour?
if you never gain more skill, you never gain more money. even if you mop the fuck out of the floor.
people often say "Time is money" but i think that's not so clear. Skill is money, Time is a tool to increase skill. if your mopping then learning to remove stains then learning to fix toilets then you become a plumber. now you earn 20 bucks an hour.
Jim Rohn said "Work harder on yourself than you do your job"


Wealth distribution is a hard subject. I can see merit in helping others. the poor are infinitely better off than 20 or 30 years ago. lines and charts cant show the truth behind it. considering families in poverty have air conditioning, a car, smartphones for everyone in the house, TV, more than one set of clothing.

I grew up in poverty with no AC, no cellphone, 1 set of clothes, 1 set of shoes...all the way to high school. until i started working and gaining my own money. my mother left my father because he worked too much and depended on child support and government to survive. and would complain about not getting her check from the government rather than working and getting money on her own...which caused me to be entitled as well until i got older and had to sink or swim in another country. reflecting on both parts of life now I'm in favor of a welfare reform. one to empower and train people rather than just give em a check and have them fuck off.

The free market is the only fair market because it a win win situation.
your box of tissues is worth more than my dollar to me.
my dollar is worth more than that box of tissues to you.

The government should not have the right to forcefully take my money to give to the smith family because Mrs. smith decided her husband works too much and wants to play more. so here is a full time salary.

military, police, fire department and other programs could be taxed or even private by donation or volunteer.
that's how it was for a long time.
welfare was done thru churches since god knows how long.
it doesn't have to be by force. people are much more likely to give when they aren't forced.

not every capitalist is a mustache twirling, monocle wearing, pipe smoking fat cat white guy wondering who to oppress today.
most of them believe in fair trade. and that's often how they got where they are.

Ryex

March 06, 2015, 12:25:31 am #9 Last Edit: March 06, 2015, 12:26:37 am by Ryex
^^ That, That attitude is what the problem is The idea that everyone on the poverty line is Mrs Smith. that is WRONG. in fact almost NO ONE is Mrs Smith. Mrs Smith is a rare breed, sure you can find her sitting the living room couch complaining because her check isn't is yet but the VAST majority are working their asses off right alongside the rest of society.

Do you see thous charts above? income flat-lined in the 1970's  are you saying that 99% of people up and decided that it was god dam 1970 and they had worked hard enough and jumped on the lazy train? no, the same number of people are working just as hard at they were in 1970 paying the inflated prices for goods but earning just as much as they were 50 years ago. paying more for less, earning less for the same work.

As for the government not having the right to take you money. your wrong, they absolutely have the right. after all if they weren't there there would be no money to have. You are able to earn money because society provides structure and enable safe transactions providing a currency to transact in, backing it's value and providing means of recourse if something goes wrong. like fraud. there are a plethora of things provided to you for free by the government that aren't financial aid and the idea that you don't own at least a little bit of your income to it's presence is arrogance. You can make the claim that you pulled yourself by the boot straps all you want but don't you dare claim you had absolutely no help. There are millions of people tugging on their bootstraps but not getting anywhere because external circumstances push back.

and again Welfare is not the problem. The simple fact is we no longer have capitalism, we have corporatism. A tiny fraction of the population holds absolutely stupid amounts of money and can buy power to keep it that way. Every last one of us is getting screwed.
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

Kiwa

You're right. Ms. smith is a rare case. but it doesn't mean its OK.
And the 'attitude' I have isn't wrong. I'm advocating that people learn and grow. I didn't say I'm against welfare either. I said I'm in favor of a reform.
so i fail to see where I'm "WRONG" in advocating people better themselves.

