|
Hint: The money is stolen, even if the law says otherwise.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Hint: The money is stolen, even if the law says otherwise. I know it's unpopular to have beliefs anywhere to the right of full communism as a goon, but come on now, you'd have to have an absurd definition of "theft" for that to be true. I mean yeah in some cases it is actually stolen, and I do believe penalties for "white collar" crime should be much harsher than it is. But there are plenty of people who start and run legitimate businesses and get wealthy from them solely because of their success. Who are they stealing from?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
The main problem is inherited wealth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
I once read a quote of "It should be illegal to be a billionaire while there are still homeless people" and despite it sounding like one of the most eyeroll worthy lefty garbage kind of things, I actually think it's a pretty great idea. You must donate all money above $1 billion to the homeless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Everyone should watch Reversal of Fortune.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
The Wipers should have every bit of the reputation and following that bands like The Replacements and Husker Du got.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I once read a quote of "It should be illegal to be a billionaire while there are still homeless people" and despite it sounding like one of the most eyeroll worthy lefty garbage kind of things, I actually think it's a pretty great idea. I'm going to spend that billion on hookers and coke instead of a home just so someone will have to give me another billion. At some point it would become more lucrative to be homeless. Creative accounting would make the definition of "billionaire" entirely meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I once read a quote of "It should be illegal to be a billionaire while there are still homeless people" and despite it sounding like one of the most eyeroll worthy lefty garbage kind of things, I actually think it's a pretty great idea. It's a super lame way to put it, yeah, but I think that being a billionaire should be something that's a bit embarrassing. It means that even after taxes, you've hoarded more money than your family could spend in generations and you haven't found a way to feed it back into the economy via taxes, charity or 'job creation'. We shouldn't worship billionaires and we shouldn't have so many of them. I think that the tax agencies should audit everyone with over 15 million dollars in assets every 12 - 24 months. At the very least it'd keep the auditors busy, as well as create more accounting jobs. I also think that tax evasion should be tried as treason fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Most billionaires assets are job-creating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Only a few billionaires in the world maintain Scrooge McDuck vaults for all their net worth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
sassassin posted:I'm going to spend that billion on hookers and coke instead of a home just so someone will have to give me another billion. At some point it would become more lucrative to be homeless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I think you misread that. They said anyone who had more than a billion dollars would have to donate the excess to the homeless, not that homeless people would get a billion dollars. In addition, it's a temporary measure. If and when all homeless people have homes, then you can keep your money again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I think you misread that. They said anyone who had more than a billion dollars would have to donate the excess to the homeless, not that homeless people would get a billion dollars. It's not like billionaires have that money in cash lying about. Most of the net worth of billionaires is tied up in property and businesses. How do you donate a Bill Gates' excess ~$80b to the homeless? Shut down a few factories and bring in some bunkbeds?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Reminder that at one time North Korea had a 0% homeless rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Reminder that at one time North Korea had a 0% homeless rate. That's good. Let's do what they did
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Reminder that at one time North Korea had a 0% homeless rate. Actually they almost certainly didn't, there just weren't any independent observers allowed in to properly (read: leave Pyongyang or be unsupervised) check. They sure claimed to though!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:That's good. Let's do what they did plenty of beds in the gulags comrades
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I know it's unpopular to have beliefs anywhere to the right of full communism as a goon, but come on now, you'd have to have an absurd definition of "theft" for that to be true. I mean yeah in some cases it is actually stolen, and I do believe penalties for "white collar" crime should be much harsher than it is. But there are plenty of people who start and run legitimate businesses and get wealthy from them solely because of their success. Who are they stealing from? Their employees who create value and capital.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Rich people are better than poor people. But they have more responsibility to contribute more to Civilization. That is the burden of being better citizens. If you're gonna have fortune, you have to work harder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Their employees who create value and capital. They choose to work there out of their own free will. If they are not being adequately compensated, they should leave for a competitor who does pay them a fair wage. Are you arguing that every employee, including owners, should make the same salary? Should the guy in the mail room make just as much as the guy who took all the risk creating a company from scratch and is the only reason that guy even has a job right now? If you aren't happy with what you are being paid, acquire more valuable skills. The answer isn't to go all robin hood and rob the executives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
I think it is easy to admit, that effort and merit is not rewarded directly, but relative to circumstance, no matter what your political affiliation is. Simply that you could find a skilled, full-time construction worker, or a hard-working waitress, who earns less than someone streaming video-games, and that they combined earn less than someone does of their passive investments, makes it readily apparent, that effort and merit can be wholly subject to circumstance. The reason why it is east to admit to it, is not only that it is readily apparent, but because there is no working alternative. It is simply not possible to reward effort and merit more directly, because effort and merit does not guarantee results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:If you aren't happy with what you are being paid, acquire more valuable skills. The answer isn't to go all robin hood and rob the executives. