-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE]It happens every day, it's called inheritance. Almost 40% of wealth is inherited in America.[/QUOTE]
Meaning the vast majority wasnt. And even what was isnt exactly cash. Most "wealth" is in the form of land passed to children not stacks of cash. Only 15% of the wealth of the 1% is inherited. 15% of the 1% is a vast sum of money but people forever cite tycoons who built themselves from nothing somewhat recently. People who opened a store and were the richest man in america in 20 years. People who started in a garage and hit 50 billion in no time. People who made programs in college and now are in everyones pocket. Those guys are the villains most often tied to these things and I will never understand it.
[QUOTE]Where did those resources come from? Uhh, the earth?
The question you should be asking is, why do the people who own the resources own them? The answer: because the government says they do, and is willing to back it up with violence. All ownership of land and resources is backed by the implicit threat of violence.
Take for example a coal mine. Nobody created coal. The only thing that makes coal valuable is labor being used to remove it from the ground, and the fact the people need it. The owner of the coal mine isn't remove the coal from the ground himself, he just owns it. Why shouldn't the workers own the coal mine? Without them, the coal just sits in the ground, worthless.[/QUOTE]
If the grunts on the ground knew how to run a billion dollar business they wouldnt be down a mine shaft working for the people who do.
Workers shouldnt own a company because they are required to run it. Its about supply and demand. The workers can quit. They would have people take those jobs for less money tomorrow.
[QUOTE]All land in America was taken by violence or distributed by the government to the well-connected.
If workers were somehow 100% united, owners would have no power. 99% of what they own needs workers to create and consumers to purchase it, otherwise it is worthless.
Most of American politics is just meant as a distraction to keep workers divided. Both political parties are in on this. Racism, sexism, abortion, gun control, immigration etc etc are all real issues, but they currently used to wedge people apart. Nobody in politics is seriously trying to solve them.[/QUOTE]
If workers were somehow united.....
Any other fairly tales you wanna spin? Of course if they unite they would get what they want. I said that. Problem is workers dont have the common sense or will power to unite. Which is exactly why they get paid shit. Blame them not the people paying what they agree to work for.
Why are we blaming the ambitious instead of the fools who take a job then complain about what they agreed was enough to do it?
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]Here is a good example of how no one "earns" a billion dollars
Amazon depends on the US Postal service to deliver most of their crap. We as voters control USPS. If we elected officials who wanted to, they could change USPS policies to put Amazon out of business, then swoop in and occupy the role of Amazon on the economy...except the profits would be going to the American people.
The USPS used to provide standard banking functions that everyone needs. If they started back with that again, they could push corrupt organizations like Wells Fargo out of the market.
In fact, banks on general depend on the Federal government for liquidity through the Fed Reserve. Without the Government (which theoretically is the people), banks would not be nearly as profitable.[/QUOTE]
The post office is way less equipped to replace amazon than amazon is to do without it. Amazon ordered 4500 vans to start its own service and got so many people applying to lease the vans and run local delivery for them they had to up the order to 20K.
In 5 years Amazon will have 200 thousand vans delivering its own shit making even more money.
They are well run and earned their status.
You dont get to be a trillion dollar company by wishing.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]You really can
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Meaning the vast majority wasnt. And even what was isnt exactly cash. Most "wealth" is in the form of land passed to children not stacks of cash. Only 15% of the wealth of the 1% is inherited. 15% of the 1% is a vast sum of money but people forever cite tycoons who built themselves from nothing somewhat recently. People who opened a store and were the richest man in america in 20 years. People who started in a garage and hit 50 billion in no time. People who made programs in college and now are in everyones pocket. Those guys are the villains most often tied to these things and I will never understand it.
If the grunts on the ground knew how to run a billion dollar business they wouldnt be down a mine shaft working for the people who do.
Workers shouldnt own a company because they are required to run it. Its about supply and demand. The workers can quit. They would have people take those jobs for less money tomorrow.
If workers were somehow united.....
Any other fairly tales you wanna spin? Of course if they unite they would get what they want. I said that. Problem is workers don't have the common sense or will power to unite. Which is exactly why they get paid shit. Blame them not the people paying what they agree to work for.
Why are we blaming the ambitious instead of the fools who take a job then complain about what they agreed was enough to do it?[/QUOTE]
1. Wealth acts as a funnel. If I have money, I can go open 40 McDonald's franchises, pay someone to run them, and make way more money than I started with. So if 40% of wealth is inherited, a lot of that "earned" wealth is also just money flowing to investors, who have invested their inheritances or windfalls.
2. Workers are required to run a company. They are the ONLY people required to run a company. You are making my point.
3. The people (mostly large groups) who own big businesses primarily worry about how they can personally take as much money from the business as possible. The people that run the business might make a ton of money, but they aren't the ones who own it. Small businesses and start-up successes are held up as examples because that's the only level where the motives of the owners are usually productive, and more in line with the labor.
4. "If workers were somehow united...." it's called a union. We used to have them and everyone made more money, and the economy was consistently booming. Unions have been on the decline for decades, mostly due to attacks by business interests, who ARE united. I'm sure you know what a Chamber of Commerce is. They act as the business-equivalent of a union.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]The post office is way less equipped to replace amazon than amazon is to do without it. Amazon ordered 4500 vans to start its own service and got so many people applying to lease the vans and run local delivery for them they had to up the order to 20K.
In 5 years Amazon will have 200 thousand vans delivering its own shit making even more money.
They are well run and earned their status.
You dont get to be a trillion dollar company by wishing.[/QUOTE]
The post office already has 215,000 mail trucks in operation.
[B]Amazon is a multi-decade scheme to monopolize the supply-chain management industry. Monopolies are [B][U]bad[/U][/B].[/B]
Amazon went without profit for a a decade when they started. They basically made very little money relative to their size until recently. They were buoyed by investment cash for that entire time, as they grew and pushed stores out of business.
A store franchise is essentially just a supply chain. Think of a store like RadioShack. They buy products directly from the companies that make them, transfer them all over the country, and then sell them to consumers.
Amazon's goal was to cut out all the RadioShacks, and connect producers directly to consumers. In that, they are effectively killing all the corporate office, supply chain manager, store manager, and lower-level employee jobs at those companies.
Why was Amazon able to do this? Because they had no expectation of making any money at first. They just kept getting money from investors to keep them afloat, while they undercut every other company.