As for the government having the right to take my money. No, They don't have the right.
No, the government does not own the money.
Money doesn't exist. it happens that we all value precious metals such as gold and silver. private banks held the money for security and a cost. they gave you a "note" which had a value corresponding with the gold.
so in essence the government has my gold and I have their note. And if they defect from this social contract they are thieves.
I don't have a problem with taxes either. But as a tax payer I should have say in what its used for.
I'm not against welfare (Again).
But instead of raising taxes things should be balanced rather than just charge me more. some places like new york by the end of your state and federal tax you lose around 40% of your earnings.
whether you believe in the wars or not, whether you believe in welfare or not, whether you use the roads or not, whether you use the trains or not...ect..
most of these things were things that were private to begin with.



People didn't just hop out and quit life in the 70s.
but what about government regulation? I think I read somewhere (no source) that 1/3 of jobs nowadays need a license or certificate which blocks people from entering fields because they cant afford it. such as installing an air conditioner, which is quite simple.
Older people that had good jobs lost them from cutbacks and couldn't get into other fields or gave up.

or bubbles that were created due to government regulation. such as the housing bubble in the 90s. the government forced the banks to approve low or 0 interest loans on houses which people couldn't afford.

This leads to more bail outs which is more money printing which is more inflation you mentioned.
then the people have less skills to keep up with the inflation so the government prints more for them and raises taxes to balance.
then a company is too big to fail and the government bails them out and raises taxes to pay for that.

So where does it end?
It ends when the government stops telling you what to do and starts letting you learn what to do.
It ends with keeping more of your own money. This goes for companies too. if they can keep more money they can invest in more people causing growth.
It ends when we can learn and grow as a person instead of being shamed into line for thinking differently.


Blizzard

March 06, 2015, 04:42:59 am #11 Last Edit: March 06, 2015, 04:59:35 am by Blizzard
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
Average wealth of families in the bottom 90% and the top 1%: ShowHide



This graph shows that the bottom 90% are better and better off. Of course, there's been a recession in the past few years so things haven't been looking that great. But the trend is still a growing one.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
Also that video about the rich paying their fair share? absolute bullshit Blizz. First off every last one of those statistic is skewed and biased. Prager University (the videos publisher, also the publisher of the tax rate video) is NOT an academic institution, it's a propaganda machine founded by Dennis Prager, Dennis Prager is a "syndicated, politically conservative radio talk show host"


Uhm, no? The higher your income, the higher tax percentage you have to pay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Marginal_tax_rates_for_2013
You have "Effective income tax rates" just below as well.
Sure, I'm quoting Wikipedia here as well, but I wouldn't mind if you could dig out the actual law of this in a simplified form.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
Effective Payroll Tax rate for Different Income Percentiles: ShowHide

The top 0.1% pays less 1% of their income in taxes. the middle 70% pays 10% of their income in taxes. that's the Effective tax rate.


Even in that scenario 0.1% of 100 million is more than 10% of 100,000.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
and it's not just individuals, it's cooperations too.
take a look at this http://public.tableausoftware.com/profile/chuntlyg#!/vizhome/corporatetaxes/Dashboard1

also, lets look at REAL inequality. forget the top 1% lets jump an order of magnitude and talk about the top 0.1%
Spoiler: ShowHide

that's right the top 0.1% has as much as the bottom 90%, 1/1000 of our population has 50% of the wealth

but all that ins't actually BAD, so what if the rich are getting richer, the economy's grown right? well yes, but here's the thing. while the rich have been getting richer for the last 50 years, everyone else has not.
Change in real income versus selected goods and services: ShowHide

Productivity and Real Median Family Income Growth 1947-2009: ShowHide
It only goes to 2009 but you can bet you lucky horse shoes the trend continued the last 6 years
inflation adjusted household incomes: ShowHide



But this is only for the last 12 years. We are talking about this on a global scale. But I suppose we can keep in within the last few decades liek the rest of your post. That makes sense IMO. 12 years is just too short a time to see the bigger picture.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
Now that we have some cold hard factual data lets counter the stupidity.

