Nine Pictures of the Extreme Income/Wealth Gap [Archive]

2centsworth

02-15-2011, 09:58 AM

So if we give these people tax cuts then the y'd consider giving us jobs right? Or.... bring back the jobs they sent to India in the early 2000's?

Business is driven by a cost control and quality standards. India provides cheap labor for mostly menial jobs, which doesn't seem to affect the quality enough to chase away American Shoppers. Foreign businesses are doing the same thing. Shop for a website programmer and you'll find there are really inexpensive foreign options.

so the question becomes, do I save money by employing a foreigner or do I become an altruist in the face of stiff competition?

There is a reason why 90% of the wealth is carried by the top 10%... they keep it that way (the drawback of capitalism). we are not all going to be equal, but capitalism raises the standard of living of the poor. China is a perfect example. However, in a capitalistic society a lot of people will always want more and be dissatisfied with what they have, so you'll always hear a lot of bitching and complaining about what someone else has.

It's been this way for more than a century! The U.S. government is democracy heavily influenced by aristocracy.

Anyway, even knowing this before reading the article I found some of it shocking. 400 people account for HALF of the wealth?! My God. Even Egypt had a better distribution of wealth and they just overthrew their government.our poor is upper middle class in Egypt, so it's relative.

Cry Havoc

02-15-2011, 10:06 AM

Captain Downer...

Sorry you hate others for being successful. If you hate the American Dream so much, move to a different country.

Wild Cobra's true American dream: One man owning every single piece of land and stock in the entire country, and everyone else in food shelters. It's the dream, people! The dream! There is nothing wrong with that dream, no matter how many people starve to death! Because an esoteric ephemeral idea is more important than an 8 year old getting medical treatment for a potentially fatal condition! It's the dream, people! It matters more than human beings!

Cry Havoc

02-15-2011, 10:12 AM

Business is driven by a cost control and quality standards. India provides cheap labor for mostly menial jobs, which doesn't seem to affect the quality enough to chase away American Shoppers. Foreign businesses are doing the same thing. Shop for a website programmer and you'll find there are really inexpensive foreign options.

so the question becomes, do I save money buy employing a foreigner or do I become an altruist in the face of stiff competition?

So I guess all those companies in Europe that are doing fine despite being CLOSER to India are just magic pixie dust, then?

we are not all going to be equal, but capitalism raises the standard of living of the poor. China is a perfect example. However, in a capitalistic society a lot of people will always want more and be dissatisfied with what they have, so you'll always hear a lot of bitching and complaining about what someone else has.

No, you'll hear bitching and complaining because other countries in the world are doing it far better and more effectively than we are despite not having anything close to our GNP.

our poor is upper middle class in Egypt, so it's relative.

So that's the standard we're going by now? We're comparing ourselves to dictatorships to make us feel better about our financial situation in this country?

George Gervin's Afro

02-15-2011, 10:18 AM

honest question. I'm not going to attack you. What is the purpose of the federal income tax?

The federal income tax provides for national programs such as defense, foreign affairs, law enforcement, and interest on the national debt.

16th Amendment
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I don't know if there is one purpose for the federal income tax. Generally speaking it provides to the govt income to do what is necessary to keep the govt operating.

2centsworth

02-15-2011, 10:27 AM

So I guess all those companies in Europe that are doing fine despite being CLOSER to India are just magic pixie dust, then?

You're lost in the conversation. India was given as an example by another poster. You could use China if you would like. The complaint is that we have a trade deficit. I would argue the trade deficit is a net positive than negative. nevertheless, are you saying the average salary in Europe is higher than the US? Or you just "FEEL" Europe is better than the US.

No, you'll hear bitching and complaining because other countries in the world are doing it far better and more effectively than we are despite not having anything close to our GNP.

If they are so much better why do we have the largest Economy in the world by a long shot? Why do most countries us the American Dollar for their international transactions?

What are they doing so much better besides draconian cuts in entitlement spending?

So that's the standard we're going by now? We're comparing ourselves to dictatorships to make us feel better about our financial situation in this country?

Again, Egypt was used as an example by the other poster. I pointed out the foolish comparison.

Bartleby

02-15-2011, 10:28 AM

So that's the standard we're going by now? We're comparing ourselves to dictatorships to make us feel better about our financial situation in this country?

By that logic, compare under-performing U.S. students to the average teen in Afghanistan--we're fucking geniuses!

2centsworth

02-15-2011, 10:34 AM

By that logic, compare under-performing U.S. students to the average teen in Afghanistan--we're fucking geniuses!

no, you have proven US students are stupid.

Bartleby

02-15-2011, 11:12 AM

no, you have proven US students are stupid.

:rolleyes

Come on, bible boy, you can do better than that.

Halberto

02-15-2011, 11:26 AM

our poor is upper middle class in Egypt, so it's relative.

I can respect all of your reply except for this bit. Basically you're saying "hey, we have it good so who cares?" I wonder what percentage of the top 10%'s wealth it would take to allow for twice as many people to attend college. Little things like that can go a long way. Imagine how many more doctors and engineers would be around if college wasn't so expensive. Or how about health care? Cancer patients would get the treatment they wouldn't afford and so on. I'm not saying that it would help everyone, but maybe if the top 20% owned 80% of the wealth things would be better for a lot of people.

2centsworth

02-15-2011, 11:26 AM

I don't know if there is one purpose for the federal income tax. Generally speaking it provides to the govt income to do what is necessary to keep the govt operating.

the reason I ask is because I think raising or lowering taxes should have an impact on the Average American. I'm not sure how raising taxes on the wealthy, though I'm not necessarily opposed, would affect me and everyone else. I don't think we should levy taxes to punish success, but if it would create more jobs to raise taxes on the wealthy then I'm all ears.

All the other stuff, military, ss, etc are all being paid and we are in no danger of not paying those bills.

2centsworth

02-15-2011, 11:36 AM

I can respect all of your reply except for this bit. Basically you're saying "hey, we have it good so who cares?" I wonder what kind of percentage of the top 10%'s wealth to allow for twice as many to attend college. Little things like that can go a long way. Imagine how many more doctors and engineers would be around if college wasn't so expensive. Or how about health care? Cancer patients would get the treatment they wouldn't afford and so on. I'm not saying that it would help everyone, but maybe if the top 20% owned 80% of the wealth things would be better for a lot of people.

I appreciate that you see the cost of higher education is way too high. In fact, I've argued and have provided evidence that the cost of higher education has reached bubble status (here) (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171953). Evidence suggest that the explosion in the cost of higher education coincides with government subsidies. It makes sense, easy to raise prices when someone else is paying for it.

Nevertheless, I'm way more interested in how to help the lower classes become financially independent. At this point, I don't see the connection between taxes/punishing the wealthy and me becoming financially independent.

DarrinS

02-15-2011, 12:25 PM

So a few people own most of the wealth..and you want to give them tax cuts... 'for job creation'... funny thing is though the economy went into the tank after GW Bush passed his tax cuts...

And, all experts agree, this is exactly WHY it happened. :lmao

DarrinS

02-15-2011, 12:27 PM

This just in...

Some people unfairly brilliant.

http://www.iqtestnow.com/img/iqchildren-graph.gif

George Gervin's Afro

02-15-2011, 12:27 PM

And, all experts agree, this is exactly WHY it happened. :lmao

Sort of like the deficit being an Obama problem right..:lmao

I keep hearing that lowering taxes always works..did it?

DarrinS

02-15-2011, 12:29 PM

Sort of like the deficit being an Obama problem right..:lmao

There was already a deficit when he became president, but he's definitely not helping.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 04:05 PM

Captain Downer...

Sorry you hate others for being successful. If you hate the American Dream so much, move to a different country.

Awesome strawman. I'm impressed.

vy65

02-15-2011, 04:15 PM

Awesome strawman. I'm impressed.

He's actually on to something for once. There is nothing wrong with successful people who amass large amounts of wealth in their lifetimes. They're free to do with it what they want. That article is full of whiny resentment for people who have done well in life.

There is a separate question about 1) inheritance 2) the death tax and 3) tax cuts. I understand why people bitch and complain about the concentration of power in the hands of the already-powerful, but if you were in that position, would you do anything else? What does that 10% owe the remaining 90%

And no, I'm not saying tax cuts for the rich are good, or that there is no problem with these lop-sided demographics.

boutons_deux

02-15-2011, 04:16 PM

WC supports a punitively regressive flat tax, like the 17% that Warren Buffet says he pays, to be paid by Wal-Marters @$20K/year.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 04:25 PM

He's actually on to something for once. There is nothing wrong with successful people who amass large amounts of wealth in their lifetimes. They're free to do with it what they want.

WC tried to represent that the poster hated the American Dream because the poster was concerned about wealth inequality. That's obviously a non-sequitur/logical fallacy.

Just because you are concerned about wealth inequality doesn't mean you hate America.

I'll take the thought experiment upthread and tweak it slightly.

(This is a bit wordy, so forgive me in advance.) If America were making a GDP of 15 billion a year, but 14.9 of that billion was controlled by three people, would that be better than America making 13 billion a year, where 12.9 billion was controlled by 5,000?

IOW, is the "bottom line" of how much America is making really the most important statistic?

There is a separate question about 1) inheritance 2) the death tax and 3) tax cuts. I understand why people bitch and complain about the concentration of power in the hands of the already-powerful, but if you were in that position, would you do anything else? What does that 10% owe the remaining 90%

There's an argument to be made that the 10% made their money off the backs of the 90%, but I won't go into that. I also don't agree with the inheritance/death taxes, personally.

While something might not be justified "morally", per se, we run into issues where what's best for the nation isn't justifiable on an individual basis. For instance, education taxes. If I don't have a kid in school, is it morally justifiable for the gov't to require money from me?

But long term, said child's education will be supporting our nation's infrastructure/future.

If an extreme gap in wealth equality leads to an increased likelihood of mass riots/protests/etc etc, shouldn't we look for ways to avoid those outcomes?

Sometimes the "optimal" way to do things isn't really optimal. (See Game Theory and actual outcomes.)

vy65

02-15-2011, 04:47 PM

WC tried to represent that the poster hated the American Dream because the poster was concerned about wealth inequality. That's obviously a non-sequitur/logical fallacy.

Just because you are concerned about wealth inequality doesn't mean you hate America.

Fair point. WC is a fucking retard.

I'll take the thought experiment upthread and tweak it slightly.

(This is a bit wordy, so forgive me in advance.) If America were making a GDP of 15 billion a year, but 14.9 of that billion was controlled by three people, would that be better than America making 13 billion a year, where 12.9 billion was controlled by 5,000?

IOW, is the "bottom line" of how much America is making really the most important statistic?

I don't know what the right answer to this is. But it's not responsive to my point. I think that the wealth gap is both inevitable and a good thing. If we really were stringent on equally-amassed levels of wealth, what'd be the point of working real hard? But that's probably besides the point too.

There's an argument to be made that the 10% made their money off the backs of the 90%, but I won't go into that. I also don't agree with the inheritance/death taxes, personally.

While something might not be justified "morally", per se, we run into issues where what's best for the nation isn't justifiable on an individual basis. For instance, education taxes. If I don't have a kid in school, is it morally justifiable for the gov't to require money from me?

But long term, said child's education will be supporting our nation's infrastructure/future.

If an extreme gap in wealth equality leads to an increased likelihood of mass riots/protests/etc etc, shouldn't we look for ways to avoid those outcomes?

Sometimes the "optimal" way to do things isn't really optimal. (See Game Theory and actual outcomes.)

I guess that's really the debate. But it's not like the rich are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the USFG in taxes. I'd also be curious to see how much that 10% actually ends up paying (like a gross amount) compared to the other 90%.

My point was more along the lines of: if you were rich and powerful, wouldn't you try to "buy politicians" and protect the wealth you've amassed via lenient tax rates? And can you really blame the rich for doing so?

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 05:21 PM

I don't know what the right answer to this is. But it's not responsive to my point. I think that the wealth gap is both inevitable and a good thing.

The wealth gap is a very bad thing, since having money in the hands of those with higher marginal utilities for their dollars is what keeps the economy going. It's much better for our country to have its money being spent on tangible goods than it is for it to be used in speculation on real estate and commodities that serve to raid even more of the wealth of the vast majority of our population.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 05:26 PM

I don't know what the right answer to this is. But it's not responsive to my point. I think that the wealth gap is both inevitable and a good thing. If we really were stringent on equally-amassed levels of wealth, what'd be the point of working real hard? But that's probably besides the point too.