[B]Amazon has effectively put a ton of other companies out of business. This is not inherently a bad thing. If they can deliver what people want, at a lower price, that's a good thing. However, when a company gets so big and powerful, there's a lot of awful side-effects.[/B]
1. All those workers who got laid off at other retailers have to go somewhere. Effectively, Amazon pushed them into the labor market, and then hoovered up workers at low wages and poor conditions (because what else are they going to do? Radioshack and everywhere else closed!). In a lot of areas, Amazon's distribution plants are now the main source of employment. They are often run by fresh-out-of-college business students at $40k a year (I turned that job down lol).
2. Amazon now can manipulate which products are being sold. The put products that give them kick-backs at the top of searches, or products by companies that they have purchased (by virtue of having so much cash to throw around).
3. Amazon is not powerful enough to bully local and state governments. If we had a bunch of competing companies it would be more difficult for them to get tax (and other) concessions from our governments. Amazon represents so much money and so many jobs that they are able play our governments against each other to get out of paying taxes.
4. They are just going to get bigger and more powerful, and keep doing this same stuff on a greater scale. They've killed all their direct competitors in America. Their only real competition now is foreign (folks like Alibaba) who are doing them same thing in their own country.
[B]Amazon, subsidized by the American People, is a monopoly that subverts competition in the market and should be subject to anti-trust action.[/B]
Any organization that gets this powerful will act this way in our current system, and it doesn't have to be this way.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]You dont get to be a trillion dollar company by wishing.[/QUOTE]
and you also don't do it without [URL="https://newrepublic.com/article/146540/amazon-thriving-thanks-taxpayer-dollars"][B]massive government subsidies[/B][/URL].
amazon's new hq in nyc and virginia alone will cost taxpayers [URL="https://theintercept.com/2018/11/15/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-virginia-subsidies/"][B]$4.6 billion[/B][/URL].
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE]1. Wealth acts as a funnel. If I have money, I can go open 40 McDonald's franchises, pay someone to run them, and make way more money than I started with. So if 40% of wealth is inherited, a lot of that "earned" wealth is also just money flowing to investors, who have invested their inheritances or windfalls. [/QUOTE]
This country isnt old enough to have much of dynastic wealth you suggest. There are not a lot of rich since 1821 families handing down the money. Most millionaires are just small land owners. Of course its easier to take money and make more...but as I said...most of the people targeted are massively wealthy off just being better at something than other people. Giving it to your kids? Fine. Thats the reason most of us want to do well.
[QUOTE]2. Workers are required to run a company. They are the ONLY people required to run a company. You are making my point.[/QUOTE]
The workers as individuals arent required to do shit. They can quit and be replaced. Someone has to do with...and someone will always do it. You mix up a person....people...being easily replaced...with work needing to be done. Sure work must be done. But all the workers can be replaced...which is why they have no real power.
[QUOTE]3. The people (mostly large groups) who own big businesses primarily worry about how they can personally take as much money from the business as possible. The people that run the business might make a ton of money, but they aren't the ones who own it. Small businesses and start-up successes are held up as examples because that's the only level where the motives of the owners are usually productive, and more in line with the labor.[/QUOTE]
Where did the idea come from that people arent supposed to run a business to make money off it?
And they all start small. Nobody comes out the gate as amazon. You could start with millions and never come close. Hell billions.
Mark Cuban likely couldnt start a new amazon if he wanted to.
[QUOTE]4. "If workers were somehow united...." it's called a union. We used to have them and everyone made more money, and the economy was consistently booming. Unions have been on the decline for decades, mostly due to attacks by business interests, who ARE united. I'm sure you know what a Chamber of Commerce is. They act as the business-equivalent of a union.[/QUOTE]
Unions dont stop anything because as I said...not enough people have the will power. People need work.
Try to unionize and shut down a walmart....not only would they close the store as an example but while they were deciding they would get 400 applicants to replace the people outside.
Poor people...do not...and never will...stick together.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]This country isnt old enough to have much of dynastic wealth you suggest. There are not a lot of rich since 1821 families handing down the money. Most millionaires are just small land owners. Of course its easier to take money and make more...but as I said...most of the people targeted are massively wealthy off just being better at something than other people. Giving it to your kids? Fine. Thats the reason most of us want to do well.
The workers as individuals arent required to do shit. They can quit and be replaced. Someone has to do with...and someone will always do it. You mix up a person....people...being easily replaced...with work needing to be done. Sure work must be done. But all the workers can be replaced...which is why they have no real power.
Where did the idea come from that people arent supposed to run a business to make money off it?
And they all start small. Nobody comes out the gate as amazon. You could start with millions and never come close. Hell billions.
Mark Cuban likely couldnt start a new amazon if he wanted to.
Unions dont stop anything because as I said...not enough people have the will power. People need work.
Try to unionize and shut down a walmart....not only would they close the store as an example but while they were deciding they would get 400 applicants to replace the people outside.
Poor people...do not...and never will...stick together.[/QUOTE]
Poor people have in the past, and will in the future unite.
The fact that Walmart would shut down a store just to stop a union from forming proves how powerful a union can be.
So many things in our society are designed to distract, misinform, manipulate, and drain working people of their energy. It's not an accident. If you think like this, our media makes a lot more sense.
All that leads is to a bunch of guys saying the same thing as you. It's the easiest explaination for the way things are, but it's not necessarily the correct one.
I live a good life. The only thing that can make it better right now is more time for my wife, exercise, friends, and my books. I think a lot of people feel this way. I think it's possible to have a world where people can spend more time with their families, friends, and hobbies. I think some powerful forces don't want it to happen.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE]The post office already has 215,000 mail trucks in operation. [/QUOTE]
And Amazon will have a tenth of that in a 6 month period. Imagine after 10 years.
[QUOTE]Amazon is a multi-decade scheme to monopolize the supply-chain management industry. Monopolies are bad.[/QUOTE]
But to be one...you must be good. Funny how that works.
[QUOTE]Amazon went without profit for a a decade when they started. They basically made very little money relative to their size until recently. They were buoyed by investment cash for that entire time, as they grew and pushed stores out of business.
A store franchise is essentially just a supply chain. Think of a store like RadioShack. They buy products directly from the companies that make them, transfer them all over the country, and then sell them to consumers.