I'm sorry Blizz but this, this right here?
Quote from: Blizzard on March 05, 2015, 04:40:39 pm
"Greed" is a word invented by lazy people so they can feel better about themselves for not trying harder or trying at all.


is the epitome of delusion

do you seriously believe that all ANYONE needs to do to be successful is TRY HARD? what sort of perfect world do you live in? Opportunities are NOT equally distributed. Education is NOT of universal quality, value, or even equally easy to obtain. The same level of work does NOT equate tot eh same level of compensation across the world. Whats disgusting is not the supposed "false sense of entitlement" of thous who aren't successful. whats disgusting is eh false sense of superiority of those who are. America and the western world has a pervasive ideal sometimes called "The American Dream" along with a strong sense that it's obtainable by everyone. and if you havn't obtained it you arn't working hard or smart enough. and that WRONG.


You are right. The average American spends in average 5 hours daily in front of the TV. They are trying really hard.

But seriously. Fact is that most people aren't trying hard. Try this. Ask everybody you know what they did in the past 7 days and how much "extra work" they did to improve some of their skills (or anything for that matter). This of course doesn't count for the 8 (or more) hours they have to spend on their everyday job. Ask them for the past month. Or try it yourself. Keep a diary for a month about your activities. You will be surprised how much less time you have spent being productive than you thought you would.

You're misinterpreting the "false sense of superiority". When I look at the average Joe, I let a sigh go and shake my head and wonder why they don't try to chase their dreams a bit more. It's like life crushed them and they're just waiting for everything to be over while trying to get through everyday life. And that really gets to me sometimes.

Now, I want to address one thing here specifically: Opportunities. Don't talk about opportunities. Every single moment is FULL of opportunities. Just because one doesn't see them, doesn't mean they aren't there. Here are a few examples of opportunities that are there ALL THE TIME.

1. Want to live healthier? Go start jogging right now. Stop the bullshit excuses, do it right now.
2. Want a job? Spend 2 days walking around town. When I was in the US in those two weeks, I saw a bunch "now hiring" signs. Sure, being a waiter or working at the cash register may not be your dream job, but it's a start. And while you work that job, keep looking for more.
3. Want a better job, but you lack the education? Internet. Everything is on the Internet. Learn a new skill or collect some knowledge required for a better job. And keep looking for jobs on the Internet while you're at it. Heck, there are even free online courses for specific things. You can even save up some money for a paid course for some more valuable knowledge and skills.
4. Can't get even that kind of job? Fuck it, move out of the country. Don't know the languages? You have the Internet. Learn a new language. It's even "free" (since you're already paying for the Internet), except for the time and effort you have to invest in it.
5. Want more friends? Go meet people.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
Quote from: Blizzard on March 05, 2015, 04:40:39 pm
Fact is that the "poor" from 50 years ago used to live a lot worse than the "poor" now. Growing inequality my ass. People are just complaining more.

EDIT: I'm not saying that there isn't a growing income inequality, I'm saying that it's a bullshit argument, because people are better off than ever. Poverty is on an all-time low.


Bull-fucking-shit,

you see that data up there? the last 50 years has been any thing but successful at improving the poverty situation only made it harder to contain.

now I present BOTH side of the welfare argument here so please read carefully, this first link to the Kosh funded Heritage foundation, it draws all the wrong conclusions and is biased a fuck but it still uses data we can put in context.
The second is a White House Paper trying to tell the opposite story so it's also biased, but it uses the same data and then adds a whole lot more and relies a lot less on conjecture.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/50th_anniversary_cea_report_-_final_post_embargo.pdf

that first link contains this chart
Spoiler: ShowHide



No, no, this here was my actual point: "For decades, the living conditions of the poor have steadily improved." And that's not bullshit at all. People are living in better conditions than ever, but they are complaining more than ever and doing less about it than ever. The graph about self-sufficiency declining basically shows that. The better people are off, the less they will do, the more they will feel entitled. You can see that trend in a lot of countries that have more social care. I know it first hand, because here in Croatia I can see that difference compared to other wealthier countries where people are better off.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
Now lets look at this chart carefully the poverty level has stayed consistent for 40 years and only dropped for the first 10 after the US implemented welfare
but lets lay that chart over the "Productivity and Real Median Family Income Growth 1947-2009" from above and study the welfare spending line. note that the welfare spending line is calculates in 2012 dollars so it has adjusted for inflation just like the median family income chart. do you notice that around 1971 where median family income splits form the GPD growth is right where poverty starts flat lining and welfare spending starts rowing rapidly to keep that income line somewhat level? remember that the "real income" calculates in that chart INCLUDES welfare.