I don't think ANYONE knows. If they did, they'd be anointed world president/leader. :lol I also don't think it's some static number that will work for all time.

But the way that some conservatives decry unequal taxation is a bit extreme, in my eyes. They make a 30% tax bracket sound like a death knell, when it was 70% or so IIRC only a few decades ago.

I guess that's really the debate. But it's not like the rich are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the USFG in taxes. I'd also be curious to see how much that 10% actually ends up paying (like a gross amount) compared to the other 90%.

The biggest problem is that wealth tends to make more wealth, so without any controlling factors you'll get what we have today, which is an increasing inequality gap.

My point was more along the lines of: if you were rich and powerful, wouldn't you try to "buy politicians" and protect the wealth you've amassed via lenient tax rates? And can you really blame the rich for doing so?

Can't really blame the rich for trying to work the system, no. Then again, I guess on the flip side you can't complain about the masses trying to get taxation laws written that try to equalize that income, right?

vy65

02-15-2011, 05:57 PM

The wealth gap is a very bad thing, since having money in the hands of those with higher marginal utilities for their dollars is what keeps the economy going. It's much better for our country to have its money being spent on tangible goods than it is for it to be used in speculation on real estate and commodities that serve to raid even more of the wealth of the vast majority of our population.

The biggest problem is that wealth tends to make more wealth, so without any controlling factors you'll get what we have today, which is an increasing inequality gap.

I'd want to know how you can control how the wealthy decide to spend their wealth. I can see how speculation can harm people, but to restrict the rich's ability to do so seems more destructive because, by limiting what peolpe can do with their property, you disincentivize innovation, labor, etc... Plus, who ever said anything about what's best for the country? The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

And no, I can't blame the "90%" from trying to game the system - but frankly it doesn't seem like a fair fight.

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 06:06 PM

The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

I could sell heroin to your kids for their lunch money, their playstation, their ipod, bike, and so on.

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:10 PM

I could sell heroin to your kids for their lunch money, their playstation, their ipod, bike, and so on.

True, because legitimately accumulated wealth = heroin.

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 06:11 PM

True, because legitimately accumulated wealth = heroin.

But I don't have any social responsibility. So why can't I sell your kids heroin?

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:14 PM

But I don't have any social responsibility. So why can't I sell your kids heroin?

Because I never said you don't have any social responsibility.

Don't over-generalize what I said - it makes you look as retarded as WC.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 06:14 PM

I'd want to know how you can control how the wealthy decide to spend their wealth. I can see how speculation can harm people, but to restrict the rich's ability to do so seems more destructive because, by limiting what peolpe can do with their property, you disincentivize innovation, labor, etc...

Yes, it's a thorny situation.

Plus, who ever said anything about what's best for the country? The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

If that's your line of thought, how do you accept any taxation as moral that isn't specifically agreed upon by the party being taxed?

And no, I can't blame the "90%" from trying to game the system - but frankly it doesn't seem like a fair fight.

It certainly isn't. Those 10% are like heavyweights against a lightweight.

Quick question! How many Senators are middle-class? :lol

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 06:17 PM

Because I never said you don't have any social responsibility.

Don't over-generalize what I said - it makes you look as retarded as WC.

Plus, who ever said anything about what's best for the country? The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

I please to screw people over to grow my wealth.

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:17 PM

coyotes_geek

02-15-2011, 06:17 PM

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:18 PM

I please to screw people over to grow my wealth.

which = selling heroin.

Congrats on being a mouth-breathing reductionist.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 06:18 PM

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 06:19 PM

^^ I dunno about moral, but to a certain extent, everyone benefits from being within the country (ability to do business here, military/police protection, etc...). I guess consent to taxation comes from accepting the benefits of such services

So then, taxation IS moral. Kinda defeats your "what right do they have to take money in the first place" argument.

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:20 PM

The whole point about "what's best for the country" is that once an income gap grows too large, it hurts everyone. (See the Great Depression.) And since the nation is made up of, well, ya know, every citizen, then citizens surely have a right to do what's best for the nation (legally), correct?

After all, citizens who don't like being taxed still have two options: influence the legislature, or leave the country.

At what point do I, in earning a shit ton of money, become obligated to do what's best for the country? I'm skeptical that there is such a point - especially with how "globalized" business is.

I think your obligation to better the country starts and ends with your tax burden. And the rich, while proportionately not paying as much as the 90%, do pay a shit ton in taxes.

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 06:21 PM

which = selling heroin.

Congrats on being a mouth-breathing reductionist.

It's funny you bitch about WC and throw around the same insults he does.

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:22 PM

So then, taxation IS moral. Kinda defeats your "what right do they have to take money in the first place" argument.

Like I said, I don't know about this morals business.

And I'm pretty sure I never said anything about this "right to take money in the first place."

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:22 PM

It's funny you bitch about WC and throw around the same insults he does.

About as funny as those insults actually being applicable in your case?

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 06:24 PM

Bill Gates is the beneficiary of a pretty big wealth gap. He also gives away over a billion dollars a year to charity. Is our country better off because of his charity, or would we be better off with that billion dollars being spent on junk food, video games, booze, cigarettes or whatever other tangible goods you think people would be spending their re-distributed income on?

Could you come up with a more leading question if you tried? :lol

I can do that too! Check it out.

Is our country better off because of his charity, or would we be better off with that billion dollars being spent on health care, small business startup money, or infrastructure?

Now, on a serious note, it doesn't really matter (in a fiscal sense) whether he gives it to saints or crackheads, as long as it's recirculating. The problem is with rich people saving/investing, especially in offshore areas.

Outsourcing to other nations benefits the rich, because they get the same product for less cost. The argument goes that the average worker benefits too, because they are able to receive said product at a lower cost as well.

Course, that doesn't mean jack squat if the person doesn't have a job in the first place.

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:25 PM

So then, taxation IS moral. Kinda defeats your "what right do they have to take money in the first place" argument.

That shit was just a response to BB's drivel about how the specualtion harms the country - it had nothing to do with taxes.

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:26 PM

Could you come up with a more leading question if you tried? :lol

I can do that too! Check it out.

Now, on a serious note, it doesn't really matter (in a fiscal sense) whether he gives it to saints or crackheads, as long as it's recirculating. The problem is with rich people saving/investing, especially in offshore areas.

Outsourcing to other nations benefits the rich, because they get the same product for less cost. The argument goes that the average worker benefits too, because they are able to receive said product at a lower cost as well.

Course, that doesn't mean jack squat if the person doesn't have a job in the first place.

That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 06:29 PM

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 06:29 PM

Like I said, I don't know about this morals business.

At what point do I, in earning a shit ton of money, become obligated to do what's best for the country? I'm skeptical that there is such a point - especially with how "globalized" business is.

The above sounds like a moral argument.

If you're not arguing from a moral basis, then what basis are you arguing from? Legally speaking, you become "obligated" as soon as someone creates a law saying that it's legal to tax you said amount.

Again, if someone knew the answer to the question above, they'd be hired to run the world.

And I'm pretty sure I never said anything about this "right to take money in the first place."

That stands somewhat at odds with this statement:

The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 06:30 PM

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:32 PM

Why is society obliged to protect Bill Gates? Why is it all of our responsibility to keep Canada from invading Redmond and taking his company over?

Because he's an American citizen and pays his taxes.

coyotes_geek

02-15-2011, 06:32 PM

Could you come up with a more leading question if you tried? :lol

I can do that too! Check it out.

So if we redistribute rich peoples wealth to the masses people are going to use that money on healthcare, small business startups and infrastructure? Really?

Now, on a serious note, it doesn't really matter (in a fiscal sense) whether he gives it to saints or crackheads, as long as it's recirculating. The problem is with rich people saving/investing, especially in offshore areas.

Outsourcing to other nations benefits the rich, because they get the same product for less cost. The argument goes that the average worker benefits too, because they are able to receive said product at a lower cost as well.

Course, that doesn't mean jack squat if the person doesn't have a job in the first place.

You've lost me. I thought we were talking about wealth inequality, not outsourcing.

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:35 PM

The above sounds like a moral argument.

If you're not arguing from a moral basis, then what basis are you arguing from? Legally speaking, you become "obligated" as soon as someone creates a law saying that it's legal to tax you said amount.

Again, if someone knew the answer to the question above, they'd be hired to run the world.

True, but I guess my point was that there is no moral obligation. You might disagree, but I just don't see it.

And because there's no moral obligation to re-invest or re-dsitribute what you've accumulated, I don't see any contradiction.

coyotes_geek

02-15-2011, 06:36 PM

Strawman. Tangible goods doesn't equate to crap from Wal-Mart. It's also being able to afford health care, being able to afford a house or being able to rent an apartment not next to the highway, being able to send your kids to college so they're not buried under tons of student loans, etc.

Just sell heroin. Problem solved. Strawman.

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 06:37 PM

Just sell heroin. Problem solved. Strawman.

It's not a strawman. vy was implying citizens are basically on their own island and don't have social responsibility, but then took it back pretty quickly once the heroin example showed how ridiculous that idea was.

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:40 PM

It's not a strawman. vy was implying citizens are basically on their own island don't have social responsibility, but then took it back pretty quickly once the heroin example showed how ridiculous that idea was.

Huh? What I was implying was that the rich are under no obligation to use thier money in ways that help the country. It was a response to your "rich people engage in speculation" argument. Is speculation illegal? Is making certain, potentially destructive investments, like short sales, illegal? Explain how that is in any way the same as selling the smack you've obviously been smoking?

Learn what context is.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 06:41 PM

DarrinS

02-15-2011, 06:42 PM

The founders of Google are very weathy -- unfairly so (just kidding). Do they have any employees at Google? Do those employees buy tangible goods?

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 06:42 PM

Huh? What I was implying was that the rich are under no obligation to use thier money in ways that help the country. It was a response to your "rich people engage in speculation" argument. Is speculation illegal? Is making certain, potentially destructive investments, like short sales, illegal? Explain how that is in any way the same as selling the smack you've obviously been smoking?

Learn what context is.

Once again, why is society only a benefit and not a responsibility?

coyotes_geek

02-15-2011, 06:42 PM

It's not a strawman. vy was implying citizens are basically on their own island and don't have social responsibility, but then took it back pretty quickly once the heroin example showed how ridiculous that idea was.

Yes, it was a strawman. Unless you believe that everyone on the good side of that income/wealth gap got there by doing something illegal.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 06:43 PM

So if we redistribute rich peoples wealth to the masses people are going to use that money on healthcare, small business startups and infrastructure? Really?

:lol It's as valid as your point that they'd only spent it on junk food and video games.

I'm sure it would go to an equal amount of good and bad things.

You've lost me. I thought we were talking about wealth inequality, not outsourcing.

I thought we had transitioned to effective use of monetary resources. :lol

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:43 PM

Are you talking about legal or moral obligation? Legally speaking, he's obligated if the law says he is.

Morally speaking, I don't think he's obligated. But (hypothetically speaking) if it's better for the citizens of the nation overall, you can't fault the citizens for trying to enact that.

I think I was speaking of a general obligation and not making a distinction between moral and legal ones.

Legally, I think he's obligated to pay the taxable rate. I don't there's a moral one here. And while I can't fault citizens from trying to impose one, I can't blame the rich for trying to fight that.

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:44 PM

Once again, why is society only a benefit and not a responsibility?

Why would it be a responsibility?

I pay for the benefits I receive when I do my taxes. Where's the responsibility come from?

Are you still claiming the rich-poor gap = heroin addiction?

DarrinS

02-15-2011, 06:44 PM

By the way, I engage in speculation and I'm not a billionaire. Sometimes, investments are a better place to put your money than a piece of consumer electronics that is obsolete in two years.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 06:45 PM

I think I was speaking of a general obligation and not making a distinction between moral and legal ones.

Legally, I think he's obligated to pay the taxable rate. I don't there's a moral one here. And while I can't fault citizens from trying to impose one, I can't blame the rich for trying to fight that.

Then you pretty much lie where I lie. I don't think it's immoral to want to keep as much money as you can for your own use. I also don't think it's immoral for citizens to want their nation to continue functioning effectively (which I think an extreme inequality gap would hinder.)

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:47 PM

I also don't think it's immoral for citizens to want their nation to continue functioning effectively (which I think an extreme inequality gap would hinder.)

My beef with this is that it can be spun very anti-meritocratically.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 06:50 PM

My beef with this is that it can be spun very anti-meritocratically.