Amazon's goal was to cut out all the RadioShacks, and connect producers directly to consumers. In that, they are effectively killing all the corporate office, supply chain manager, store manager, and lower-level employee jobs at those companies.[/QUOTE]
Amazon killed middlemen that caused higher prices by taking advantage of the internet. Uber kills taxis. The lightbulb killed candle makers.
Progress always leaves annoying shit people can do without in its wake.
You sound like Bumpy Johnson at the start of American Gangster mad at a store for selling TV direct from Sony. "What RIGHT do they have to push out the middle man?!?!" shit.
I ask you...what right does the middle man have to charge me mark up when I can get the product where he gets it? How stupid must I be to give him that extra money?
Amazon filled a common sense need at the cost of jobs that arent needed for the people to get what they need. Im sure if someone comes up with a way to run a car as well on water as gas on a large scale they will cost oil industry people jobs. Thats what a great idea does. Kill jobs that support the idea that dies to make room for what people want.
[QUOTE]Why was Amazon able to do this? Because they had no expectation of making any money at first. They just kept getting money from investors to keep them afloat, while they undercut every other company.
Amazon has effectively put a ton of other companies out of business. This is not inherently a bad thing. If they can deliver what people want, at a lower price, that's a good thing. However, when a company gets so big and powerful, there's a lot of awful side-effects.[/QUOTE]
Only when you want to make them look that way.
This is one of thise situations where it all depends on the tone of the person giving the info. Youre on here with dark music and a deep voiced announcer giving a report that could just as easily be spun positive.
[QUOTE]1. All those workers who got laid off at other retailers have to go somewhere. Effectively, Amazon pushed them into the labor market, and then hoovered up workers at low wages and poor conditions (because what else are they going to do? Radioshack and everywhere else closed!). In a lot of areas, Amazon's distribution plants are now the main source of employment. They are often run by fresh-out-of-college business students at $40k a year (I turned that job down lol).[/QUOTE]
Amazon pays a lot better than radio shack...or most of those small businesses in question. We have 2-3 Amazon related places here. I know a girl who does customer service from home and a friend of mine is trying to get a delivery job. Pays as well as BMW which for 20 years has been THE job to have around here.
[QUOTE]2. Amazon now can manipulate which products are being sold. The put products that give them kick-backs at the top of searches, or products by companies that they have purchased (by virtue of having so much cash to throw around).[/QUOTE]
Oh nooooooooooooo! Someone who comes to my online store front might be shown things I want to sell them. I must be the biggest piece of shit....
[QUOTE]3. Amazon is not powerful enough to bully local and state governments. If we had a bunch of competing companies it would be more difficult for them to get tax (and other) concessions from our governments. Amazon represents so much money and so many jobs that they are able play our governments against each other to get out of paying taxes.[/QUOTE]
We do have a bunch of competing companies. They just suck. I ordered a coolant tank for a car on monday. Got it tuesday. Shit used to take a week or two. Be upset at a company for kicking everyone ass all you want. They are gonna get bigger...because they are kicking everyones ass. Its that simple.
[QUOTE]4. They are just going to get bigger and more powerful, and keep doing this same stuff on a greater scale. They've killed all their direct competitors in America. Their only real competition now is foreign (folks like Alibaba) who are doing them same thing in their own country.
Amazon, subsidized by the American People, is a monopoly that subverts competition in the market and should be subject to anti-trust action.
Any organization that gets this powerful will act this way in our current system, and it doesn't have to be this way.[/QUOTE]
Im good with it. I suppose im not the guy who gets bitter at someones success. Im motivated by it.
Hopefully I can think of something that does a job better than anyone ever imagined crush 200 places who werent as good as I am and have haters on the internet mad im so great while ordering my products.
If Amazon didnt work they wouldnt be in every computers browser history and in every phone as an app.
Complain away. Youre complaining to the people who made Amazon what it is.
I have some jerky coming to give my underlings for the breakroom at work. I'll post in here when it arrives. I care what Amazon did to shitty companies as much as I care about taxi drivers mad people can use an app to get better faster service for less money.
When I need to get to the car rental place I uber or lyft. Im not calling a cab. When I need something I dont wanna drive around to find in a real store I order it in 12 seconds on amazon and have it in a day or two. System works. All good.
I dont even know where id go for most of the shit on amazon if I DID want to go to a real store...which to be clear...I dont.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
The problems of a monopoly are well documented. Amazon didn't invent any new technology, or make any breakthrough innovation. It's not the product of some dominant genius. It's just a bunch of rich folks who put their money together in order to take over an industry and destroy their competition.
This has happened numerous times, and the impact has been studied in depth.
[B]Go read about Standard Oil.[/B] When something really essential gets monopolized, usually the government needs to step in.
Look at Microsoft. Once they got a certain % of the market, they could freeze out different operating systems from working with their hardware, and freeze out software from working with their operating system. Other tech companies couldn't really get a start if Microsoft didn't want them to. When one firm gets too powerful, competition ends. Competition is what gets us better goods and a lower price. That's why the government broke up Microsoft.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
Amazon isnt oil. Nobody...noooooooooobody needs amazon. Amazon is something we want. They filled a void we didnt know was there. They did it better....and kicked everyones ass at it. Amazon could go away tomorrow. Its hardly a load bearing pillar of my world the way microsoft or oil would have been for many people at their peaks.
Amazon is a dominant convenience.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=SomeBlackDude][URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuvEJ-U1UDc"][B]this[/B][/URL]
[/Quote]
FOR THE RECORD, "DESERVING" IT OR NOT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT. TIME TO WAKE UP TO THE FACT THAT LIFE ISN'T FAIR. HELLO? THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISN'T TO MAKE LIFE FAIR.
[QUOTE]the trickle down hustle. roger ailes, sean hannity, etc have somehow brainwashed the working poor into believing that they (the oligarchs) being taxed the same rates they were when 'murrica was supposedly great = the greatest injustice imaginable.
and now our top tax rates are back to great depression era levels.
and guess what's on the horizon.
[url]https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/3069659/investors-turn-bearish-as-73-predict-recession[/url]
[url]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-national-debt-2-trillion-donald-trump-presidency-deficit-treasury-congressional-budget-office-a8710546.html[/url]
i know, you look shocked.[/QUOTE]
We're going to go into a recession ultimately because we never actually did anything to pay for our ****ups leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. All the federal reserve did was print more money and keep interest rates at 0 for a decade. But I'm glad you think it's as simple as Trump increasing the deficit. I'm glad you think it's that simple.