Adjusted for inflation the median family makes LESS today than in 1970. and contrary to the heritage foundation's claims that the welfare system itself is responsible; we can clearly see that the income inequality that started diverging around the same time has a much stronger correlation.

The White House paper (also bias as it's trying to tell the opposite story) contained many of the same charts but introduces a supplemental estimation of poverty that says it has dropped form 22% to 16% but it ALSO goes and points out the link between the change between rapidly dropping trend from 1959-1968 and it's subsequent flat line and the start of the income divergence.


Same point as above. People making less does not equal living shittier lives of the course of these past few decades. Being "poor" and "living in poverty" are not the same thing.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
in the 1960's CEOs made 25 times their lowest paid worker now its around 280 times. do the CEO's work 255 times harder now than 60 years ago?


You are completely ignoring the value of the work done. It's like saying a surgeon should be paid the same as a coal miner, because they both work 10 hours a day. Or the coal miner maybe should be paid more since he's probably working harder.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
Poverty is perhaps at an all time low but if it's decline had contained as it did form 1959 to 1968 it would of dissipated altogether by 1985, were it not for income inequality.


That's a very interesting point and maybe you're right. It still doesn't change the fact that poverty is still on the decline even though not as fast as between 1959 and 1968. I've read somewhere that the percentage of people living in poverty has halved in the past 20-25 years, but sadly I can't give you an actual reference on this so feel free to ignore this argument.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
PS: anyone else see a strong correlation between Reaganomics and our current situation? <humor> Boondocks was right, Reagan was the Devil. </humor>


Lol!


Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pm
PPS: I meant what I said in the shoutbox Capitalism is the best we have, it forces innovation and solves civilization's problems. but it only solves profitable problems and if not regulated it WILL force all the money to the top. and if all the money is at the top not being spent then it falls apart.  

"Income inequality was cited as one of the causes of the Great Depression by Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis in 1933. In his dissent in the Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee (288 U.S. 517) case, he wrote: 'Other writers have shown that, coincident with the growth of these giant corporations, there has occurred a marked concentration of individual wealth; and that the resulting disparity in incomes is a major cause of the existing depression.'"


I agree with these things. I truly believe that the next step in the evolution of our civilization is the abolishment of the monetary system. We'll see how things go in the future.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 10:29:46 pm
...

Do I NEED more examples?


Examples of one-time giving money (and helping) and constant redistribution of wealth are very different things. I'm for the first, but against the latter.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 10:29:46 pm
My argument isn't for redistribution so much as it is for regulation.

for example
Minimum wage fixed to inflation and above the poverty line is a must. increasing it even to 10.10 in the US would bring 900,000 people out of poverty and bump the income of 16.5 Million people living just above it.


I've seen arguments against that. Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j01L69eXdI
I know I'm posting a lot of stuff from these guys, but they intrigued me with arguments that I never considered. I'm not saying that they are all right, but it's worth considering. Because I am FOR increasing the minimum wage, but after watching that video the first time, I wasn't so sure about that anymore. If a few simple arguments like this can create that much doubt, then I have to reconsider my opinion.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 10:29:46 pm
preventing tax dodging and other loop holes to bring the effective tax rate of the 1 & 0.1% to an acceptable 10% like the rest of us would mean the US would stop running a deficit and have money to spare. heck eliminate the tax loopholes and you could cut the tax rate to 2/3 and still have money. The fact is that Capitalism only works if EVERYONE has money to participate. right now that's not true. Capitalism relies on the fact that the majority of the population has disposable income to drive the market. that means income AFTER food and rent and utilities. did you know that 40% of the US population spends 50-60% of their income on rent or mortgage payments? and 20% there after on bills? subtract 10% for tax and suddenly your looking at someone with only 10% of their income to spend on anything more than the necessities of life. if we assume they make 50,000 a year like most of us that means 5000 a year to spend on non necessities. of course those figures change as you look across the country getting better and worse as the economy changes. but that paints a bleak situation for a economy driven disposable income. and if we make the assumption that those unlucky 40% are smart and instead of spending save and/or invest that 5k that means 40% of the population is NOT PARTICIPATING in the economy outside of food, rent, utilities and bills.