I don't shed tears for millionaires, especially those that out-source. If they farm out their business to other nations in order to make more cash, knowing that fellow citizens will lose out on jobs, that's their right. I don't think they have a right to complain though when said citizens ask that they share more of the tax burden. Again, if they disagree, they can do what other citizens do: bug their legislature to get the laws changed. And due to their high status, there's a good chance they'll be succesful.

Again, how many middle-class Senators are there? Democracy in today's America goes hand in hand with aristocracy.

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 06:53 PM

Why would it be a responsibility?

I pay for the benefits I receive when I do my taxes. Where's the responsibility come from?

You really don't if you're buying off politicians to allow you to play both sides of the fence.

Are you still claiming the rich-poor gap = heroin addiction?

I never said that.

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:54 PM

I don't shed tears for millionaires, especially those that out-source. If they farm out their business to other nations in order to make more cash, knowing that fellow citizens will lose out on jobs, that's their right. I don't think they have a right to complain though when said citizens ask that they share more of the tax burden. Again, if they disagree, they can do what other citizens do: bug their legislature to get the laws changed. And due to their high status, there's a good chance they'll be succesful.

Again, how many middle-class Senators are there? Democracy in today's America goes hand in hand with aristocracy.

True. But I was just thinking - what obligates the wealthier person to pay higher taxes than the poorer one? It can't be because the wealthier person uses the police, military, post office, etc ... more (can it?). That's to say that the wealthier person pays higher taxes solely as a function of thier making more money. What's the justification for that given that the richer person doesn't use more social services than the other - which is what those tax dollars are going towards?

I'm not being argumentative here - I seriously don't understand the non-moral justification. And before anyone claims that there is one, where is that obligation in either the Constitution or the tax code?

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:55 PM

...

vy65

02-15-2011, 06:56 PM

You really don't if you're buying off politicians to allow you to play both sides of the fence.

Huh?

I never said that.

I please to screw people over to grow my wealth.

But I don't have any social responsibility. So why can't I sell your kids heroin?

DarrinS

02-15-2011, 06:57 PM

People that bitch about outsourcing shouldn't complain when they buy cheap products from those companies.

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 06:59 PM

The founders of Google are very weathy -- unfairly so (just kidding). Do they have any employees at Google? Do those employees buy tangible goods?

Google has done a lot to increase the wealth of our nation. They give lots of jobs that pay very well, and the company is full of creative people. Google was born on a brilliant idea (the quality of a search result being tied to the count of pages linking to it), and they keep doing incredible things while still giving back to the community (for instance, their work on the Linux kernel licensed under the GPL). Google is about as forward-thinking a company as there is in America: people who work there get a full day per workweek to work on their own personal projects aside from their normal duties.

Jekka

02-15-2011, 06:59 PM

That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?

Because it was the US citizens who were buying all of his shit and making him rich in the first place so that he could expand globally and take the world's money? Because otherwise he's just taking currency out of circulation to ... hoard it so no one else can use it? Because it's the decent fucking thing to do?

He doesn't have a legal obligation, but that speaks very little to ethics. You aren't legally obligated to remain faithful in a marriage, but it's a sham marriage if you're not. When a person amasses that much fortune, if he's not giving back some then he's just sitting on money that he doesn't even have enough lifetime to spend. There are these ideas of pride for and obligation to one's country that make a country great and add to the quality of life for many.

And all of that aside, I don't hear anyone bitching about Gates's efforts outside of the US - I'm pretty sure no one is walking around saying, "You know, he should really stop trying to fund a cure for malaria in Africa when there are people in his own country who have problems."

DarrinS

02-15-2011, 07:05 PM

Google has done a lot to increase the wealth of our nation. They give lots of jobs that pay very well, and the company is full of creative people. Google was born on a brilliant idea (the quality of a search result being tied to the count of pages linking to it), and they keep doing incredible things while still giving back to the community (for instance, their work on the Linux kernel licensed under the GPL). Google is about as forward-thinking a company as there is in America: people who work there get a full day per workweek to work on their own personal projects aside from their normal duties.

I agree with all that.

Those two dudes are EXTREMELY rich. Is that fair? I think it is. After all, they are the ones who had the idea.

vy65

02-15-2011, 07:06 PM

Because it was the US citizens who were buying all of his shit and making him rich in the first place so that he could expand globally and take the world's money? Because otherwise he's just taking currency out of circulation to ... hoard it so no one else can use it? Because it's the decent fucking thing to do?

Those customers got his shit in return. Sale completed. He now owes them more? That sounds pretty indecent.

He doesn't have a legal obligation, but that speaks very little to ethics. You aren't legally obligated to remain faithful in a marriage, but it's a sham marriage if you're not. When a person amasses that much fortune, if he's not giving back some then he's just sitting on money that he doesn't even have enough lifetime to spend. There are these ideas of pride for and obligation to one's country that make a country great and add to the quality of life for many.

Dunno how marriage is any way relevant to the conduct of business. What's wrong with sitting out hordes of cash from circulation if you earned it and doing so isn't illegal? There are obligations apart from the law that dictate what you should do with your hard earned money?

And all of that aside, I don't hear anyone bitching about Gates's efforts outside of the US - I'm pretty sure no one is walking around saying, "You know, he should really stop trying to fund a cure for malaria in Africa when there are people in his own country who have problems."

If that's what he wants to do with his money, more power to him.

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 07:10 PM

True. But I was just thinking - what obligates the wealthier person to pay higher taxes than the poorer one? It can't be because the wealthier person uses the police, military, post office, etc ... more (can it?). That's to say that the wealthier person pays higher taxes solely as a function of thier making more money. What's the justification for that given that the richer person doesn't use more social services than the other - which is what those tax dollars are going towards?

I'm not being argumentative here - I seriously don't understand the non-moral justification. And before anyone claims that there is one, where is that obligation in either the Constitution or the tax code?

A wealthier person is obliged to pay at a higher rate because it pays for the society that gives him the ability to earn. When you keep milking the people and not giving much back, you're eventually going to bring chaos which will drag everyone down. Maybe not in the short term, but it's not a viable long-term strategy, Look at Mexico as an example of what wealth inequality brings; people dropping like flies left and right because it's hard to make it living on $70 a week being legit in a border town.

DarrinS

02-15-2011, 07:11 PM

DarrinS

02-15-2011, 07:13 PM

Did we really just get compared to Mexico?

vy65

02-15-2011, 07:14 PM

A wealthier person is obliged to pay at a higher rate because it pays for the society that gives him the ability to earn. When you keep milking the people and not giving much back, you're eventually going to bring chaos which will drag everyone down. Maybe not in the short term, but it's not a viable long-term strategy, Look at Mexico as an example of what wealth inequality brings; people dropping like flies left and right because it's hard to make it living on $70 a week being legit in a border town.

Doesn't everyone have that ability to earn?

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 07:17 PM

Did we really just get compared to Mexico?

Our wealth inequality is headed in that direction. It's not a stretch to think that's our future.

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 07:37 PM

I kinda like the idea that someone can drop out of school and become the richest man on Earth. If your idea is good enough, you would be a FOOL to stay in college.

I wonder how much wealth MS, Apple, et. al. have created? I suspect a lot.

Gates is a little overrated in this country. Yes, he is an amazing salesman with balls of steel, but he hasn't done much innovative in his career. He pretty much just took a big bite out of Apple's market share, and is lucky that IBM believed he had an operating system when they scoffed Apple and their hippy culture. Gates would probably just be a $150k a year software engineer if Xerox would have been smart enough to cash in their winning lottery ticket with the Alto. Too bad, as the Alto would have created a lot more wealth in this nation than anything Apple or MS did. That's another topic though.

Sec24Row7

02-15-2011, 07:45 PM

Shrug... easy to pick on them... they are .00013% of the vote and can't defend themselves if the government insists on taking more...

Win win for a Democratic president.

SnakeBoy

02-15-2011, 07:57 PM

There is nothing wrong with that dream, no matter how many people starve to death!

The CDC considers obesity in America an epidemic. So I don't you have to lose sleep over the starving masses.

DarrinS

02-15-2011, 07:58 PM

Gates is a little overrated in this country. Yes, he is an amazing salesman with balls of steel, but he hasn't done much innovative in his career. He pretty much just took a big bite out of Apple's market share, and is lucky that IBM believed he had an operating system when they scoffed Apple and their hippy culture. Gates would probably just be a $150k a year software engineer if Xerox would have been smart enough to cash in their winning lottery ticket with the Alto. Too bad, as the Alto would have created a lot more wealth in this nation than anything Apple or MS did. That's another topic though.

But he had the vision when a lot of people didn't. Otherwise, some poor sap wouldn't have sold him DOS for 35K. He was also smart enough not to get all tied up in the hardware business.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 08:05 PM

People that bitch about outsourcing shouldn't complain when they buy cheap products from those companies.

Most of the people that are probably affected by outsourcing don't have the time/money to buy only US made products.

Hey, do you agree with every move the NYJets management makes? If not, why do you still follow the team?

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 08:06 PM

Doesn't everyone have that ability to earn?

If so, then everyone would be a millionaire, so the answer is no. It takes many things (skill, knowledge, luck, circumstance, etc etc).

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 08:10 PM

True. But I was just thinking - what obligates the wealthier person to pay higher taxes than the poorer one?

Citizenry deciding so.

It can't be because the wealthier person uses the police, military, post office, etc ... more (can it?). That's to say that the wealthier person pays higher taxes solely as a function of thier making more money.

Yes.

What's the justification for that given that the richer person doesn't use more social services than the other - which is what those tax dollars are going towards?

The justification is because that's how the world works. Like I said, realpolitiks takes over here.

If you look at most revolutions, the "justification" for the revolution is rather weak. The real reason is because the populace just gets seriously pissed off. Taxing the rich more prevents that.

I'm not being argumentative here - I seriously don't understand the non-moral justification. And before anyone claims that there is one, where is that obligation in either the Constitution or the tax code?

The justification is that rich people pay more so the poor folks don't go crazy and steal/attack them for their wealth.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 08:13 PM

Did we really just get compared to Mexico?

I think it was used as an example, not an analogy. Or at best, it was a weak analogy in this case.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 08:14 PM

Shrug... easy to pick on them... they are .00013% of the vote and can't defend themselves if the government insists on taking more...

Win win for a Democratic president.

:lmao

Honestly, do you do standup?

SnakeBoy

02-15-2011, 08:15 PM

If so, then everyone would be a millionaire, so the answer is no. It takes many things (skill, knowledge, luck, circumstance, etc etc).

You left out saving & investing instead of spending every penny earned on crap you don't need.

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 08:30 PM

You left out saving & investing instead of spending every penny earned on crap you don't need.

I agree that we waste too much money on cars and plasma screens, but look at the things whose price has shot through the roof in the last 30 years: absolute necessities like healthcare, housing, and education. Wages haven't followed. This isn't the same nation it used to be.

sickdsm

02-15-2011, 08:34 PM

By the way, I engage in speculation and I'm not a billionaire. Sometimes, investments are a better place to put your money than a piece of consumer electronics that is obsolete in two years.

Agreed.

LnGrrrR

02-15-2011, 08:48 PM

You left out saving & investing instead of spending every penny earned on crap you don't need.

That plays in for some millionaires, but I'm not sure how many. It seems more and more millionaires are younger and younger nowadays.

Stringer_Bell

02-15-2011, 08:57 PM

Captain Downer...

Sorry you hate others for being successful. If you hate the American Dream so much, move to a different country.

"Keep you at the bottom but tease you with the upper crust - you get it, then they move it so you're never keeping up enough. Crooked banks around the world would gladly give a loan away so if you miss a payment they can take your home away."

But I'm glad you still believe in the American Dream under President Obama, real patriotic. :king

CuckingFunt

02-15-2011, 09:26 PM

That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?

This doesn't take into proper consideration the HUGE grey area that exists between the two poles of obliging one to dedicate his/her money to the greater good and encouraging him/her to selfishly dedicate that same money to the greater suck.

I agree that the answer to all of this is not obligation or forced philanthropy, but that doesn't mean that we should swing all the way to the other side and abandon any hope of a system in which a) the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is quite so severe, and b) it becomes financially attractive for those with money to invest in the betterment of their own community/country. An imagined utopia free of capitalistic greed and its resulting power/privilege dynamic is, for better or worse, completely unrealistic; but that doesn't mean that violently stomping on the heads of those below you HAS TO BE a necessary part of climbing the ladder.

vy65

02-15-2011, 10:19 PM

This doesn't take into proper consideration the HUGE grey area that exists between the two poles of obliging one to dedicate his/her money to the greater good and encouraging him/her to selfishly dedicate that same money to the greater suck.