The IRS should not exist. Taxes should be handled at a state level and a state level only unless it's a national emergency. The only reasons the IRS "needs" to exist are because 1) we have an insanely over inflated military and 2) people think the federal government should be taking care of them instead of getting out there and getting a ****ing job and planning for their future. In other words, the IRS only exists because people have a false sense of what the federal government should be doing in our lives, which is not much.
If we got rid of 1 and 2, we would not need a national tax collector. In fact, I'm quite confident that the founding fathers of this ****ing country literally gave their lives and spilled blood so that we weren't being unjustly taxed without representation, which is essentially exactly what's going on today. The people in DC do not have your best interest at heart. VERY few of them. It's not a R/D thing, either, so let's not go there.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Amazon isnt oil. Nobody...noooooooooobody needs amazon. Amazon is something we want. They filled a void we didnt know was there. They did it better....and kicked everyones ass at it. Amazon could go away tomorrow. Its hardly a load bearing pillar of my world the way microsoft or oil would have been for many people at their peaks.
Amazon is a dominant convenience.[/QUOTE]
We're talking about scale here. Things must be sold and delivered to people. For one person, maybe it's not a necessity. For society at large I think it is.
I don't think that a lot of the things we are saying are mutually exclusive. We have a different perspective on this. The way I see things doesn't get a lot of airtime, so I take my opportunities to advocate for it.
It's good to talk about stuff like this and I'm glad we have. Not too many folks can speak in good faith on the internet and resist descending into trolling.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]We're talking about scale here. Things must be sold and delivered to people. For one person, maybe it's not a necessity. For society at large I think it is.
I don't think that a lot of the things we are saying are mutually exclusive. We have a different perspective on this. The way I see things doesn't get a lot of airtime, so I take my opportunities to advocate for it.
It's good to talk about stuff like this and I'm glad we have. Not too many folks can speak in good faith on the internet and resist descending into trolling.[/QUOTE]
Things don't [B][I][U]need[/U][/I][/B] to be sold and delivered to people via online shopping. They can easily go to a brick & mortar retailer.
If Amazon folded up shop tomorrow, the only thing that would change in your life is your convenience level.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]FOR THE RECORD, "DESERVING" IT OR NOT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT. TIME TO WAKE UP TO THE FACT THAT LIFE ISN'T FAIR. HELLO? THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISN'T TO MAKE LIFE FAIR.[/QUOTE]
they need it to be somewhat fair to have consumers... if shit slips too much with us, eventually...theyre going to too because there will be no demand.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]You're right, you don't deserve to get rich people's money. Now you're figuring it out...
We're going to go into a recession ultimately because we never actually did anything to pay for our ****ups leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. All the federal reserve did was print more money and keep interest rates at 0 for a decade. But I'm glad you think it's as simply as Trump increasing the deficit. I'm glad you think it's that simple.
The IRS should not exist. Taxes should be handled at a state level and a state level only unless it's a national emergency. The only reasons the IRS "needs" to exist are because 1) we have an insanely over inflated military and 2) people think the federal government should be taking care of them instead of getting out there and getting a ****ing job. In other word, the IRS only exists because people have a false sense of what the federal government should be doing in our lives, which is not much.
If we got rid of 1 and 2, we would not need a national tax collector. In fact, I'm quite confident that the founding fathers of this ****ing country literally gave their lives and spilled blood so that we weren't being unjustly taxed without representation, which is essentially exactly what's going on today. The people in DC do not have your best interest at heart. VERY few of them. It's not a R/D thing, either, so let's not go there.[/QUOTE]
Some would say that the founding fathers gave their lives and spilled their blood because they were afraid the King was going to outlaw slavery. Slavery was outlawed in the UK in....1772. It took a while for slaves in the colonies to get their freedom.....luckily our founding fathers escaped the dastardly King before that!
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]Things don't [B][I][U]need[/U][/I][/B] to be sold and delivered to people via online shopping. They can easily go to a brick & mortar retailer.
If Amazon folded up shop tomorrow, the only thing that would change in your life is your convenience level.[/QUOTE]
you could say the same thing about communication technology AT&T monopoly ... phones or whatever. You dont NEED it... hop on your horse and deliver a letter you lazy pos.
[IMG]https://thepatronsaintofsuperheroes.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/paul-revere52719.png[/IMG]
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=tpols]you could say the same thing about communication technology AT&T monopoly ... phones or whatever. You dont NEED it... [B]hop on your horse and deliver a letter you lazy pos[/B].
[IMG]https://thepatronsaintofsuperheroes.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/paul-revere52719.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]:lol
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=tpols]you could say the same thing about communication technology AT&T monopoly ... phones or whatever. You dont NEED it... hop on your horse and deliver a letter you lazy pos.
[IMG]https://thepatronsaintofsuperheroes.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/paul-revere52719.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The vast majority of cities across the US won't allow you to ride horses as a primary means of transportation.
Additionally, the vast majority of us don't NEED cars or phones or the internet, either. They're all just major conveniences.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=tpols]they need it to be somewhat fair to have consumers... if shit slips too much with us, eventually...theyre going to too because there will be no demand.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]When someone cant understand why people who arent rich dont want the rich to be taxed even more....seems they cant grasp the reasoning. Some people arent only thinking of themselves. I'll never make 10 million a year. Doesnt mean the people who do owe society more money.[/quote]
The fact that you talk about this in terms of "owing society" says that you view progressive taxation as the wealthier somehow "paying more than their fair share" and basically subsidizing all those who don't shit gold like they do.
They deserve to pay more because they benefit more from the system that allows them to make more money than the rest of us. The arenas that these NBA superstars play in are heavily subsidized by local taxpayer money. Business owners benefit from the infrastructure that provides them with competent employees, be it via decent public schooling, roads, mass transit, etc. Some of them make a killing leeching off the system that is rigged in their favor because their lobbyists are legally allowed to bribe our politicians.
[quote]
Really? You think you are the one who informed modern society of the tax laws of generations ago?[/quote]
Who said I did? I said that to assert that people are generally too ignorant and/or lacking curiosity simply because it was way before their time.
[quote]Everyone who ever had a tax discussion knew that taxes used to be much higher. Who could you possibly think didnt know that?[/quote]
It's quite obvious that you've clearly never had a conversation with "everyone" who's ever talked taxes.