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:They choose to work there out of their own free will. If they are not being adequately compensated, they should leave for a competitor who does pay them a fair wage. Are you arguing that every employee, including owners, should make the same salary? Should the guy in the mail room make just as much as the guy who took all the risk creating a company from scratch and is the only reason that guy even has a job right now? There will always be people at the bottom, and those who are at the bottom deserve a better life. Saying that they could elevate themselves is just shirking the problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Also, if you're in a minimum wage job, 'acquire more skills' isn't easy. Colleges take a lot of time, can be expensive and challenging. A 'lack of skills' shouldn't be a sentence to a life of poverty. A mail clerk shouldn't make as much as a CEO, but a single CEO shouldn't make the wage of a thousand mail clerks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Hot Smart ARYAN Girl posted:There will always be people at the bottom, and those who are at the bottom deserve a better life. Saying that they could elevate themselves is just shirking the problem. In an ideal world there would be no poverty or people struggling from paycheck to paycheck, but imo it is completely unrealistic to do it by making everyone equal. Certain jobs are more important than others and do deserve to be compensated more than the current minimum wage or similar jobs. Also I'm not trying to make the standard "bootstraps" argument or saying someone who is working at mcdonalds in their 50s has the easy opportunity to become a billionaire. All I was saying is that in the modern era with the internet and all, there is a ton you can teach yourself in your spare time that can, at least in theory, translate into a better job if you're willing to put in the time and effort. It won't always work but it is possible and I think it's harmful to pretend like it's impossible for someone to improve their situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:They choose to work there out of their own free will. If they are not being adequately compensated, they should leave for a competitor who does pay them a fair wage. Are you arguing that every employee, including owners, should make the same salary? Should the guy in the mail room make just as much as the guy who took all the risk creating a company from scratch and is the only reason that guy even has a job right now? Hobson's choice is not a free will. Bootstraps are not a poverty reduction strategy. The most talented individual can't stand up against moneyed interests and achieve even a small fraction of what those who were born into wealth will get even if they screw up terribly. A marginal increase in wage is not the same as wealth. steinrokkan has a new favorite as of 16:25 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Hobson's choice is not a free will. So basically you are just crying that the world isn't fair. Well, no poo poo it isn't. It's never going to be so the sooner you accept it and do the best you can with what you have the better off you'll be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
"Hard work" often represents little personal and professional risk to the worker. That's why it's not closely linked to earnings. New and emerging markets (like professional videogame playing) will also always be subject to wacky earning potential.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:In an ideal world there would be no poverty or people struggling from paycheck to paycheck, but imo it is completely unrealistic to do it by making everyone equal. Certain jobs are more important than others and do deserve to be compensated more than the current minimum wage or similar jobs. I said those at the bottom deserve a better life. Responding to that by arguing that it's impossible to make everyone equal is being disengenuous. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone wouldn't have the ability to "improve themselves" to a point where our economic system allows them a decent life. To ignore the poor quality of life of these innocent people for the sake of ideological purity is immoral. yeah I eat rear end posted:So basically you are just crying that the world isn't fair. Well, no poo poo it isn't. It's never going to be so the sooner you accept it and do the best you can with what you have the better off you'll be. So basically you're saying that we as a society aren't capable of making life more fair, or that we shouldn't bother. Why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
sassassin posted:"Hard work" often represents little personal and professional risk to the worker. That's why it's not closely linked to earnings. If being an owner is such a burden, why don't owners democratize their businesses as socialists have been asking. That way the risks get equally distributed and everybody gets to enjoy the same amount of relative safety for the same amount of profits. Wait, what are you saying? The idea that the really wealthy bear any personal risk is false? They just keep getting wealthier, despite their social impact? Well... The people who own businesses and risk livelihoods are just as screwed by the billionaires as employees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Hot Smart ARYAN Girl posted:I said those at the bottom deserve a better life. Responding to that by arguing that it's impossible to make everyone equal is being disengenuous. And I agreed with that, in an ideal world. The second bit was more directed at the communist squad than you specifically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
well why not posted:A 'lack of skills' shouldn't be a sentence to a life of poverty. A mail clerk shouldn't make as much as a CEO, but a single CEO shouldn't make the wage of a thousand mail clerks. That CEO can hold the jobs of a thousand mail clerks in his hands, as his successes or failures in his role determine the fate of the entire company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
sassassin posted:That CEO can hold the jobs of a thousand mail clerks in his hands, as his successes or failures in his role determine the fate of the entire company. Again, nobody asked him to bear this terrible burden, he can share it if it is so hard it needs to be compensated by 1000× the average wage of his subordinates. Self-imposed rulers of petty economic kingdoms telling people they are indispensable and must therefore extract all the value from everybody below them. steinrokkan has a new favorite as of 16:36 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
here's my hot take: Americans are loving brainwashed to worship capitalist system and can't understand that the 'free market' can and will leave them in the dust the minute it can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Again, nobody asked him to bear this terrible burden, he can share it if it is so hard it needs to be compensated by 1000× the average wage of his subordinates. The only reason he took on that burden is because of the profit potential. Take that away and there would be no reason to do it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If being an owner is such a burden, why don't owners democratize their businesses as socialists have been asking. That way the risks get equally distributed and everybody gets to enjoy the same amount of relative safety for the same amount of profits. No one goes in believing they're going to fail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
me: we should help the poor using rich people's excess money americans: actually they don't deserve it and it's impossible so yeah
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
well why not posted:me: we should help the poor using rich people's excess money Maybe I'm just a dick (well, ok, I definitely am) but under such a system I would just take an easier job at around whatever cap you set instead of the harder one where my money gets siphoned away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:In an ideal world there would be no poverty or people struggling from paycheck to paycheck, but imo it is completely unrealistic to do it by making everyone equal. Certain jobs are more important than others and do deserve to be compensated more than the current minimum wage or similar jobs. Agreed. Let's say the CEO can make 35 times minimum wage. Also lol, you are a libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:52
|
|