I agree that the answer to all of this is not obligation or forced philanthropy, but that doesn't mean that we should swing all the way to the other side and abandon any hope of a system in which a) the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is quite so severe, and b) it becomes financially attractive for those with money to invest in the betterment of their own community/country. An imagined utopia free of capitalistic greed and its resulting power/privilege dynamic is, for better or worse, completely unrealistic; but that doesn't mean that violently stomping on the heads of those below you HAS TO BE a necessary part of climbing the ladder.

Yah, I couldn't disagree more. That violent stomping you describe is the world we live in and a necessary part of climbing the ladder. That fear of being stomped is exactly what incentivized people to innovate, work, and ultimately succeed. Yah, it would be nice if the system weren't otherwise, but it's willful ignorance to think that wealth can be accumulated and enjoyed by anyone without a concomitant taking from someone else.

vy65

02-15-2011, 10:25 PM

And I don't see how I'm ignoring any supposed gray area because there is no such area. Everyone here is quick to say that, for example, Bill Gates devoting his wealth to charity is good for everyone involved. But why is that? And more importantly, who decides whom amongst the wealthy should "give back." And how much should they give back to society? Does it have to be money? And how wealthy do you have to be to have this obligation triggered?

Would you feel comfortable giving up your car and sending the money saved on car payments, gas, etc ... to the less fortunate in Iraq, Angola, or even rural Texas? Surely you can't claim that there isn't a massive economic gap between you and those people?

baseline bum

02-15-2011, 11:16 PM

Would you feel comfortable giving up your car and sending the money saved on car payments, gas, etc ... to the less fortunate in Iraq, Angola, or even rural Texas? Surely you can't claim that there isn't a massive economic gap between you and those people?

A swing and a miss. It's pretty hard to go to a job in this country with no car, and pretty ridiculous to compare a necessity like transportation to a few points of taxation on wealth that has a very low marginal utility.

sickdsm

02-16-2011, 12:14 AM

Is it possible the left is trying to say we need to legislate morality?

Obligated to pay more taxes to give back to the society that helped him earn it?

vy65

02-16-2011, 12:26 AM

A swing and a miss. It's pretty hard to go to a job in this country with no car, and pretty ridiculous to compare a necessity like transportation to a few points of taxation on wealth that has a very low marginal utility.

Doesn't have to be your car. Could be a computer, a tv, etc ... Now stop evading the question and answer it.

baseline bum

02-16-2011, 12:38 AM

Doesn't have to be your car. Could be a computer, a tv, etc ... Now stop evading the question and answer it.

Probably not to Iraq and Angola, as their well-being doesn't affect my nation much. For East Texas? Yeah, I wouldn't mind paying extra taxes to bring it into the 21st century. You seem to want to pin me down as some kind of Communist wanting an equal standard of living for all, irrespective of other factors, which I am not arguing for. I do find the thought of letting all the riches rise up to the top to dump on the rest of society extremely shortsighted and highly detrimental to the health and future of this nation. I know you don't see it that way, since in this thread you have sympathized with the rich buying off politicians and such.

The_Worlds_finest

02-16-2011, 06:32 AM

This just in...

Some people unfairly brilliant.

http://www.iqtestnow.com/img/iqchildren-graph.gif

on that note....I wish I was little bit taller,I wish I was a baller.

Capt Bringdown

02-16-2011, 09:19 AM

This one's making the rounds, a must-see. Former neoliberal free-market cheerleader Jeffry Sachs speaking candidly about Obama's budget cuts:

"Do we really have to have our own Egypt here in the United States?”

“What is happening in this country? We give up massive amounts at the top in tax cuts and then we turn around and squeeze the poorest of the poor.”

“Our politics is so odd right now because it is driven just by the top.”

"History has shown what nonsense it (The Laffer cure) is."

"Both parties are center-right."

"Our country has become two completely different countries."

bCPz2SzROFQ

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 11:28 AM

And I don't see how I'm ignoring any supposed gray area because there is no such area. Everyone here is quick to say that, for example, Bill Gates devoting his wealth to charity is good for everyone involved. But why is that?

I don't think I have to explain to you why giving money to poor people is a good thing, really.

And more importantly, who decides whom amongst the wealthy should "give back." And how much should they give back to society? Does it have to be money? And how wealthy do you have to be to have this obligation triggered?

The people do, by voting representatives in through law that write taxation bills.

They also determine the how much, the why, etc etc.

Would you feel comfortable giving up your car and sending the money saved on car payments, gas, etc ... to the less fortunate in Iraq, Angola, or even rural Texas? Surely you can't claim that there isn't a massive economic gap between you and those people?

This analogy would've worked much better if you just stuck with the rural Texas thing. The problem is that, to most people, a "car" is an essential need.

Look at it this way. There's an essential amount of money people need to get by, right? Everything OVER that line is "extraneous" in a sense.

In some areas, a car is a necessity to get to work. A cell phone might be a necessity for work. Clothes, food and shelter are obvious, etc etc.

The rich pay more in taxes simply because they can afford to. Let's assume that there's a flat tax of 10%. Who do you think will feel the crunch more? The person making 100,000 a year who now only takes home 90,000? Or the person taking home 30,000 a year who now only takes home 27,000?

vy65

02-16-2011, 11:29 AM

Probably not to Iraq and Angola, as their well-being doesn't affect my nation much. For East Texas? Yeah, I wouldn't mind paying extra taxes to bring it into the 21st century. You seem to want to pin me down as some kind of Communist wanting an equal standard of living for all, irrespective of other factors, which I am not arguing for. I do find the thought of letting all the riches rise up to the top to dump on the rest of society extremely shortsighted and highly detrimental to the health and future of this nation. I know you don't see it that way, since in this thread you have sympathized with the rich buying off politicians and such.

You do realize that the reason why gas prices are so low (compared to what they could be) is because oil companies basically run Angola. Iraq is pretty self evident on that account to. To think that those places don't affect your well being is shortsighted and ignorant.

The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it penalizes people who work their ass off to obtain a level of wealth, only to have that returned to others who didn't work to obtain said wealth. Why is that fair?

I've only "sympathized" with the powerful doing whatever it takes to protect thier power. That's the way the world works. You sound like someone who realizes that s/he is unable to attain power or wealth, and so leaches off of others who have under the guise of helping the "future of this nation."

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 11:31 AM

The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it penalizes people who work their ass off to obtain a level of wealth, only to have that returned to others who didn't work to obtain said wealth. Why is that fair?

It isn't. But if the rich people don't want the poor to attack them, they probably will give in.

I've only "sympathized" with the powerful doing whatever it takes to protect thier power. That's the way the world works. You sound like someone who realizes that s/he is unable to attain power or wealth, and so leaches off of others who have under the guise of helping the "future of this nation."

Why is it "fair" that rich people have so much sway in politics?

And pssst your bias is showing.

vy65

02-16-2011, 11:36 AM

The people do, by voting representatives in through law that write taxation bills.

They also determine the how much, the why, etc etc.

I understood CF to be speaking in "moral," not legal terms. If I'm right, I don't see the relevance of this.

This analogy would've worked much better if you just stuck with the rural Texas thing. The problem is that, to most people, a "car" is an essential need.

Look at it this way. There's an essential amount of money people need to get by, right? Everything OVER that line is "extraneous" in a sense.

In some areas, a car is a necessity to get to work. A cell phone might be a necessity for work. Clothes, food and shelter are obvious, etc etc.

The rich pay more in taxes simply because they can afford to. Let's assume that there's a flat tax of 10%. Who do you think will feel the crunch more? The person making 100,000 a year who now only takes home 90,000? Or the person taking home 30,000 a year who now only takes home 27,000?

This might be a Dallas thing, but there are easily parts of town here where you could get by without a car. Or, you could move closer to work. But regardless of the car, what about giving up cable, a computer, etc... The point of the analogy doesn't revolve around the car.

The last point you raise begs the question though. If you and I are at a burger king, and I can only afford 1 whopper but you can afford 2, why is it fair to charge you more for your meal (assuming we order the same thing) solely based on your ability to pay more? Clearly, it's beneficial for BK, but how is it fair to you considering you've gotten the same thing I have, but I pay less according to my means?

On a side note, if you were to substitute race or gender for economic wealth, people would be having a coniption fit - why is it ok to discriminate based on affluence?

vy65

02-16-2011, 11:37 AM

It isn't. But if the rich people don't want the poor to attack them, they probably will give in.

I'm far more skeptical that the revolution is coming.

Why is it "fair" that rich people have so much sway in politics?

And pssst your bias is showing.

Why isn't it fair? They have more power - they're exercising it.

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 11:53 AM

I understood CF to be speaking in "moral," not legal terms. If I'm right, I don't see the relevance of this.

Then you need to define where you stand when you make the argument. By vacillating between the different stances (moral, legal, realpolitik) you confuse the issue.

This might be a Dallas thing, but there are easily parts of town here where you could get by without a car. Or, you could move closer to work. But regardless of the car, what about giving up cable, a computer, etc... The point of the analogy doesn't revolve around the car.

I doubt there'd be much of an issue if you said people had to give up some sort of non-essential item, such as video games, junk food, etc.

The last point you raise begs the question though. If you and I are at a burger king, and I can only afford 1 whopper but you can afford 2, why is it fair to charge you more for your meal (assuming we order the same thing) solely based on your ability to pay more? Clearly, it's beneficial for BK, but how is it fair to you considering you've gotten the same thing I have, but I pay less according to my means?

Because BK is not a nation. Slight difference in scale there.

On a side note, if you were to substitute race or gender for economic wealth, people would be having a coniption fit - why is it ok to discriminate based on affluence?

That's a dumb argument, frankly. People do have some control over their wealth.

People discriminate on everything. Looks, personalities, etc etc.

Let me give you a scenario VY.

Two different homeowners have their houses broken into. One of them used security, locks, etc etc. The other left their door wide open. Which do you think society will have more sympathy for?

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 11:54 AM

I'm far more skeptical that the revolution is coming.

It isn't right now. The poor are still able to afford creature comforts and whatnot. But what do you think would happen if they couldn't?

Why isn't it fair? They have more power - they're exercising it.

And the masses have legislative power, don't they? Why isn't it fair for them to use that power?

boutons_deux

02-16-2011, 12:09 PM

"the masses have legislative power, don't they"

You haven't been paying attention. The UCA and its Congressional self-enriching whores have completely removed the electorate's ability vote for its own benefit and interests.

George had it pegged years ago, and it so much more true now, and it getting worse, unstoppably worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

The beautiful example is the tea baggers, suckered by social issues and phony patriotic bullshit, see their candidates coopted/corrupted by DS, and pushing legislation and rule making and regulatory defunding that benefits their financiers, the Kock Bros and the financial sector.

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 12:13 PM

"the masses have legislative power, don't they"

You haven't been paying attention. The UCA and its Congressional self-enriching whores have completely removed the electorate's ability vote for its own benefit and interests.

Boutons, don't derail the thread! We're talking about theory here, not actual results. :lol

vy65

02-16-2011, 12:24 PM

Then you need to define where you stand when you make the argument. By vacillating between the different stances (moral, legal, realpolitik) you confuse the issue.

I've been pretty unequivocal in saying the only obligation is the legal obligation to pay taxes.

I doubt there'd be much of an issue if you said people had to give up some sort of non-essential item, such as video games, junk food, etc.

This whole tangent obfuscated the issue. The point is 1) US citizens, even the poor, enjoy an obscene level of wealth compared to those in the third world 2) people who take your position should be comfortable giving up a large amount to those in said third world countries as a redistributive measure.

Because BK is not a nation. Slight difference in scale there.

That's a dumb argument, frankly. People do have some control over their wealth.

People discriminate on everything. Looks, personalities, etc etc.

Let me give you a scenario VY.

Two different homeowners have their houses broken into. One of them used security, locks, etc etc. The other left their door wide open. Which do you think society will have more sympathy for?

If so, then everyone would be a millionaire, so the answer is no. It takes many things (skill, knowledge, luck, circumstance, etc etc).

You're earlier quote suggests that earning power is the result of immutable characteristics (skill, knowledge, luck, circumstance, etc.) that one has no control over. But this whole issue is a tangent anyway.

