My Beliefs revisited

@mysteryman,

Quote:

I believe capitalism is a positive force on the planet, not a repressive, ugly one.

Thomas agreed, with the caveat "in moderation". And I agree too, MM. But, and Thomas certainly didn't want to go any further as is his wont, the US is not an example of capitalism as a positive force. The US is a dandy example of the use of force to steal from the poor and the poor countries of the world. The US talks the big talk about capitalism but it acts, has always acted just like gangsters.

This force, this evil force, is used in every conceivable manner possible to advance the position of the US at the great expense of the world's poor including, but not limited to, the needless deaths of millions. Those are the war crimes that you so desperately try to cover up, MM.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I just want both corporations and wealthy individuals to pay for the services which benefit them more than anyone else.

Thanks for the honesty. And I want corporations and wealthy individuals to have those, that choose to live on a wage rather than risk one of their wage-earned shekels, pay for the infrastructure that they would not have, if it weren't for the corporations and wealthy individuals. Meaning, if a wage owner has a laundromat to go to, or a restaurant to go to, or a carousel for his/her child, all this is where the wage earner enjoys a society that he/she did not have to risk one wage-earned shekel to have available. So, in my opinion, it is perfectly ethical for the wage earner to pay a disproportionate share of maintaining the infrastructure, since the wage earner enjoys a society which all he/she contributed was the proverbial "sweat equity."

"Sweat equity," in my opinion, is in the similar position as "blood equity." "Blood equity" being the reason that some people feel that they are more American, since their respective ethnic group spilled more blood in past wars, disregarding that their respective ethnic group might have liked the image of "brave warrior," or they did not get some score in a military aptitude test to be trained in a safer "MOS."

So, the only valid "equity" is ownership equity. Period. Wage owners have equity in nada; therefore, the system has no incentive to pander to them, with they not having to pay for a society where they risked not one shekel to develop.

In other words, the corporations, with wage earner lawyers and accountants, know how to use the system. Same with the wealthy. The plain wage earner has little resources, since his/her choice to be a wage earner had the benefit of not having to risk any savings. Some people are just that way. Perhaps, from cultural background with a non-capitalistic history? So, the economic system should be changed to allow those, that choose not to play Monopoly, so to speak, to not be a loser in the system's game? It was never meant to work that way, since most wage earners are descended from ancestors that had even less, to show for their labors, back from whence they came. Meaning the descendents of European peasants are getting a little uppity, in my opinion, now that they are literate, and have some education under their belts.

But, with time, the modern day wage earners will get some bones thrown to them, to appease them, before there is uncivility, so to speak. But, the corporations will prosper even more, and the wealthy will maintain wealth. It is, what it is. Not everyone deserves, based on some people's minimal contribution to the system's GOALS. Wage earners can contribute taxes and their labor, nothing else. Wealthy people and corporations can contribute RISK CAPITAL and labor; if they pay less taxes, it can be thought of as recompense for their risking capital that results in profits for the Gross National Profit. In effect, the belief that wage earners are as equal in society as the wealthy is totally bogus, in my opinion, and the opinion of many others.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Despite all that, I agree that corporations get away with waaaay too many loopholes in the tax code. I agree with you completely, but at the same time I think that business would be crazy not to take advantage of them.

You and corporations deserve all the tax savings they can get, since they have RISKED THEIR CAPITAL to make profits, which society in general and the economy in general profit from. Wage earners risk nothing. Men in this country, during colonial days, were risking capital to underwrite the ocean crossings between the colonies and England. They were risking capital (aka, insurance underwriting).

Wage earners are wage slaves. Having eliminated human bondage, some people are thinking today we have to eliminate wage bondage. But, wage bondage could be fair, since all manner of humans are in wage bondage. Including those with Phds. Perhaps, we need to be honest and define those who participate in the capitalist system, by risking their capital, as Wage Masters, and those that just earn a wage, as Wage Servants.

In other words, it might just eliminate the basic problem, which in my opinion, is that those that do not risk one shekel are becoming deluded to think they deserve more for being just a laborer. At one time in history that meant just a strong back. So, someone has a college degree. If he/she wants to be just a wage earner, that is his/her choice, but let's not put on airs, and say they deserve considerations that the risker of capital gets.

3 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

Men in this country, during colonial days, were risking capital to underwrite the ocean crossings between the colonies and England

You really don't think people on these ships (who weren't underwriting the crossing and ended up working to build the colonies) were risking anything?

I would like to be able to say this post is even nuttier than usual.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

I would also point out that comparing employment to slavery is rather offensive. As is your use of the word "Shekel" (a Jewish unit of currency) to refer to capitalist exploitation of labor.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I would also point out that comparing employment to slavery is rather offensive. As is your use of the word "Shekel" (a Jewish unit of currency) to refer to capitalist exploitation of labor.

"Wage slave" is a common colloquialism. Remind me not to curse in front of you. You could be offended.

And, I refer to the Shekel, since it connotes a unit of currency that existed way before the dollar, and other currencies. The word has emotional connotations for those that are familiar with Jesus and the money changers in the temple; a good way to get the attention of posters I believe.

Now please be quiet. Just be happy the Red Sox are in post season play.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

"Sweat equity,"

I don't think you know the meaning of that term.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

I make a descent living. I am pretty much satisfied with my life, not that I have a hell of a lot of money. But if the taxes I pay can help someone fine. I am not so greedy that I would rather see someone starve to death in order to save a couple of hundred bucks.