People simply having tax discussions doesn't necessarily make them any better informed about them. I still occasionally run in to ignoramuses (on MBs like this one) who claim to have been working and paying taxes for years say, "I don't want to make X5,000 dollars. I'd rather make X4,999 dollars because I'll get to pay less in taxes" because they have no clue about how tax brackets work.
Most people only talk about them in reference to the recent past and the here-and-now and really couldn't give two shits about how things were back when they were too young to have paid taxes or not born yet.
[quote]
Case by case. There is a point at which I wouldnt keep putting in the effort to only bring home a third of what I make from that point on. It would depend on the job and how rich I already was.[/quote]
Another reason why the rich should be taxed much higher is very simple. Middle class and poor people spend most of their money just to get by. Rich people generally hoard it. When you concentrate more wealth at the top, money doesn't flow and the economy suffers. The Trump presidency has basically delayed the economic cycle (recession) by increasing government spending and handing out massive corporate tax cuts. FYI, the tax cuts aren't doing shit.
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/opinion/the-trump-tax-cut-even-worse-than-youve-heard.html[/url]
For those too lazy to read, here are some of the biggest takeaways from the massive corporate tax cut:
[quote]
The key point to realize is that in today’s globalized corporate system, a lot of any country’s corporate sector, our own very much included, is actually owned by foreigners, either directly because corporations here are foreign subsidiaries, or indirectly because foreigners own American stocks. [b]Indeed, roughly a third of U.S. corporate profits basically flow to foreign nationals – which means that a third of the tax cut flowed abroad, rather than staying at home. [/b] This probably outweighs any positive effect on GDP growth. So the tax cut probably made America poorer, not richer.
And it certainly made most Americans poorer. While 2/3 of the corporate tax cut may have gone to U.S. residents, 84 percent of stocks are held by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. Everyone else will see hardly any benefit.
[b]Meanwhile, since the tax cut isn’t paying for itself, it will eventually have to be paid for some other way – either by raising other taxes, or by cutting spending on programs people value. The cost of these hikes or cuts will be much less concentrated on the top 10 percent than the benefit of the original tax cut. So it’s a near-certainty that the vast majority of Americans will be worse off thanks to Trump’s only major legislative success.[/b][/quote]
Paul Krugman might not be to some peoples' taste, but then again those schlubs aren't Nobel laureates who know wtf they're talking about.
[quote]
You dont make people richer by letting them keep their money. I dont know where people got the idea that its doing someone a favor to take less of their money. It isnt. Its their money to begin with. They are supposed to get richer when they keep generating it. Why on earth would I want to prevent someone from possessing what they earn? They money isnt being pulled from my childrens mouth. They get the money the same way anyone does. Other people giving it to them. Depending on the industry it it could be a few people...or millions giving a penny here and there...but they are given the money by society. It isnt stolen. That they use that money to make more money is none of my concern.[/quote]
Already addressed.
[quote]
GE employs 300+ thousand people without another 200 thousand in support companies indirectly. Ge is paying this planet in a thousand ways. How many things do you think get taxed before a generator that powers a quarter million homes is built and installed in a power plant? How much gas...shipping...how much material is bought...how many people pay income tax from the salary Gm pays...how much land is purchased...how many things must property taxes be paid on? Just so happens the largest turbine plant they have in the world is literally up the street from me. I live in greenville south carolina as many here have heard me say before. Do you know how well GM pays? Ive known people working there all my life. My friends parents were making 30 dolllars an hour in the early 90s. Who knows what it is now.
Ge generates massive tax revenue in a dozen ways. You cant run a company of that size for free. You cant do anything for free.[/quote]
If GE is successful and making money, why do they deserve to pay no taxes? Just because their employees pay taxes? That's probably the stupidest excuse I've ever heard to justify a large company paying zero corporate income tax.
[quote]And the living wage shit is hilarious to me.
-snipped for brevity
[/QUOTE]
If you're done bloviating on that soap box, you might ask yourself what options people working in mom-n-pop grocery/hardware stores have when Walmart rolls into their smallish rural city/town.
[url]http://time.com/money/4192512/walmart-stores-closing-small-towns/[/url]
And then in some cases, pack up shop and leave after ruining the local businesses and economy. What do you tell the guy who closed up shop and wound up working for Walmart (when he could no longer compete with them) only to lose his job a few years later? Move out of his little shithole town that he grew up in and settled in to go find a real job in some bigger city?
Yeah, I know that not everyone working at Walmart fits the above narrative. My whole point about Walmart is that they're a leech on the system.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
The ignoring in this thread by some people of the pure luck of what kind of situation you are born into and with specific genes you have... is pretty absurd.
And, there simply has to be some redistribution of wealth at some point because even the wealthiest people would agree that some version of wealth inequality ruins society for them as well...
Some form of a progressive tax rate makes sense in theory, but as many have pointed out...the wealthy will often find ways to shield their money as best they can.
That is why philosophical education is paramount in my opinion. If people were educated about the illusion of libertarian free will and were able to adopt a more rational compassion...we wouldn't view this life in such a selfish manner and realize that we are all in this together...and actually live like that...rather than just say it.
And, yes, taxing the ultra wealthy a bit more is one piece of fixing some of these problems, but they have to willingly agree to it...and want to do it...otherwise it won't have the societal impact it could...
As an aside...pretty much agree with everything greymatter stated above
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]
The IRS should not exist. Taxes should be handled at a state level and a state level only unless it's a national emergency. The only reasons the IRS "needs" to exist are because 1) we have an insanely over inflated military and 2) people think the federal government should be taking care of them instead of getting out there and getting a ****ing job and planning for their future. In other words, the IRS only exists because people have a false sense of what the federal government should be doing in our lives, which is not much.
[/QUOTE]
Good luck ever trying to gut SS and military spending. I'm ok with SS because at least you pay into it and (hopefully) get it back. The military has a shitty ROI and is a massive drain on our economy. Look no further than the epitome of bloated budget and behind schedule.....the F-35. Only costs 1.5 trillion over its scheduled lifetime of service.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
We just have trouble accepting that peoples lives are ****ed up because they ****ed them up....
If you are elderly or disabled...ok. Young and healthy? You can go **** yourself. This is america. A young healthy person doesnt have to keep a bad job for life if he has a speck of common sense.[/QUOTE]
One of the more ignorant and surface level comments on the topic.