I don't see the relevance of your analogy.

My point is this: taxes are the costs one pays for governmental services. The poor use those services to a greater degree than the rich. Why then is it ok to charge the rich more for services which they don't use as much as the poor, who are charged a lesser amount?

vy65

02-16-2011, 12:24 PM

Boutons, don't derail the thread! We're talking about theory here, not actual results. :lol

He's actually on to something - but I ain't touching that.

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 12:32 PM

This whole tangent obfuscated the issue. The point is 1) US citizens, even the poor, enjoy an obscene level of wealth compared to those in the third world 2) people who take your position should be comfortable giving up a large amount to those in said third world countries as a redistributive measure.

What's my position?

What's a "large" amount?

You're earlier quote suggests that earning power is the result of immutable characteristics (skill, knowledge, luck, circumstance, etc.) that one has no control over.

Knowledge is an immutable characteristic now? :lol

I don't see the relevance of your analogy.

Society has no great sympathy for those making more than the average, so they get shafted when it comes to taxes.

My point is this: taxes are the costs one pays for governmental services. The poor use those services to a greater degree than the rich. Why then is it ok to charge the rich more for services which they don't use as much as the poor, who are charged a lesser amount?

Speaking from a moral standpoint? One could argue that because they can afford to pay more to help, they should. But really, then you're getting into different models of morality. Do you really want to get into that?

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 12:33 PM

He's actually on to something - but I ain't touching that.

Probably because it goes completely contra to your argument.

vy65

02-16-2011, 12:41 PM

What's my position?

What's a "large" amount?

That redistribution of wealth is a good thing. A large amount would be enough to accomodate the needs of the less fortunate. I don't have an exact number

Knowledge is an immutable characteristic now? :lol

Intelligence is. Anyone can memorize facts - so yes knowledge is not immutable. Why is that significant when the ability to use that knowledge is immutable What about the other factors?

Society has no great sympathy for those making more than the average, so they get shafted when it comes to taxes.

Speaking from a moral standpoint? One could argue that because they can afford to pay more to help, they should. But really, then you're getting into different models of morality. Do you really want to get into that?

I think I've figured this out. I'm looking at this from the lens of services provided by the government. I'd say that, after the New Deal, that's largely what government is about these days - providing a series of services for its citizens. Given that, it's not "fair" for those who use less of those services to pay more.

Now your point is that something other than mere use of these services obligates the rich to pay more - and that "thing" is the rich's ability to pay more.

I don't know where that obligation comes from though. It's certainly not a legal obligation. You could say that its "moral" becaue the more fortunate are simply obligated to help the less fortunate. But that's up for debate.

Basically, for your argument to make sense, you have to prove that some ethical or moral obligation should force wealth redistribution. For me, I don't see the existence of said obligation (other than tax laws).

vy65

02-16-2011, 12:42 PM

Probably because it goes completely contra to your argument.

How?

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 12:49 PM

That redistribution of wealth is a good thing. A large amount would be enough to accomodate the needs of the less fortunate. I don't have an exact number

Some redistribution of wealth is necessary for a large functioning society. Feel free to provide evidence of a flat tax in a modern society.

What, you're backing down from the "large" amount now? How about you give a rough percentage?

Intelligence is. Anyone can memorize facts - so yes knowledge is not immutable. Why is that significant when the ability to use that knowledge is immutable What about the other factors?

Intelligence is not knowledge. Knowledge is learning facts/figures/etc. Intelligence determines how much knowledge you can retain/learn/etc.

Do you deny that the other factors play a role in the success of an individual?

I think I've figured this out. I'm looking at this from the lens of services provided by the government. I'd say that, after the New Deal, that's largely what government is about these days - providing a series of services for its citizens. Given that, it's not "fair" for those who use less of those services to pay more.

Yes, if you're only going to look at it from that one perspective, you'd be right.

Now your point is that something other than mere use of these services obligates the rich to pay more - and that "thing" is the rich's ability to pay more.

Yes.

I don't know where that obligation comes from though. It's certainly not a legal obligation. You could say that its "moral" becaue the more fortunate are simply obligated to help the less fortunate. But that's up for debate.

You could argue that unequal levels of taxation help keep a society running (as I do), or you could choose to argue from a moral standpoint (ie. utilitarianism.) But yes, different moralities are certainly up for debate.

Basically, for your argument to make sense, you have to prove that some ethical or moral obligation should force wealth redistribution. For me, I don't see the existence of said obligation (other than tax laws).

Honestly, I haven't been arguing from a moral standpoint, but from a "real-world" standpoint.

A good way to point out the difference in "real world" vs "moral" arguments would be looking up the term "moral luck" and how society deals with it.

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 12:52 PM

How?

Boutons was arguing how the common citizen has almost no sway when it comes to politics. The "rich" person has much more influence, to an "unfair" degree one might say.

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 12:53 PM

Note: There are some countries with a flat tax out there, but most have adopted them within the last ten years. There's not many long-standing countries with flat taxes that I know of.

vy65

02-16-2011, 12:56 PM

Some redistribution of wealth is necessary for a large functioning society. Feel free to provide evidence of a flat tax in a modern society.

What, you're backing down from the "large" amount now? How about you give a rough percentage?

I was just answering a question of yours. I don't see the relevance of a flat tax here. And I told you that I don't have numbers. But your sidestepping the issue - how often do you redistribute your wealth to the poor?

Intelligence is not knowledge. Knowledge is learning facts/figures/etc. Intelligence determines how much knowledge you can retain/learn/etc.

Do you deny that the other factors play a role in the success of an individual?

That's my (and ironically your) point. Intelligence, along with several other factors you identified, determine how much one can make. Those are immutable - or at least you haven't told me how all of them are not. The factors that determine the amount of wealth you ultimately earn are about as unchangeable as one's race. So why is one discrimination ok, but the other not?

You could argue that unequal levels of taxation help keep a society running (as I do), or you could choose to argue from a moral standpoint (ie. utilitarianism.) But yes, different moralities are certainly up for debate.

Honestly, I haven't been arguing from a moral standpoint, but from a "real-world" standpoint.

A good way to point out the difference in "real world" vs "moral" arguments would be looking up the term "moral luck" and how society deals with it.

I get it. Redistributing wealth prevents social revolt. But, that also leaves open the possibility that the rich might seek other ways, besides giving money back to the poor, to maintain the status quo.

vy65

02-16-2011, 12:57 PM

Boutons was arguing how the common citizen has almost no sway when it comes to politics. The "rich" person has much more influence, to an "unfair" degree one might say.

Not really counter to my argument. I never said it was bad for the powerful to try to maintain their power. That's the way the world is.

baseline bum

02-16-2011, 01:02 PM

You sound like someone who realizes that s/he is unable to attain power or wealth, and so leaches off of others who have under the guise of helping the "future of this nation."

You really are pathetic with your standard wingnut characterizations. You sound like someone who has never worked a day in his life.

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 01:03 PM

I was just answering a question of yours. I don't see the relevance of a flat tax here. And I told you that I don't have numbers. But your sidestepping the issue - how often do you redistribute your wealth to the poor?

I donate to charity annually. At what percentage of my income, I don't know offhand.

That's my (and ironically your) point. Intelligence, along with several other factors you identified, determine how much one can make. Those are immutable - or at least you haven't told me how all of them are not. The factors that determine the amount of wealth you ultimately earn are about as unchangeable as one's race. So why is one discrimination ok, but the other not?

Knowledge is not immutable though. (Nearly) everyone can learn more about something or another.

There's all sorts of other factors that play in, including will, desire, etc etc.

Unless you want to play the whole "everything is determined by nature/nurture/genetics therefore there is no free will" card, there IS some amount of control that goes into getting rich. There's also some amount of luck.

I get it. Redistributing wealth prevents social revolt. But, that also leaves open the possibility that the rich might seek other ways, besides giving money back to the poor, to maintain the status quo.

Yes, and that is a valid argument that many conservatives use. (ie. rich people should not be taxed to redistribute, as studies say that when they keep more money they donate more as well/do other stuff, etc etc).

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 01:03 PM

Not really counter to my argument. I never said it was bad for the powerful to try to maintain their power. That's the way the world is.

So why is it bad for the common citizenry to try and take away the rich person's power? :)

ElNono

02-16-2011, 01:15 PM

Don't forget the extra 'tax' rich people have to pay in order to flex their power muscle in the form of lobbying... :cry :cry :cry

God forbid they would only have the same influence as your average citizens...

Sec24Row7

02-16-2011, 01:24 PM

:lmao

Honestly, do you do standup?

Did I say something funny to you? What exactly do you find incorrect about that statement?

vy65

02-16-2011, 02:12 PM

You really are pathetic with your standard wingnut characterizations. You sound like someone who has never worked a day in his life.

lol ok buddy

vy65

02-16-2011, 02:13 PM

So why is it bad for the common citizenry to try and take away the rich person's power? :)

I don't think it's good or bad. It is what it is.

RandomGuy

02-16-2011, 02:22 PM

(edit)

Hotlinking to graph not allowed. never mind. :depressed

RandomGuy

02-16-2011, 02:27 PM

I'm not going to disagree that there is a huge concentration of wealth. However, I will disagree that those wealthy people could ever pay off the national debt. Every single American, rich and poor, could put every dollar we have in a bucket and we still would not have enough. [emphasis mine-RG]

nevertheless, I'm not so worried about what others have, as I am more worried about what I have and the opportunities to grow what I have.

In addition, wealth is unequally distributed with the wealthiest 25% of US households owning 87% ($54.2 trillion, in 2009)[2] of the wealth in the United States.[3][4]

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 16 Feb 2011 at 07:26:21 PM GMT is:
($14.1Tr)
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Care to try that again? :D

(end copy paste, begin edit to add in links from wikipedia entry to see what the claims were based on)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

1.^ a b c d e f "US Federal Reserve on wealth distribution in the United States". http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf. Retrieved 2006-07-12.
2.^ a b "Americans' net worth up for 3rd straight quarter". U.S. Federal Reserve. 2010-03-11. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_net_worth. Retrieved 2010-03-11. [dead link]
3.^ a b c d e f Growing Wealth, Inequality, and Housing in the United States. Zhu Xiao Di. Feb. 2007. Joint Center for Housing Studies.
4.^ Wealth Inequality: Data and Models. Marc Cagetti and Mariacristina De Nardi. Aug. 2005. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

RandomGuy

02-16-2011, 02:43 PM

What does that 10% owe the remaining 90%

As I have said before, if one benefits more from any given system, one incurs an ethical obligation, IMO.

baseline bum

02-16-2011, 02:51 PM

As I have said before, if one benefits more from any given system, one incurs an ethical obligation, IMO.

Shut up leech!

DarrinS

02-16-2011, 03:00 PM

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's (goods)

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 03:39 PM

I don't think it's good or bad. It is what it is.

Do you think it's "fair"? :lol

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 03:39 PM

Did I say something funny to you? What exactly do you find incorrect about that statement?

You said that rich can't defend themselves if the gov't tries to take more of their money, which is laughable. With money comes power, and the rich have more than enough power to influence tax legislation in this country.

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 03:41 PM

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's (goods)

A classic throwaway from DarrinS.

Tell me DarrinS, how is taxation different from forced tithing?

Trainwreck2100

02-16-2011, 03:44 PM

DarkReign

02-16-2011, 03:46 PM

That's the way the world works. You sound like someone who realizes that s/he is unable to attain power or wealth, and so leaches off of others who have under the guise of helping the "future of this nation."

I honestly believe there is no "right" answer to the wealth gap between the few and the very many, but you dont know shit-all about Baseline and its statements like these that prove you came into this argument with preconceived ideas about those who feel strongly opposed to your views on it.

BB is probably the smartest motherfucker on this board and I guarantee his income is greater than most to prove it.

baseline bum

02-16-2011, 04:06 PM

I honestly believe there is no "right" answer to the wealth gap between the few and the very many, but you dont know shit-all about Baseline and its statements like these that prove you came into this argument with preconceived ideas about those who feel strongly opposed to your views on it.

BB is probably the smartest motherfucker on this board and I guarantee his income is greater than most to prove it.

LOL, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I know FWD and Slomo are way smarter than I am, as are plenty of others on this board. Something about the anonymity of the web just turns everything into flame wars, and I'm certainly guilty of that many times.

Winehole23

02-16-2011, 04:34 PM

Do you think it's "fair"? vy65's phrase "it is what it is" ostensibly parries the somewhat more philosophical question of equitability.