Did you know that in Croatia 40%-50% of the average income is spend on groceries? Fucking groceries? Trust me, I'd rather pay 50% on mortgage than on food. And in Croatia the tax is 25%. Take a good look at how other countries are doing and preferably try to talk to some people from there. You'll be surprised how good the US is standing in these regards.

Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 10:29:46 pm
Under these facts is it not possible to see that some redistribution/regulation is critical to keep the economy heaths and away form collapse?
These are NOT new idea, it didn't suddenly become cool. This kind of thinking goes all the way back to Greese and Rome. and in fact was the Prominent and culturally accepted norm up until the turn of the 20th centurey (1900). Those who do not learn from history are blind to the future.


Of course regulation is important. You can't expect every rich person to be a humanist as well. Of course some are going to try to use people. But regulation should be limited as well. As you said, it's all connected. If you increase taxes for corporate entities too much, they will have to close down, because they can't make profit anymore, people will lose jobs, have less money, buy less which again hurts the economy and influences other sectors. I'm for regulation, but forcing rich people give away more and more money to the poor isn't the solution. Communism and socialism have been shown to NOT work multiple times throughout history.

Quote from: Kiwa on March 05, 2015, 11:57:06 pm
I think that people misunderstand "greed". Greed is always assumed to be 'Evil' but greed is parallel with desire. It may be selfish by definition but not evil.
you don't have to hurt anyone to want more. be it a new suit for work to make more money for your family or for yourself, or the newest gadget.

these 'greedy' capitalists want as much money as possible of course so they want the product to reach as many people as they can, making it as cheap as they can. then competition comes in and drives it lower.
They will pay better wages if the employee is worth it to keep the talented from going to a competitor.

'Greed' gives us ambition and presents goals.
Ambition without goals is fruitless.

giving people everything without teaching them how to set goals and prepare for long term gratification leads to greed without ambition.
greed without ambition creates entitlement.

also working hard and being valuable are 2 different things.
at what point are you the best fucking moper in the world and deserve 20 bucks an hour?
if you never gain more skill, you never gain more money. even if you mop the fuck out of the floor.
people often say "Time is money" but i think that's not so clear. Skill is money, Time is a tool to increase skill. if your mopping then learning to remove stains then learning to fix toilets then you become a plumber. now you earn 20 bucks an hour.
Jim Rohn said "Work harder on yourself than you do your job"


Wealth distribution is a hard subject. I can see merit in helping others. the poor are infinitely better off than 20 or 30 years ago. lines and charts cant show the truth behind it. considering families in poverty have air conditioning, a car, smartphones for everyone in the house, TV, more than one set of clothing.

I grew up in poverty with no AC, no cellphone, 1 set of clothes, 1 set of shoes...all the way to high school. until i started working and gaining my own money. my mother left my father because he worked too much and depended on child support and government to survive. and would complain about not getting her check from the government rather than working and getting money on her own...which caused me to be entitled as well until i got older and had to sink or swim in another country. reflecting on both parts of life now I'm in favor of a welfare reform. one to empower and train people rather than just give em a check and have them fuck off.

The free market is the only fair market because it a win win situation.
your box of tissues is worth more than my dollar to me.
my dollar is worth more than that box of tissues to you.