Do some research on just how ****ed you are in this society with certain levels of general intelligence without being lucky enough to have great family / friend support.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Hawker]
---Snipped conservatard ramblings--
[/QUOTE]
I'd comfortably wager that there's about a 0% chance that you'd know off-hand (that means without looking it up) what the top income tax brackets were changed to during the Reagan to Bush to Clinton eras (1980 --> 2000).
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=greymatter]I'd comfortably wager that there's about a 0% chance that you'd know off-hand (that means without looking it up) what the top income tax brackets were changed to during the Reagan to Bush to Clinton eras (1980 --> 2000).[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter. Tax receipts have stayed the same. You know how to read a graph right? You're ignorant to the change of tax laws in the first place...loopholes, deductions and special privileges were taken away in exchange for a much lower tax rate. Nobody ever paid those rates so continue to repeat like an idiot where tax rates were in the past with no detail does a disservice to everyone. You're not telling the full story.
Imagine being so illiterate that you think tax cuts are an expense to be paid for.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE]When someone cant understand why people who arent rich dont want the rich to be taxed even more....seems they cant grasp the reasoning. Some people arent only thinking of themselves. I'll never make 10 million a year. Doesnt mean the people who do owe society more money[/QUOTE]
Here's what you're missing...the wealthy and politically powerful whether you want to talk about private citizens, companies, industries or whoever through lobbying, lawmaking, political donations, industry cartels and countless other methods...have shaped and structured society and laws over time through their privilege to leverage and skewer it heavily in their favor whether it's through taxes, regulations, monopolies etc. so that their wealth and power accumulation grows exponentially without reason:
[QUOTE]Inside the Secretive World of Tax-Avoidance Experts[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Oxfam: World's richest 26 own same wealth as poorest half[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, says Oxfam
Charity calls for 1% wealth tax, saying it would raise enough to educate every child not in school[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/elite-wealth-management/410842/[/url]
[url]https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html[/url]
[url]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/oxfam-world-richest-26-wealth-poorest-190121054249908.html[/url]
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report[/url]
[url]https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year[/url]
[url]https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/21/oxfam-calls-for-global-tax-hikes-for-the-worlds-richest.html[/url]
So this thing about "the rich and wealthy should keep what they earned [B]*fair and square*[/B]" isn't really what you think it is, because they didn't accumulate it fair and square, much of it is gaming and manipulating the system over time.
America is run by corporations and lobbies, and it's even worse in many other parts of the world.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
I don't understand the idea some have that all rich ppl dont pay their fair share of taxes. I mean, 37% of 100 million is a much larger amount than 22% of 50k, yet that is still not enough. 70% is an absurd amount to pay and it is immoral to expect anyone to give that percentage of their income to a government that has proven itself incapable of responsible spending, especially when the government isnt exacty transparent with how your money is being spent. Clearly alot of these politicians have the budgeting discipline of a spouse who consistently drains the checking account to buy frivelous sh**t.
Socialists like AOC are excellent at creating identity groups to divide and conquer US citizens. The nordic countries tax their middle class at around 50-60%, but these US socialists know that won't fly here so they just demonize the wealthy to galvanize support to rob them. If you're going to tax the rich 70%, tax everyone 70% - that's the only fair way to do it. However, I expect that most Americans would riot before they allow some dumb ish like that to go down.
As kblaze said, reaching middle class status is not difficult to do in this country.
1. Don't have kids out of wedlock that you cannot afford.
2. Don't commit a felony.
3. If you go to college, don't pay 50k plus on a degree that doesnt have economic value.
4. Stop being lazy and use that fancy, expensive iphone that you can't afford to research skills that are in demand. Rich ppl use this very same logic when building their businesses and that is why they make a killing. There are so many trades such as plumbing that are in demand and can pay 60-100k with a few years of experience. You dont even need a college degree to do this stuff.
5. Have discipline when it comes to spending.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Hawker]--snip more conservatard nonsense--
[/QUOTE]
Add another wager that you're one of those "special" people who are dumb enough to buy Heritage Foundation Reagonomics tardshit like "tax cuts increase revenue".
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Hawker]It doesn't matter. Tax receipts have stayed the same. You know how to read a graph right? You're ignorant to the change of tax laws in the first place...loopholes, deductions and special privileges were taken away in exchange for a much lower tax rate. Nobody ever paid those rates so continue to repeat like an idiot where tax rates were in the past with no detail does a disservice to everyone. You're not telling the full story.
Imagine being so illiterate that you think tax cuts are an expense to be paid for.[/QUOTE]
In case you're too slow to understand my response, I'll simplify it for you.
You've done nothing but regurgitate oft-debunked (by literally every economist who isn't a complete retard) standard Reaganomics apologist talking points that the likes of Heritage Foundation puts out for people like yourself.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Tainted Sword]I don't understand the idea some have that all rich ppl dont pay their fair share of taxes. I mean, 37% of 100 million is a much larger amount than 22% of 50k, yet that is still not enough. 70% is an absurd amount to pay and it is immoral to expect anyone to give that percentage of their income to a government that has proven itself incapable of responsible spending, especially when the government isnt exacty transparent with how your money is being spent. Clearly alot of these politicians have the budgeting discipline of a spouse who consistently drains the checking account to buy frivelous sh**t.
Socialists like AOC are excellent at creating identity groups to divide and conquer US citizens. The nordic countries tax their middle class at around 50-60%, but these US socialists know that won't fly here so they just demonize the wealthy to galvanize support to rob them. If you're going to tax the rich 70%, tax everyone 70% - that's the only fair way to do it. However, I expect that most Americans would riot before they allow some dumb ish like that to go down.
[B]As kblaze said, reaching middle class status is not difficult to do in this country.
1. Don't have kids out of wedlock that you cannot afford.
2. Don't commit a felony.
3. If you go to college, don't pay 50k plus on a degree that doesnt have economic value.
4. Stop being lazy and use that fancy, expensive iphone that you can't afford to research skills that are in demand. Rich ppl use this very same logic when building their businesses and that is why they make a killing. There are so many trades such as plumbing that are in demand and can pay 60-100k with a few years of experience. You dont even need a college degree to do this stuff.
5. Have discipline when it comes to spending.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
That is all "easy" if you are born with suitable broad level intelligence and into decent circumstances with two parents...etc.