OTOH, one can acknowledge the legitimacy of the status quo without submitting to the inequities so meekly and quietly. Bitching is allowed, even appropriate.

Sec24Row7

02-16-2011, 04:44 PM

You said that rich can't defend themselves if the gov't tries to take more of their money, which is laughable. With money comes power, and the rich have more than enough power to influence tax legislation in this country.

No I said they can't defend themselves if the government INSISTS on taking more of their money. They can certainly work on the government not insisting.

vy65

02-16-2011, 04:48 PM

vy65's phrase "it is what it is" ostensibly parries the somewhat more philosophical question of equitability.

OTOH, one can acknowledge the legitimacy of the status quo without submitting to the inequities so meekly and quietly. Bitching is allowed, even appropriate.

True. My point was that said inequality was natural or inevitable. Inequality, hierarchy, power, etc... are givens. To some, that means fight to alter those dynamics because thier not "fair."

To me, I don't see the point in making that moral claim. It is what it is.

vy65

02-16-2011, 04:49 PM

Winehole23

02-16-2011, 04:52 PM

To me, I don't see the point in making that moral claim. It is what it is.Point of clarification. Which claim?

Winehole23

02-16-2011, 04:55 PM

lol ok buddy. Just don't choke on his cock too much.Dirty minded? Take a number. :lol

vy65

02-16-2011, 04:57 PM

Point of clarification. Which claim?

OTOH, one can acknowledge the legitimacy of the status quo without submitting to the inequities so meekly and quietly. Bitching is allowed, even appropriate.

Really, this is just a poor man's version of Nietzsche's critique of christianity.

z0sa

02-16-2011, 04:57 PM

Rise, proletariat, rise!

"Political Economy regards the proletarian ... like a horse, he must receive enough to enable him to work. It does not consider him, during the time when he is not working, as a human being. It leaves this to criminal law, doctors, religion, statistical tables, politics, and the beadle."

- Karl Marx

Winehole23

02-16-2011, 05:00 PM

Really, this is just a poor man's version of Nietzsche's critique of christianity.Ooh, cutting. If this were a college lit mag, my feelings might be hurt. :lol

vy65

02-16-2011, 05:02 PM

Ooh, cutting. If this were a college lit mag, my feelings might be hurt. :lol

Meh, aside from the 'digger, there really hasn't been anything new to philosophy in the past 110 years or so ...

DarkReign

02-16-2011, 05:08 PM

lol ok buddy. Just don't choke on his cock too much.

:lmao Gay jokes. Youre good at this.

vy65

02-16-2011, 05:10 PM

:lmao Gay jokes. Youre good at this.

If you got something to contribute, do so. If you're gonna accuse me of shit that isn't true, then you're a fagget.

z0sa

02-16-2011, 05:11 PM

Fucking faggets at the top with all their goddamned money.

Winehole23

02-16-2011, 05:14 PM

Meh, aside from the 'digger, there really hasn't been anything new to philosophy in the past 110 years or so ...I mainly like old stuff, so I probably wouldn't have noticed anyway.

Winehole23

02-16-2011, 05:15 PM

Not that I read all that much philosophy anymore. I don't.

Winehole23

02-16-2011, 05:18 PM

the digger?

(Heidegger?)

Winehole23

02-16-2011, 05:30 PM

(Disclosure, currently reading Porphyry's bio (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plotenn/enn001.htm) of Plotinus.)

Wild Cobra

02-16-2011, 05:33 PM

Wouldn't you guys rather talk about Obama's 57 states (http://www.oic-oci.org/member_states.asp)?

EpGH02DtIws

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 06:15 PM

No I said they can't defend themselves if the government INSISTS on taking more of their money. They can certainly work on the government not insisting.

Ok, I was on a different wavelength. If the gov't (and by gov't, we really mean the populace of the United States, right?) insist on taking their money, their only option is to move, lose enough money to fall under the tax bracket, or break the law. :lol

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 06:19 PM

Meh, aside from the 'digger, there really hasn't been anything new to philosophy in the past 110 years or so ...

I'd say you're WAAAAYYY off with that statement. Due to newer technologies (MRI for instance) newer science (genetics) and newer physics (quantum), different views on philosophy have arisen. Some of the most interesting philosophy I've read has been from Daniel Dennett. (Even though he derides a lot of hypothetical questions, my favorites, as "intuition pumps".)

Heck, quantum physics alone challenges our expectations about what the world really "is", and you think nothing big has occurred in philosophy in the past 100 years? :lol

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 06:20 PM

Chalmers is another good read in that area.

Stringer_Bell

02-16-2011, 06:25 PM

Wouldn't you guys rather talk about Obama's 57 states (http://www.oic-oci.org/member_states.asp)?

EpGH02DtIws

Clearly he was joking about the amount of states he's visited. Have you no sense of humor? :nope

Let me find the clip where GW admits to finding WMD in Iraq even though there were none...

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 06:32 PM

True. My point was that said inequality was natural or inevitable. Inequality, hierarchy, power, etc... are givens. To some, that means fight to alter those dynamics because thier not "fair."

To me, I don't see the point in making that moral claim. It is what it is.

Some people use the "fair" claim as a weapon in their fight to alter the dynamics. Don't forget to take that into account.

And again, some morality systems make that moral claim, some don't. It's hard to argue unless you stake out that territory. What might be moral to some may not be moral to others, depending on the framework.

coyotes_geek

02-16-2011, 06:35 PM

Chalmers is another good read in that area.

The pot smoking point guard for the Miami Heat? :p:

LnGrrrR

02-16-2011, 06:39 PM

The pot smoking point guard for the Miami Heat? :p:

While he might be a good read himself (I haven't checked his Twitter account), I was referring to David Chalmers :D :lol

ElNono

02-16-2011, 07:34 PM

its not a tax its an investment, that guarantees a return

touché

DarkReign

02-17-2011, 09:46 AM

If you got something to contribute, do so. If you're gonna accuse me of shit that isn't true, then you're a fagget.

Faggot, for future reference. If youre going to slur someone, make sure you spell it right or it loses its meaning.

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 12:47 PM

To me, I don't see the point in making that moral claim. It is what it is.Bah. How the goodies get carved up is the essential, burning political question. Where the line should be drawn is philosophical/moral to be sure, but where it does get drawn in fact is essentially political.

Attempting to turn it into a settled philosophical debate by merely waving at the settled results of a (more or less) corrupt system inspires neither confidence nor further debate, and is in itself the wily rhetorical fort of a glib political jade.

Bravo!

RandomGuy

02-17-2011, 01:10 PM

I've been pretty unequivocal in saying the only obligation is the legal obligation to pay taxes.

This whole tangent obfuscated the issue. The point is 1) US citizens, even the poor, enjoy an obscene level of wealth compared to those in the third world 2) people who take your position should be comfortable giving up a large amount to those in said third world countries as a redistributive measure.

You're earlier quote suggests that earning power is the result of immutable characteristics (skill, knowledge, luck, circumstance, etc.) that one has no control over. But this whole issue is a tangent anyway.

I don't see the relevance of your analogy.

My point is this: taxes are the costs one pays for governmental services. The poor use those services to a greater degree than the rich. Why then is it ok to charge the rich more for services which they don't use as much as the poor, who are charged a lesser amount?

I think the whole social Darwinism philosophy of "fuck the poor" misses the fact that we are all, to a great extent, dependent on each other for a host of things. No one lives/works in a vaccuum.

It also misses a wider question as to what is ethical and moral.

Not everybody is going to get lucky and start Microsoft/Google/whatever.

We have to ask ourselves what quality of life is a minimum we can feel morally comfortable with allowing fellow human beings to live under.

I also think the "obscene amount of wealth versus poor in the third world" is utter bullshit, made up by someone trying to make themselves feel better about being sociopathic. "People who can't pay their heating bills in the winter in the US are still obscenely wealthy comparatively, so their plight is something I can safely ignore, because I have rationalized my indifference".

RandomGuy

02-17-2011, 01:14 PM

Clearly he was joking about the amount of states he's visited. Have you no sense of humor? :nope

Let me find the clip where GW admits to finding WMD in Iraq even though there were none...

I think it was a flub by a very tired man who meant to say "47" states, as in the 47 of 48 lower states.

But that doesn't stop people with an ideological ax to grind and an urge to "win at all costs", fairness be damned from bringing it up repeatedly.

LnGrrrR

02-17-2011, 01:25 PM

The best thing was when he tried to defend the rich attacking the poor, but then complain how unfair it was that the rich get attacked by the poor in return. :)

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 01:28 PM

That stood out to me, too.

LnGrrrR

02-17-2011, 01:44 PM

Although I will say, stating that nothing new has occurred in philosophy in the last 110 years (why so specific) was pretty amazingly boneheaded too.

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 01:49 PM

vy65 never explained that. Perhaps he thought his philosophical acumen would be wasted here.

RandomGuy

02-17-2011, 01:53 PM

The best thing was when he tried to defend the rich attacking the poor, but then complain how unfair it was that the rich get attacked by the poor in return. :)

It has been my experience that people who tend to defend the rich the most in forums tend to be "aspirants" with little hope of ever actually becoming rich.

"useful idiots" to those super-wealthy in my opinion.

LnGrrrR

02-17-2011, 01:54 PM

vy65 never explained that. Perhaps he thought his philosophical acumen would be wasted here.

Perhaps there was none to be shared.

At the least, it seems my reading recommendations will go unheeded.

LnGrrrR

02-17-2011, 01:55 PM

It has been my experience that people who tend to defend the rich the most in forums tend to be "aspirants" with little hope of ever actually becoming rich.

"useful idiots" to those super-wealthy in my opinion.

Those poor richies! How dare the peasants ask for redistribution!

Now, if I pay someone to write a tax loophole in for my business, that's totally fine of course. I'm creating jobs! I'm what runs America!

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 02:04 PM

Perhaps there was none to be shared. Seems to be a pattern. After brief conversation and fellowship, like a great, disdainful bird, vy65 takes a dump on our heads and flies off.

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 02:06 PM

At least he left us something to remember him by.

(snif)

RandomGuy

02-17-2011, 02:12 PM

At least he left us something to remember him by.

(snif)

Venality, the gift that keeps on giving?

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 02:18 PM

???

baseline bum

02-17-2011, 02:50 PM

I think the whole social Darwinism philosophy of "fuck the poor" misses the fact that we are all, to a great extent, dependent on each other for a host of things. No one lives/works in a vaccuum.

It also misses a wider question as to what is ethical and moral.

Not everybody is going to get lucky and start Microsoft/Google/whatever.

We have to ask ourselves what quality of life is a minimum we can feel morally comfortable with allowing fellow human beings to live under.

I also think the "obscene amount of wealth versus poor in the third world" is utter bullshit, made up by someone trying to make themselves feel better about being sociopathic. "People who can't pay their heating bills in the winter in the US are still obscenely wealthy comparatively, so their plight is something I can safely ignore, because I have rationalized my indifference".

Most of your post is spot-on, but I don't like seeing Google's success characterized as luck. They really are a talented company doing exciting things. Now Microsoft? Pure luck and little to nothing innovative.

boutons_deux

02-17-2011, 03:01 PM

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 03:09 PM

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2005/01/23/carson/story.jpg

I did not know that.

baseline bum

02-17-2011, 03:12 PM

"Pure luck"

bullshit.

It was commercial extortion.

Gates (a lawyer's son) offered two contracts for MS-DOS to PC compatible mfrs. A blanket license if you put MS-DOS on every PC shipped, or a much higher per-machine MS-DOS license.

PC compatible mfrs were already shipping millions of machines, and shaving every penny. Taking a hit of $10s/machine for a per-machine license was totally unaccptable, so they put MS-DOS on every machine, precluding any other OS, in effect.

aka the D0S tax, then the DOS/Windows tax.

The rest is history, thanks to the "network effect"

Pure luck is a very fair characterization of Microsoft's success. It was pure luck that Xerox was too stupid to see they could have had the world by the balls with the Alto, but they, like pretty much everyone else in business outside of Apple, wrote off Alan Kay and his group as whackos for their studies that based operating systems off research into child psychology. It was pure luck that Xerox just handed their technology over to Apple. It was pure luck that IBM was so stupid as to hand off their future to an unremarkable company whose claim to fame was creating a lousy language that couldn't even handle recursion, and thus was about 20 years after its time. Moore's Law was incredible stroke of fortune for Microsoft. It allowed them to piggyback on real innovators in hardware, and build their operating system like the pyramids: layers of crap on top of crap, done by brute force. Without Moore's Law, no bloatware Windows dominating the market.