The government should not have the right to forcefully take my money to give to the smith family because Mrs. smith decided her husband works too much and wants to play more. so here is a full time salary.

military, police, fire department and other programs could be taxed or even private by donation or volunteer.
that's how it was for a long time.
welfare was done thru churches since god knows how long.
it doesn't have to be by force. people are much more likely to give when they aren't forced.

not every capitalist is a mustache twirling, monocle wearing, pipe smoking fat cat white guy wondering who to oppress today.
most of them believe in fair trade. and that's often how they got where they are.



Well said.

Quote from: Ryex on March 06, 2015, 12:25:31 am
The simple fact is we no longer have capitalism, we have corporatism. A tiny fraction of the population holds absolutely stupid amounts of money and can buy power to keep it that way. Every last one of us is getting screwed.


You are assuming it to be that way and of course you will find evidence to support your claim. But how many actual facts can you present? And I don't mean facts like "one politian was paid off by X company", I mean what percentage of companies are doing that. You assume that everybody who's rich is evil and wants to keep the small man down at all costs. How many successful people do you know? To how many successful people have you talked? Into how many companies have you had deep insight to confirm that all of them are corrupt assholes who are out to get you? You have an opinion, not a fact. And you are trying to simplify a complicated system with incredibly many variables down to something that explains the global situation and trying to blame it all on the companies. If companies are all so evil, how about we boycot them all? They can't do shit if we all just stop coming to work. Oh wait, I forgot that most people are lazy and have it "good enough" to complain, but not to do anything about it.

Quote from: Kiwa on March 06, 2015, 03:22:05 am
You're right. Ms. smith is a rare case. but it doesn't mean its OK.
And the 'attitude' I have isn't wrong. I'm advocating that people learn and grow. I didn't say I'm against welfare either. I said I'm in favor of a reform.
so i fail to see where I'm "WRONG" in advocating people better themselves.

As for the government having the right to take my money. No, They don't have the right.
No, the government does not own the money.
Money doesn't exist. it happens that we all value precious metals such as gold and silver. private banks held the money for security and a cost. they gave you a "note" which had a value corresponding with the gold.
so in essence the government has my gold and I have their note. And if they defect from this social contract they are thieves.
I don't have a problem with taxes either. But as a tax payer I should have say in what its used for.
I'm not against welfare (Again).
But instead of raising taxes things should be balanced rather than just charge me more. some places like new york by the end of your state and federal tax you lose around 40% of your earnings.
whether you believe in the wars or not, whether you believe in welfare or not, whether you use the roads or not, whether you use the trains or not...ect..
most of these things were things that were private to begin with.



People didn't just hop out and quit life in the 70s.
but what about government regulation? I think I read somewhere (no source) that 1/3 of jobs nowadays need a license or certificate which blocks people from entering fields because they cant afford it. such as installing an air conditioner, which is quite simple.
Older people that had good jobs lost them from cutbacks and couldn't get into other fields or gave up.

or bubbles that were created due to government regulation. such as the housing bubble in the 90s. the government forced the banks to approve low or 0 interest loans on houses which people couldn't afford.

This leads to more bail outs which is more money printing which is more inflation you mentioned.
then the people have less skills to keep up with the inflation so the government prints more for them and raises taxes to balance.
then a company is too big to fail and the government bails them out and raises taxes to pay for that.

So where does it end?
It ends when the government stops telling you what to do and starts letting you learn what to do.
It ends with keeping more of your own money. This goes for companies too. if they can keep more money they can invest in more people causing growth.
It ends when we can learn and grow as a person instead of being shamed into line for thinking differently.


Well said again, lol!