3 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie...

...your posts reminded me that there always have been people out in the street who supported the right of the king and his barons to rule over them...and to have, by far, the lion's share of what was available.

It is pathetic that there always have been...

...it is much more pathetic that there still is.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I make a descent living. I am pretty much satisfied with my life, not that I have a hell of a lot of money. But if the taxes I pay can help someone fine. I am not so greedy that I would rather see someone starve to death in order to save a couple of hundred bucks.

Would you rather see someone buy cigarettes and beer with your money? How about someone in a different state getting a nice pork barrel package of bridge construction by the brother-in-law of a lawmaker? Is that alright for your couple hundred bucks too?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

The beer and cigs dont bother me. As to the pork barrel projects I refer you Mitch Mc Connel of Kentucky.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

The beer and cigs dont bother me. As to the pork barrel projects I refer you Mitch Mc Connel of Kentucky.

And the "pork barrel" projects are really just people working and earning a living. Sure, the brother-in-law makes a good buck, but he spends that too.

All the money that comes into the treasury as taxes is eventually spent by someone...and that, in effect, stimulates the economy.

Some of these rich people use their money to buy art...and then store it in a vault somewhere. Nothing comes of that.

1 Reply

A lot comes of buying works of art if the person doing the works of art is smart. If you buy a painting and sit on it for 20 or 30 years, and then sell it for 100 or 200 time what you paid for it, not only do you have your profit, but it is a capital gain, so you only pay 15% tax on it. Somebody who bought one of Jackson Pollock's paintings at the beginning of his career for a few thousand dollars can now sell them for millions of dollars--not 100 time or 200 times the purchase price, but 1000 times or more. Then they pay just 15% on their profit.

Buying works of art is smart, and it's good business. You need to know what you're doing, though, or hire someone who knows. Even if it just sits in the vault gathering dust, it's genuine, gold-plated equity, and you can borrow money using it as security. Rich people don't get rich by being stupid--and they only need to be smart enough to hire someone who is far smarter than they are.

1 Reply

Rabel, my point was that pork barrel projects will put more money into the economy...probably with a multiplier...than what many of the rich do with some of their money.

I am not a proponent of pork barrel...but the fact is that money that comes in as tax revenue from the rich that is, one way or another, redistributed to the poor, is used to purchase stuff. In a consumer driven economy, this is what Martha Stewart might call, "a good thing."

I recognize that the multiplier on invested money (something mostly done by the rich) has a significant economic multiplier, but money redistributed from the rich to the poor IS spent more freely.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

I make a descent living.

Your descent into darkness, then hell, comes from you supporting your criminal governments, R.

Smile

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Foofie...

...your posts reminded me that there always have been people out in the street who supported the right of the king and his barons to rule over them...and to have, by far, the lion's share of what was available.

It is pathetic that there always have been...

...it is much more pathetic that there still is.

Well, "pathetic" is your choice of words. My thinking is that it is safer to learn to live with the status quo, since during times of upheavel certain groups are targeted as having been too loyal to the prior king. Get it?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

RABEL222 wrote:

The beer and cigs dont bother me. As to the pork barrel projects I refer you Mitch Mc Connel of Kentucky.

And the "pork barrel" projects are really just people working and earning a living. Sure, the brother-in-law makes a good buck, but he spends that too.

All the money that comes into the treasury as taxes is eventually spent by someone...and that, in effect, stimulates the economy.

Some of these rich people use their money to buy art...and then store it in a vault somewhere. Nothing comes of that.

Collectibles that are sold are taxed at a fairly decent rate, I thought. The fact that it is not sold immediately is like all the engagement rings that wage earners buy for a few thousand dollars, and that too is taken out of circulation for the benefit of the economy. Through the power of multiplication, all the engagement rings are worth more than the lesser number of art objects/paintings. And, based on the number of annual marriages, I would guess more people are getting married than expensive art that is produced annually.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

A lot comes of buying works of art if the person doing the works of art is smart. If you buy a painting and sit on it for 20 or 30 years, and then sell it for 100 or 200 time what you paid for it, not only do you have your profit, but it is a capital gain, so you only pay 15% tax on it. Somebody who bought one of Jackson Pollock's paintings at the beginning of his career for a few thousand dollars can now sell them for millions of dollars--not 100 time or 200 times the purchase price, but 1000 times or more. Then they pay just 15% on their profit.

Buying works of art is smart, and it's good business. You need to know what you're doing, though, or hire someone who knows. Even if it just sits in the vault gathering dust, it's genuine, gold-plated equity, and you can borrow money using it as security. Rich people don't get rich by being stupid--and they only need to be smart enough to hire someone who is far smarter than they are.

I thought art comes under the tax rate of collectibles. More than 15%.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

My thinking is that it is safer to learn to live with the status quo, since during times of upheavel certain groups are targeted as having been too loyal to the prior king. Get it?

Your admission that it's best to align oneself to the toughest group of gangsters speaks to your sense of survival, Foof, but it doesn't say much about you as a human being.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

...your posts reminded me that there always have been people out in the street who supported the right of the king and his barons to rule over them...and to have, by far, the lion's share of what was available.

It is pathetic that there always have been...

...it is much more pathetic that there still is.

And isn't it that much more pathetic, Frank, that the current king and his barons [USA] are cruel, malicious murderers and thieves. And what's even worse, you excuse their behavior and make constant apologies for them.

0 Replies

My Beliefs revisited

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know