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 03:16 PM

Wow. Neat story.

(scribble, scribble)

TeyshaBlue

02-17-2011, 03:20 PM

Wow. Neat story.

(scribble, scribble)

http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Valley-Making-Personal-Computer/dp/0071358927

This is the book "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" was based on. It's a great read ...... kinda the PC equivalent of Lansing Lamont's "Day of Trinity".

LnGrrrR

02-17-2011, 03:23 PM

Microsoft was pretty well-known for doing things to bolster their presence in the computing world... which is what led to the landmark antitrust case in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Internet_Explorer) (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Microsoft_Windows) operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Browser_wars) as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly[citation needed (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Netscape_Navigator) or Opera (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Opera_(web_browser))) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store.

baseline bum

02-17-2011, 03:25 PM

http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Valley-Making-Personal-Computer/dp/0071358927

This is the book "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" was based on. It's a great read ...... kinda the PC equivalent of Lansing Lamont's "Day of Trinity".

If you're interested by that story, you should see this presentation Alan Kay did about his group's work at Xerox PARC; it's really fascinating stuff. Watch the two lectures on user interfaces.

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2008-D-26263&semesterid=2008-D

The rest of the course is pretty mind-blowing stuff too.

vy65

02-17-2011, 03:26 PM

vy65

02-17-2011, 03:28 PM

Faggot, for future reference. If youre going to slur someone, make sure you spell it right or it loses its meaning.

What a fagget ...

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 03:31 PM

(Much obliged for the linx.)

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 03:43 PM

My point was just that if you look at the most prominent modern philosophers (Foucault, Derrida, Zizek, Butler, etc...), they really haven't done much other than to apply either Nietzsche or Marx to the 20th/21st century.You forgot Freud. Otherwise, that's a comment worthy of the back of the book.

I guess Heidegger was more innovative, but there might be an argument he's just an updated Schopenhauer. He was also a Nazi.How original. Thanks for condescending to raise the level of small talk.

LnGrrrR

02-17-2011, 03:50 PM

My point was just that if you look at the most prominent modern philosophers (Foucault, Derrida, Zizek, Butler, etc...), they really haven't done much other than to apply either Nietzsche or Marx to the 20th/21st century.

I guess Heidegger was more innovative, but there might be an argument he's just an updated Schopenhauer. He was also a Nazi.

So, when you were talking about philosophy, were you referring to moral structures/frameworks only, and not specific areas of philosophy?

While I can't say I've read up on any philosopher that has provided a "new" way to view morality, I think the various experiments that have shown how people can be induced to seeing/hearing things due to pressure/stimulus on certain parts of the brain will have a far-reaching effect on moral arguments.

vy65

02-17-2011, 03:51 PM

You forgot Freud. Otherwise, that's a comment worthy of the back of the book.

There's a Freud quote that goes something like "I didn't read Nietzsche because I was afraid he already wrote everything I was thinking." But good point.

vy65

02-17-2011, 03:55 PM

So, when you were talking about philosophy, were you referring to moral structures/frameworks only, and not specific areas of philosophy?

While I can't say I've read up on any philosopher that has provided a "new" way to view morality, I think the various experiments that have shown how people can be induced to seeing/hearing things due to pressure/stimulus on certain parts of the brain will have a far-reaching effect on moral arguments.

I dunno what you mean by specific areas? Like continental, analytic, etc?

My point is that those authors (who tend to be the most revered by the academy) haven't really innovated anything in the way that someone like Kant or Nietzsche or Hegel innovated.

But I agree that there are strong overlaps between science and philosophy and that they will grow more and more interconnected with time.

LnGrrrR

02-17-2011, 04:02 PM

I dunno what you mean by specific areas? Like continental, analytic, etc?

My point is that those authors (who tend to be the most revered by the academy) haven't really innovated anything in the way that someone like Kant or Nietzsche or Hegel innovated.

But I agree that there are strong overlaps between science and philosophy and that they will grow more and more interconnected with time.

Well, I'm only a slightly-more-than-casual reader on philosophy, but it seems to me that Heidigger/Nietzche/Kant all were talking about the "nature of man" as it were, and established a moral framework of sorts. Would you agree/disagree?

LnGrrrR

02-17-2011, 04:05 PM

By specific areas, I meant things like the philosophy of mind (for instance, whether man is all spirit, all physical, or some mix), or questions about the fundamental nature of existence and how much can be determined.

If you're well-versed in philosophy, feel free to school me; I'm always up for learning something new.

vy65

02-17-2011, 04:09 PM

Well, I'm only a slightly-more-than-casual reader on philosophy, but it seems to me that Heidigger/Nietzche/Kant all were talking about the "nature of man" as it were, and established a moral framework of sorts. Would you agree/disagree?

It's been such a long time, I dunno how correct I am and I never really read much Kant, but ...

I don't think you could say that the 'Digger thought up a moral framework. He was a phenomenologist and was more concerned with the question of being/Being. In fact, philosophers like Levinas criticized his work as lacking any ethical or moral dimension. So while the whole "question of being" schtick might be what you mean by the nature of man, I don't really think there's a moral aspect to the 'Digger.

Nietzsche, I guess, had a set of morals, but I'd hate to use that word. I take his philosophy to be more of a question of how we concoct morals in the first place (the whole truth is a matter of perspective bit). And while there is a certain ethical or moral dimension to his work, I don't really think he set forth a normative moral framework.

LnGrrrR

02-17-2011, 04:23 PM

It's been such a long time, I dunno how correct I am and I never really read much Kant, but ...

I don't think you could say that the 'Digger thought up a moral framework. He was a phenomenologist and was more concerned with the question of being/Being. In fact, philosophers like Levinas criticized his work as lacking any ethical or moral dimension. So while the whole "question of being" schtick might be what you mean by the nature of man, I don't really think there's a moral aspect to the 'Digger.

Nietzsche, I guess, had a set of morals, but I'd hate to use that word. I take his philosophy to be more of a question of how we concoct morals in the first place (the whole truth is a matter of perspective bit). And while there is a certain ethical or moral dimension to his work, I don't really think he set forth a normative moral framework.

Good point about the separation of morals vs being/existence/nature of man. I conflated the two incorrectly.

As I said upthread, I'm not familiar with any modern-day philosophers that go into either a justification of morality or a discussing of human nature. I tend to read up more on specific areas of philosophy that interest me.

I think some of the philosophical questions that are being asked today couldn't be conceived of 100 years ago due to lack of knowledge, and I think some will become more interesting as previously unthought of techs come about. (For instance, the "Ship of Theseus" question aimed towards a theoretical "cyborg" future.)

RandomGuy

02-17-2011, 04:57 PM

http://playspent.org/

Th'Pusher

02-17-2011, 05:14 PM

LnGrrrR

02-17-2011, 08:11 PM

Ya know, Vy's seeming cognizance of various philosophers begs the question: which moral system does he adhere to?

From my limited knowledge, I would consider myself an existentialist first and foremost. (I don't know if there's a certain moral framework I would place myself in, but I doubt it would be utilitarianism. Maybe something by Rawls? *shrug*)

I find it surprising that he knows about these different philosophers, but chose rather weak arguments to debate in this thread.

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 08:17 PM

Like a tuna can: wide but shallow.

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 08:18 PM

Hurts going in, does not satisfy.

Winehole23

02-17-2011, 08:38 PM

Ya know, Vy's seeming cognizance of various philosophers begs the question: which moral system does he adhere to? The amoral postmodern relativism he affects to despise, probably.

vy65

02-18-2011, 10:36 AM

I find it surprising that he knows about these different philosophers, but chose rather weak arguments to debate in this thread.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tLAbKCeapFk/TVhJ6jORfjI/AAAAAAAAXto/VZcVk7jm-dU/s640/Come+at+me+bro%2521.jpg

LnGrrrR

02-18-2011, 11:32 AM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tLAbKCeapFk/TVhJ6jORfjI/AAAAAAAAXto/VZcVk7jm-dU/s640/Come+at+me+bro%2521.jpg

:lol

Well, apart from insisting that progressive taxation isn't "fair", wha other argument did you present? :)

Why didn't you acknowledge that it would be considered more than fair in some moral frameworks? For instance, is the work a CEO puts in 1000x of times more important than that of a fireman/policeman/etc?

If, as you said, the millionaire has little direct involvement with the creation of his own fortune, what moral justification does he have to claim ownership of it?

(note: not saying I adhere to these frameworks, but for you to not even ackowledge them is a little fishy)

You tended to handwave away even logistical arguments, like the outcome of increasing concentration of wealth leading to diminished power for the majority of citizens. Or that said higher taxation is usually benefitting the very people who work for the boss (course that's less so nowadays with outsourcing). Or that a flat tax is regressive and affects the poor moreso than the wealthy when it comes to usefulness/necessity of money due to diminishing returns.

RandomGuy

02-18-2011, 11:37 AM

:lol

Well, apart from insisting that progressive taxation isn't "fair", wha other argument did you present? :)

Why didn't you acknowledge that it would be considered more than fair in some moral frameworks? For instance, is the work a CEO puts in 1000x of times more important than that of a fireman/policeman/etc?

If, as you said, the millionaire has little direct involvement with the creation of his own fortune, what moral justification does he have to claim ownership of it?

(note: not saying I adhere to these frameworks, but for you to not even ackowledge them is a little fishy)

You tended to handwave away even logistical arguments, like the outcome of increasing concentration of wealth leading to diminished power for the majority of citizens. Or that said higher taxation is usually benefitting the very people who work for the boss (course that's less so nowadays with outsourcing). Or that a flat tax is regressive and affects the poor moreso than the wealthy when it comes to usefulness/necessity of money due to diminishing returns.

Manchester United/Manchester City Game On Saturday Will Feature The Most Expensive Teams In Sports History (http://www.businessinsider.com/machester-united-manchester-city-most-expensive-teams-2011-2)

The combined rosters of Manchester United and Manchester City cost their teams around $850 million in transfer fees and salaries, making Saturday's game the most expensive in sports history.

The soccer players on that team have an income roughly on par with the annual nominal GDP of Liberia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

RandomGuy

02-18-2011, 02:27 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1521

RandomGuy

02-18-2011, 02:33 PM

Although some of the information I've relied upon to create this section on executives' vs. workers' pay is a few years old now, the AFL/CIO provides up-to-date information on CEO salaries at their Web site. There, you can learn that the median compensation for CEO's in all industries as of early 2010 is $3.9 million; it's $10.6 million for the companies listed in Standard and Poor's 500, and $19.8 million for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average. Since the median worker's pay is about $36,000, then you can quickly calculate that CEOs in general make 100 times as much as the workers, that CEO's of S&P 500 firms make almost 300 times as much, and that CEOs at the Dow-Jones companies make 550 times as much.

If you wonder how such a large gap could develop, the proximate, or most immediate, factor involves the way in which CEOs now are able to rig things so that the board of directors, which they help select -- and which includes some fellow CEOs on whose boards they sit -- gives them the pay they want. The trick is in hiring outside experts, called "compensation consultants," who give the process a thin veneer of economic respectability.

The process has been explained in detail by a retired CEO of DuPont, Edgar S. Woolard, Jr., who is now chair of the New York Stock Exchange's executive compensation committee. His experience suggests that he knows whereof he speaks, and he speaks because he's concerned that corporate leaders are losing respect in the public mind. He says that the business page chatter about CEO salaries being set by the competition for their services in the executive labor market is "bull." As to the claim that CEOs deserve ever higher salaries because they "create wealth," he describes that rationale as a "joke," says the New York Times (Morgenson, 2005, Section 3, p. 1).

Here's how it works, according to Woolard:

The compensation committee [of the board of directors] talks to an outside consultant who has surveys you could drive a truck through and pay anything you want to pay, to be perfectly honest. The outside consultant talks to the human resources vice president, who talks to the CEO. The CEO says what he'd like to receive. It gets to the human resources person who tells the outside consultant. And it pretty well works out that the CEO gets what he's implied he thinks he deserves, so he will be respected by his peers. (Morgenson, 2005.)

The board of directors buys into what the CEO asks for because the outside consultant is an "expert" on such matters. Furthermore, handing out only modest salary increases might give the wrong impression about how highly the board values the CEO. And if someone on the board should object, there are the three or four CEOs from other companies who will make sure it happens. It is a process with a built-in escalator.