Unfortunately, many people are born (and certainly didn't ask to be born at all) into situations that produce humans that aren't capable of the above. It produces dumb, overwhelmed, and unhealthy individuals that need a lot of help.
Is our country the best? Yep.
Is capitalism the best system? Yep.
But we can and should do better given the resources we have.
And, of course, money alone isn't fixing this...it will take a culture shift. But money is usually the best way to facilitate the type of wide sweeping change we need in this country to reduce people from entering the world with the genes and circumstances that reliably produce what we see.
I agree with your list above in terms of a good guide for doing well in America...my point is that when the numbers get to where they are...it is kind of hard to blame individuals...
Something much bigger and deeper is going on here when so many people can't do things that intelligent people find trivially easy.
The truth is that intelligent people are often quite ignorant to just how stupid a lot of people are and just how hard it is for them to have things like "discipline" and "common sense"...
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=greymatter]In case you're too slow to understand my response, I'll simplify it for you.
You've done nothing but regurgitate oft-debunked (by literally every economist who isn't a complete retard) standard Reaganomics apologist talking points that the likes of Heritage Foundation puts out for people like yourself.[/QUOTE]
Numbers don't lie buddy. Straight from the CBO. It's called Hauser's law. Laffer curve as well highlights taxation can only go so far (another economist).
[IMG]https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline/images/large/tax_rates_graph_ranson.jpg[/IMG]
Keynesian economists aren't the only economists out there. You have monetarists and austrians...keynesians just get way more publicity and is what is taught in the 10th grade textbooks.
As to your point about Wal-mart, I bet there were a lot of people in those rural towns that liked they could get their goods at 9-10pm at night. Mom and pop places don't stay open that late and usually don't have near the selection Wal-mart would. Stop being so short sighted.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41][/B]
That is all "easy" if you are born with suitable broad level intelligence and into decent circumstances with two parents...etc.
Unfortunately, many people are born (and certainly didn't ask to be born at all) into situations that produce humans that aren't capable of the above. It produces dumb, overwhelmed, and unhealthy individuals that need a lot of help.
Is our country the best? Yep.
Is capitalism the best system? Yep.
But we can and should do better given the resources we have.
And, of course, money alone isn't fixing this...it will take a culture shift. But money is usually the best way to facilitate the type of wide sweeping change we need in this country to reduce people from entering the world with the genes and circumstances that reliably produce what we see.
I agree with your list above in terms of a good guide for doing well in America...my point is that when the numbers get to where they are...it is kind of hard to blame individuals...
Something much bigger and deeper is going on here when so many people can't do things that intelligent people find trivially easy.
The truth is that intelligent people are often quite ignorant to just how stupid a lot of people are and just how hard it is for them to have things like "discipline" and "common sense"...[/QUOTE]
I try to avoid having the mindset that such a broad and diverse demographic in this country are so dumb and incapable of taking care of themselves that it is the sacred duty of the government to care for them as if they were a bunch of invalids. I feel that is an elitist way to view things.
I blame the lack of knowledge you speak of on the education system. We pump more money than almost any other nation into it and it consistently fails to produce quality results. The only solution most politicians have is to pump more dough into it which is the very definition of insanity. Spending more on public education without addressing the systemic flaws that are failing children today is like someone repeatly investing in penny stocks with the hopes of striking rich. I think the tax revenue the government currently generates would go a long way if these politicians were more responsible with their spending and were held to the same management standards as an executive.
1. Civics should be taught every year beginning in jr high and students should be required to pass a civics exam before graduation.
2. Simple budgeting and financial classes should be taught every year starting in hs.
3. School counselors need to stop pushing college as the end all be all and students should be educated about the trade options that are available as well. As I said, there are alot of trade skills that are in demand and that currently have severe shortages now that boomers are retiring. Becoming a plumber or electrician is preferable to trying to make a career out of working at walmart.
4. There needs to be an emphasis on teaching these trades in hs like back in the day.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41][/B]
That is all "easy" if you are born with suitable broad level intelligence and into decent circumstances with two parents...etc.
Unfortunately, many people are born (and certainly didn't ask to be born at all) into situations that produce humans that aren't capable of the above. It produces dumb, overwhelmed, and unhealthy individuals that need a lot of help.
Is our country the best? Yep.[/quote]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c[/url]
Aside from the above, the only things I'll say the US is bar none the best at is hemorrhaging money on military spending, bending over its citizens on health care costs, and producing the world's best basketball players.
[quote]Is capitalism the best system? Yep.[/quote]
The US, like many others, has a "mixed economic" system. Never been "pure" capitalist.
[quote]But we can and should do better given the resources we have.
And, of course, money alone isn't fixing this...it will take a culture shift. But money is usually the best way to facilitate the type of wide sweeping change we need in this country to reduce people from entering the world with the genes and circumstances that reliably produce what we see.
I agree with your list above in terms of a good guide for doing well in America...my point is that when the numbers get to where they are...it is kind of hard to blame individuals...
Something much bigger and deeper is going on here when so many people can't do things that intelligent people find trivially easy.
The truth is that intelligent people are often quite ignorant to just how stupid a lot of people are and just how hard it is for them to have things like "discipline" and "common sense"...[/QUOTE]
The most politically astute (and often most sardonic and/or pessimistic) individuals I come across on other MBs generally express the sentiment that "we get the government we deserve".
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Hawker]Numbers don't lie buddy. Straight from the CBO. It's called Hauser's law. Laffer curve as well highlights taxation can only go so far (another economist).
[IMG]https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline/images/large/tax_rates_graph_ranson.jpg[/IMG][/quote]
Your numbers don't say what you imagine them to say. Revenue went down the year after Reagan dropped the top bracket from 70 to 50%. He offset the revenue decrease by raising payroll taxes, which surprise surprise, affected middle class small business owners more than the rich. The only reason why revenues didn't go down after his next top bracket drop in 1986 (50 -> 28) was because the economy was booming by then and his tax increases elsewhere were more than enough to offset it. HW Bush was forced to renege on his campaign promise to not raise taxes because he was responsible enough to deem that Reagan's massive deficits were unsustainable, causing him to be a 1 termer.
Bottom line is that trickle-down theory is for dipshits.
[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-12-15/the-mostly-forgotten-tax-increases-of-1982-1993[/url]
Revenue also declined immediately after W's tax cuts. While some of it could be attributed to the dotcom burst, his tax cuts didn't generate any increased revenue. Tax revenue didn't get back to 2001 levels until the GDP grew 10+% higher (than 2001 levels) by 2005. Yet another proven failure of trickle down theory.
