Started by Blizzard, March 05, 2015, 01:52:19 pm
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.
Quote from: ForeverZer0 on March 05, 2015, 04:15:36 pmI 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.
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.
Quote from: Blizzard on March 05, 2015, 04:40:39 pmFact 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.
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmAverage wealth of families in the bottom 90% and the top 1%: ShowHide
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmAlso 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"
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmEffective Payroll Tax rate for Different Income Percentiles: ShowHideThe 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.
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmand it's not just individuals, it's cooperations too. take a look at this http://public.tableausoftware.com/profile/chuntlyg#!/vizhome/corporatetaxes/Dashboard1also, lets look at REAL inequality. forget the top 1% lets jump an order of magnitude and talk about the top 0.1%Spoiler: ShowHidethat's right the top 0.1% has as much as the bottom 90%, 1/1000 of our population has 50% of the wealthbut 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: ShowHideProductivity 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 yearsinflation adjusted household incomes: ShowHide
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmNow 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 delusiondo 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: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmQuote from: Blizzard on March 05, 2015, 04:40:39 pmFact 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-yearshttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/50th_anniversary_cea_report_-_final_post_embargo.pdfthat first link contains this chartSpoiler: ShowHide
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmNow 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 welfarebut 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.
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmin 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?
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmPoverty 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.
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmPS: anyone else see a strong correlation between Reaganomics and our current situation? <humor> Boondocks was right, Reagan was the Devil. </humor>
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 09:23:37 pmPPS: 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.'"
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 10:29:46 pm...Do I NEED more examples?
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 10:29:46 pmMy argument isn't for redistribution so much as it is for regulation. for exampleMinimum 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.
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 10:29:46 pmpreventing 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.
Quote from: Ryex on March 05, 2015, 10:29:46 pmUnder 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.
Quote from: Kiwa on March 05, 2015, 11:57:06 pmI 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.
Quote from: Ryex on March 06, 2015, 12:25:31 amThe 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.
Quote from: Kiwa on March 06, 2015, 03:22:05 amYou'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.
QuoteQuote from: Ryex on Today at 04:23:37 AMin 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.