As for why the consultants go along with this scam, they know which side their bread is buttered on. They realize the CEO has a big say-so on whether or not they are hired again. So they suggest a package of salaries, stock options and other goodies that they think will please the CEO, and they, too, get rich in the process. And certainly the top executives just below the CEO don't mind hearing about the boss's raise. They know it will mean pay increases for them, too. (For an excellent detailed article on the main consulting firm that helps CEOs and other corporate executives raise their pay, check out the New York Times article entitled "America's Corporate Pay Pal", which supports everything Woolard of DuPont claims and adds new information.)

There's a much deeper power story that underlies the self-dealing and mutual back-scratching by CEOs now carried out through interlocking directorates and seemingly independent outside consultants. It probably involves several factors. At the least, on the workers' side, it reflects their loss of power following the all-out attack on unions in the 1960s and 1970s, which is explained in detail in an excellent book by James Gross (1995), a labor and industrial relations professor at Cornell. That decline in union power made possible and was increased by both outsourcing at home and the movement of production to developing countries, which were facilitated by the break-up of the New Deal coalition and the rise of the New Right (Domhoff, 1990, Chapter 10). It signals the shift of the United States from a high-wage to a low-wage economy, with professionals protected by the fact that foreign-trained doctors and lawyers aren't allowed to compete with their American counterparts in the direct way that low-wage foreign-born workers are.

(You also can read a quick version of my explanation for the "right turn" that led to changes in the wealth and income distributions in an article on this site, where it is presented in the context of criticizing the explanations put forward by other theorists.)

On the other side of the class divide, the rise in CEO pay may reflect the increasing power of chief executives as compared to major owners and stockholders in general, not just their increasing power over workers. CEOs may now be the center of gravity in the corporate community and the power elite, displacing the leaders in wealthy owning families (e.g., the second and third generations of the Walton family, the owners of Wal-Mart). True enough, the CEOs are sometimes ousted by their generally go-along boards of directors, but they are able to make hay and throw their weight around during the time they are king of the mountain.

The claims made in the previous paragraph need much further investigation. But they demonstrate the ideas and research directions that are suggested by looking at the wealth and income distributions as indicators of power.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Again, I have few qualms about taxing these higher-earners at steeper rates.

If you think that CEO and executive compensation is determined by actual supply/demand, you are kidding yourself.

vy65

02-18-2011, 02:51 PM

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Again, I have few qualms about taxing these higher-earners at steeper rates.

If you think that CEO and executive compensation is determined by actual supply/demand, you are kidding yourself.

What about a dr. who makes 160k? Should they lose 25-30% of thier salary in fed. taxes?

vy65

02-18-2011, 02:53 PM

Oh and lol CEOs selecting BOD members.

LnGrrrR

02-18-2011, 02:54 PM

What about a dr. who makes 160k? Should they lose 25-30% of thier salary in fed. taxes?

This is an example of a poor argument.

Why not discuss the underlying issues rather than using one-offs?

Or perhaps you could answer your own question? Why shouldn't a doctor pay 25-30% of his salary in federal taxes?

vy65

02-18-2011, 02:58 PM

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:00 PM

This is an example of a poor argument.

Why not discuss the underlying issues rather than using one-offs?

Or perhaps you could answer your own question? Why shouldn't a doctor pay 25-30% of his salary in federal taxes?

No, what's poor is choosing the extreme example of a CEO who makes close to 20 mil. You don't think the 160k salary is a much closer case? If so, why not?

I just raised a question - why not answer it instead of calling it shitty?

LnGrrrR

02-18-2011, 03:03 PM

No, what's poor is choosing the extreme example of a CEO who makes close to 20 mil. You don't think the 160k salary is a much closer case? If so, why not?

I just raised a question - why not answer it instead of calling it shitty?

Ok, I'll answer the question. Yes, I think it's fair.

Your move.

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:04 PM

Ok, I'll answer the question. Yes, I think it's fair.

Your move.

I don't think its fair.

LnGrrrR

02-18-2011, 03:05 PM

Do you think it's fair to tax a CEO making 20mil at a 25-30% rate?

LnGrrrR

02-18-2011, 03:06 PM

I don't think its fair.

Wonderful! Now explain why. If your argument is "Everyone should pay the same amount in taxation", then justify the reasoning. For bonus points, you can try to rebut arguments that will be generated by your statement.

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:09 PM

Do you think it's fair to tax a CEO making 20mil at a 25-30% rate?

I don't know the answer to that. My gut tells me no - just because a corporation decides to compensate its CEO in a certain way does not mean its right to tax said CEO at a particular rate. Like I've said earlier, I think tax burdens should be gauged by how many governmental services one avails his or herself of. I think the CEO should pay a rate proportional to the amount of benefit he receives from the government (like police/fire protection, etc.). I'm speaking only to local/state/federal governmental functions and not shit like "society let you make all that money . . ."

You have to admit that someone who makes roughly 160k and loses over 1/4 of that salary while trying to support a family has a much better argument against wealth redistribution that the CEO does. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that there are far more 160k-earning doctors with families than there are 20mil earning CEOs.

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:09 PM

Wonderful! Now explain why. If your argument is "Everyone should pay the same amount in taxation", then justify the reasoning. For bonus points, you can try to rebut arguments that will be generated by your statement.

see above. Now explain why its fair to treat said dr. more like the CEO than someone who makes 45k/year.

TeyshaBlue

02-18-2011, 03:12 PM

I'd also like to know what the 2011 updates were to that article? I've seen a lot of literature that says that, post-recession, shareholders are holding corporate board's feet to the fire re: executive compensation.

Also, if that article's characterization of BOD-compensation committee-CEO relations is correct, nearly any shareholder could and probably would sue - and probably would be successful.

No, because the trading houses own large blocks of shares rendering any action by individual shareholders moot. The houses don't give a shit what the CEO makes as long as the numbers meet expectations.

TeyshaBlue

02-18-2011, 03:14 PM

That's a much easier case, and my answer is maybe - it would depend on what the CEO has done for that company. Has its market cap increased? Has the CEO killed the stock price? Has the CEO just maintained the status quo? What type of business is this? What type of corporation is this? How many other CEOs could do that particular job?

These are great questions to ask. Too bad nobody's asking them when determining CEO salaries/Bonuses.

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:15 PM

No, because the trading houses own large blocks of shares rendering any action by individual shareholders moot. The houses don't give a shit what the CEO makes as long as the numbers meet expectations.

Incorrect. As long as you own a share of a corporation at the time the facts underlying your lawsuit took place, you can sue. Trading houses are irrelevant to the question of standing for a derivative suit.

TeyshaBlue

02-18-2011, 03:18 PM

Incorrect. As long as you own a share of a corporation at the time the facts underlying your lawsuit took place, you can sue. Trading houses are irrelevant to the question of standing for a derivative suit.

There is no gain for a shareholder in a derivative suit. Any compensation gained goes back to the corporation, if I understand that correctly.

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:23 PM

There is no gain for a shareholder in a derivative suit. Any compensation gained goes back to the corporation, if I understand that correctly.

What's your point? Excessive executive comp is considered corporate waste - a harm to the corporation, and secondarily to the shareholder. If the harm was to the corporation, then any recovery should go back to the corporation.

TeyshaBlue

02-18-2011, 03:25 PM

What's your point? Excessive executive comp is considered corporate waste - a harm to the corporation, and secondarily to the shareholder. If the harm was to the corporation, then any recovery should go back to the corporation.

Completely depends upon how the suit is structured. Replacing salary with stock options aint exactly a win. If the corporation viewed the comp as waste, a lawsuit would not have been needed in the first place.

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:26 PM

Srsly tho guise, will anyone defend that article's depiction of how corporations work?

TeyshaBlue

02-18-2011, 03:26 PM

End result: Nothing changes for the individual stockholder.

TeyshaBlue

02-18-2011, 03:26 PM

Srsly tho guise, will anyone defend that article's depiction of how corporations work?

Yeah. Me. I've seen it from the inside via my last gig.

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:28 PM

Completely depends upon how the suit is structured. Replacing salary with stock options aint exactly a win. If the corporation viewed the comp as waste, a lawsuit would not have been needed in the first place.

SO is way better than salary.

But I don't get your point. Are you saying that a derivative suit would not change the way executives are compensated? There might not be a direct benefit to the shareholder, but that wasn't the question.

TeyshaBlue

02-18-2011, 03:30 PM

SO is way better than salary.

But I don't get your point. Are you saying that a derivative suit would not change the way executives are compensated? There might not be a direct benefit to the shareholder, but that wasn't the question.

For the shareholder to undertake a suit, he'd need to see some benefit. Otherwise, why go to the considerable trouble to do so? The action is almost predicated upon return.

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:31 PM

Yeah. Me. I've seen it from the inside via my last gig.

Am I supposed to just trust you on that?

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:33 PM

For the shareholder to undertake a suit, he'd need to see some benefit. Otherwise, why go to the considerable trouble to do so? The action is almost predicated upon return.

?

Because it might benefit the corporation overall to not overpay an underperforming CEO.

Because institutional investors, other activists, and some regular shareholders are litigious and got their jollies from filing suit.

Because most of the time, the shareholder will get thier attorney's fees and costs as part of the judgment.

Because even the threat of a non-frivilous suit might prompt some executive-level change.

TeyshaBlue

02-18-2011, 03:35 PM

?

Because it might benefit the corporation overall to not overpay an underperforming CEO.

Because institutional investors, other activists, and some regular shareholders are litigious and got their jollies from filing suit.

Because most of the time, the shareholder will get thier attorney's fees and costs as part of the judgment.

Because even the threat of a non-frivilous suit might prompt some executive-level change.

I'll go with #1: ?

TeyshaBlue

02-18-2011, 03:36 PM

Am I supposed to just trust you on that?

I couldn't conceivably care less. You asked a question. I answered it.

vy65

02-18-2011, 03:41 PM

I couldn't conceivably care less. You asked a question. I answered it.

I'll take that as a no to my question

TeyshaBlue

02-18-2011, 03:49 PM

I'll take that as a no to my question

Here's what I can tell you because I did get spanked for a bit of "shareholder activism" during my tenure. I worked for the world's largest pharmaceutical wholesale distributor. I also administered the contracts for the Vetrans Administration. As a result, I was privy to some inside info regarding negotiation tactics with pharmaceutical companies. It was quite a shock to see an ex-CFO from a pharma company we were negotiating with on our BOD. I was equally shocked to see one of our recently retired VP's on their BOD. I looked at other relationships between our BOD and our vendor BODs. It turns out, there was about a cross-pollination between the two populations for about 1/3 for our BOD.
My curiosity piqued, I called on others in my industry who were more or less in my shoes....high enough up to see some of this, but not high up enough to benefit from it. We weren't alone, it turns out.

RandomGuy

02-18-2011, 04:06 PM

Oh and lol CEOs selecting BOD members.

Most CEO's just *happen* to be chairman of the board.

Most shareholders don't pay attention to who is actually on the BOD.

RandomGuy

02-18-2011, 04:07 PM

What about a dr. who makes 160k? Should they lose 25-30% of thier salary in fed. taxes?

Yes. Easy question.

LnGrrrR

02-18-2011, 04:07 PM

I don't know the answer to that. My gut tells me no - just because a corporation decides to compensate its CEO in a certain way does not mean its right to tax said CEO at a particular rate. Like I've said earlier, I think tax burdens should be gauged by how many governmental services one avails his or herself of.

Interesting. So how would you work taxes on, say, the military?

Also, do you think a "usage fee" format is actually possible, logistically?

What about "safety net" programs like welfare and the like? Do you agree with those?

I think the CEO should pay a rate proportional to the amount of benefit he receives from the government (like police/fire protection, etc.)."

Wouldn't that punish those who live in poorer communities? Poorer communities tend to have a higher crime rate, so now, the poor have to pay more in taxes.

You have to admit that someone who makes roughly 160k and loses over 1/4 of that salary while trying to support a family has a much better argument against wealth redistribution that the CEO does. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Sure they do. But that says nothing of your original argument that progressive taxation is fair does it? In fact, you seem to be arguing that there's more moral justification to tax the CEO than the doctor.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that there are far more 160k-earning doctors with families than there are 20mil earning CEOs.

Then what you are arguing for is a different redistribution of taxes, NOT the unfairness of progressive taxation. Which is it?