[quote]
Keynesian economists aren't the only economists out there. You have monetarists and austrians...keynesians just get way more publicity and is what is taught in the 10th grade textbooks.[/supply]
It's been a long while since I bothered to read about these differing economic schools, but I'm willing to guess that supply siders are still considered imbeciles who have about as much of a chance of being Nobel Laureates as Trump has of being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom after he leaves office.
[quote]As to your point about Wal-mart, I bet there were a lot of people in those rural towns that liked they could get their goods at 9-10pm at night. Mom and pop places don't stay open that late and usually don't have near the selection Wal-mart would. Stop being so short sighted.[/QUOTE]
Unlike you, being able to buy stuff at a shitty supermarket after 10pm isn't on my list of things that make a town worth living in. The types of supermarkets that open 24 hours generally have crap I wouldn't buy.
And it's apparent that you offer nothing useful to say with regards to the lots of people in rural towns that have to travel 30+ minutes into nearby towns to do their shopping because Walmart packed up and left after driving their local mom/pop places out of business.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=Tainted Sword]I try to avoid having the mindset that such a broad and diverse demographic in this country are so dumb and incapable of taking care of themselves that it is the sacred duty of the government to care for them as if they were a bunch of invalids. I feel that is an elitist way to view things.
I blame the lack of knowledge you speak of on the education system. We pump more money than almost any other nation into it and it consistently fails to produce quality results. The only solution most politicians have is to pump more dough into it which is the very definition of insanity. Spending more on public education without addressing the systemic flaws that are failing children today is like someone repeatly investing in penny stocks with the hopes of striking rich. I think the tax revenue the government currently generates would go a long way if these politicians were more responsible with their spending and were held to the same management standards as an executive.
1. Civics should be taught every year beginning in jr high and students should be required to pass a civics exam before graduation.
2. Simple budgeting and financial classes should be taught every year starting in hs.
3. School counselors need to stop pushing college as the end all be all and students should be educated about the trade options that are available as well. As I said, there are alot of trade skills that are in demand and that currently have severe shortages now that boomers are retiring. Becoming a plumber or electrician is preferable to trying to make a career out of working at walmart.
4. There needs to be an emphasis on teaching these trades in hs like back in the day.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree about education, and some of the ideas above are solid ones in terms of real life prep for our youth, but that is only one factor. It is not a clean and easy problem.
It is a simple fact that general intelligence is very difficult to improve even with great education. Unfortunately, humans are victims of our genetics in powerful ways...and until we as a society come to terms with the fact that some people are blessed with great intelligence they did nothing to earn...and some are absolutely screwed with very low intelligence that they have to no fault of their own...we'll continue fail to create certain aspects of society that are beneficial to everyone.
Culture is another problem. Asian culture, for example, when it comes to a lot of the characteristics you described in your previous post...is way ahead of the game. Not only do they, broadly, have a higher level of general intelligence, but their culture pushes discipline, accountability, hard work...etc.
I'm actually not in favor of government welfare in the capacity we currently have it, but why would you doubt that certain subsets of our population are incapable of taking care of themselves? We are running that science experiment and have been for some time...and a percentage of our population is doing exactly, consistently, what you claim to doubt.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=greymatter][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c[/url]
Aside from the above, the only things I'll say the US is bar none the best at is hemorrhaging money on military spending, bending over its citizens on health care costs, and producing the world's best basketball players.
The US, like many others, has a "mixed economic" system. Never been "pure" capitalist.
The most politically astute (and often most sardonic and/or pessimistic) individuals I come across on other MBs generally express the sentiment that "we get the government we deserve".[/QUOTE]
Correct, no system is really "pure" anything...
My point was to ease the fears of some that usually resort to "oh, so you're a socialist" when talking about this stuff. No, I'm not...but I'm in favor of (like any sane individual) of not solely letting the marketplace dictate everything.
Without getting into the weeds on healthcare or military spending...
I'll I will say is that our country is fat and sick far too often because of the horrendous food that has been pushed on us for decades. Free choice is a a sacred thing, but...again, something has to shift if we want the society and world that everyone seems to be fighting for in some form or another.
Most fast food, for example, is essentially poisoning real percentages of the population. Their business is to make people addicted to their food (which is unhealthy) for you. And, kind of hard to blame these companies when the dollar is the only thing that "really" matters in the end for them. My argument is that we need a philosophical shift here if we are going to progress.
You can't have 35% of a population obese and be running even close to optimal. And we are going to blame individual people for this? I just can't...not when like 50% of a population is overweight and unhealthy in some form or another. We've run the experiment...it doesn't work. Things have to change.
Again, we have to first come to the philosophical understanding that humans are not blank slates and that the current system is, to be soft, "sub-optimal" for a large percentage of individuals.
Now, we can either naively say "**** them, just work hard and don't make stupid decisions" or we can come to terms with reality, come together, and at least run a different experiment for a while.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
Now, we can either naively say "**** them, just work hard and don't make stupid decisions" or we can come to terms with reality, come together, and at least run a different experiment for a while.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. People just have to be willing to try. Most people think that the way things are is just the natural way, but really our present could have turned out much differently, and our future is still up for grabs.
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]One of the more ignorant and surface level comments on the topic.
Do some research on just how ****ed you are in this society with certain levels of general intelligence without being lucky enough to have great family / friend support.[/QUOTE]
Kblaze shows very little ability to empathize... He might be a psychopath tbh
-
Re: Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.
[QUOTE=tpols]Kblaze shows very little ability to empathize... He might be a psychopath tbh[/QUOTE]
Nah, he's just ignorant to how hard some people actually have it. Even though I disagree with him often, he's obviously quite intelligent as well...and usually it is very difficult for intelligent people to understand just how hard life can be for others that simply don't have that level of general intelligence they do.
I used to be that way as well until I became more educated philosophically and I traveled around the country / world enough to see what reality is like for large groups of people.
Generally I found that the notion of "**** these people, they have themselves to blame"...to often be espoused by people that just haven't spent much time at all contemplating topics like "free will"...and have done little reflection on just how lucky they've been in their own lives.
You don't pick your genes or your environment at birth. To not fully grapple with that is a huge mistake in my opinion.