EDIT: I just want to add something else. I'm all for helping those in need and especially helping those who are really trying since they are the future mankind, but unfortunately most people aren't like that. Don't get me wrong, I understand that an everyday person just wants to get home from an unsatisfying job and unwind by doing something else and probably doesn't have the motivation and energy to do something productive, especially maybe after a difficult day (e.g. maybe their boss was dick on that day or is a dick in general and an especially big dick on that day). But don't expect me to pay for their sitting around, just because I use my free time to get something done. If they don't want to do anything, I'm ok with that. I don't judge them. But don't expect me to approve of it and give them money that I had to earn myself, just because they are a bit tired after work. So am I sometimes, but I push through it.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

chaucer

Honestly, I'm not the smartest person in the room, lol I'll just leave it at that, but I agree with Blizz that the monetary system needs to go, throughout history, there have been MANY civilizations(Even a few left today, one i can think of actually) that didn't rely on a monetary system and got along just fine without it. So why is it so important now? Because people keep putting a value on what a dollar is worth, It's pretty silly thinking about it. I mean Trading a piece of a paper for things you need. It's a ridiculous practice.

    In response to blizz, lets say your right, the coal miner works his ass off pretty hard, but I agree, he could have gone to school and learned something else, but the world does in part use lots coal anyways, it has many uses and can be used to generate electricity. Now tell me, how does a movie producer, provide something substantial to everyday life, how does an actor for that matter. Honestly it really doesn't take a degree to become an actor half the time your reading lines from a script. these people don't work as hard as the coal miner, they don't provide any benefit to the world whatsoever.

QuoteQuote from: Ryex on Today at 04:23:37 AM
in the 1960's CEOs made 25 times their lowest paid worker now its around 280 times. do the CEO's work 255 times harder now than 60 years ago?

You are completely ignoring the value of the work done. It's like saying a surgeon should be paid the same as a coal miner, because they both work 10 hours a day. Or the coal miner maybe should be paid more since he's probably working harder.


  As for this, I'm sure he's not saying that they shouldn't be paid more, but there should be some sort of a limit. as he said, what EXACTLY is that CEO doing that earns him that much more pay? Also, on the topic of americans sitting in front of the T.V./Computer 5+Hours a day, I don't think it's just laziness more a lack of motivation *cough* *points to the thread i posted a while back about fluoride, puts on my foil hat and walks off*   :faceless: lol honestly though, all these problems could be averted with the abolishment of the monetary system end of discussion(not really,just a figure).~

Blizzard

I forgot to mention that value is relative. We humans place a lot of value in entertainment and numbing ourselves down which is why the entertainment industry is thriving, movie stars are rich and alcohol and candy are multi-billion dollar businesses. This is why they earn so much money: We give it to them to keep us from being bored.
Same with a CEO. Somebody is going to say "I value your work to be worth shitloads of money, here you go." or vice versa "I value my CEO skills at this high. If you want me to control your company and earn you money, I want this salary." There's a human factor in all of this that can't be ignored.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

chaucer

Indeed, value is relative, but I have more faith in Humanity than to think we value "entertainment" more than we value necessities, although coal is not a necessity, however it does in part contribute to a lot of what we take for granted today.

    (Slightly off topic, apologies in advance) I feel this is more the doing of the media, than human stupidity alone, although it's to blame too. How Many times do you see a trailer for the latest movie in one day, compare it to how many times you see an add for coal. The Idea that this movie, candy, or alcohol brand is important is slowly being pushed into our head while coal sits on the back burner. It's not just TV ads either, go outside, to the store, to the mall, you'll probably see ads for that same movie there as well.

Blizzard

It's more of a mix actually. Ads work, because people are the way they are. One good example is click bait on the Internet. Why would people click on a link that says "Unbelievable things that 21 celebrities did in a hot dress!"? Because tits, ass and celebrities, that's what sells. It's kind of a dark reality, but it's like that because people are like that and nobody really bothers to stop and think. Most people just go through their lives in a haze of alternating between stimulus (e.g. unhealthy foods, drama in tabloids, drama in politics, ets.) and numbing their senses (e.g. alcohol, TV, even ads) and rarely actually stop and become conscious of what's happening around them. And even if they do, it's gone very quickly and they resume their daily routines of watching TV with a beer in their hand.

But enough off topic. xD
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.