Imagine what the proposed(but unlikely) tax plan would do to the NBA.

You may have heard about the Ocasio Cortez tax plan shes been pushing for in congress. 70% rate on people over 10 million. Which would of course...make it kinda not worth it to make say...15 million. Heres an article on some of the implications:


[url]https://slate.com/culture/2019/01/nba-aoc-70-percent-marginal-tax-rate.html[/url]



Raises some good points. You could defer deals so you make 10 million now....20 million after you retire for ____ number of years. But....most max players have endorsements that would get them to 10 million to begin with. So they could only take home 30% of their NBA pay...less really with agent/manager fees.

But you could change some income from say....Nike...to nike stock. Which you then pay cap gains tax rates on.

I dont support the plan but it would be funny watching the accounting gymnastics.

The Raptors would be unstoppable. We might see Vancouver get a team back. Granted.....you still get taxed to death in canada....it wouldnt be as bad as here.

Kyle Lowrys taee home pay on 28 million in salary in canada owuld look pretty good compared to only getting 30% off top here:



[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/33tnp82.jpg[/IMG]

Income redistribution to that degree doesn’t work nor will it ever work.

The truly wealthy will dodge the absolute **** out of paying those taxes by any means necessary and I don’t blame them one bit. It’s asinine.

The IRS shouldn’t even ****ing exist tbh unless there is national military emergency which we haven’t had either since 9-11-01 or since ww2 and all taxes should be handled at the state level otherwise. Period.

Wealth redistribution in this country is already ****ing the middle class harder than anyone else and her tax plan wouldn’t do anything to stop it. The rich would still dodge something fierce.

It’s also straight up ****ing immoral to essentially rob someone which is exactly what she’s advocating. IT IS IMMORAL. IT IS THEFT.

Just because a bunch of millionaires got where they are by doing less than honorable things doesn’t mean you punish the entire system. You look for other ways to fix the problems but you don’t rob people of their money no matter how wealthy they might be. The rich already pay a disproportionate amount and she wants them to hand over their entire ****ing wallets. Stupid ****.




And yes just for the sake of saving a headache the Raptors might be able to field a 75 win team lmaoooo.

Having only read the first part of the title and the first paragraph I was getting all excited to say to kblaze, "wrong forum, please post in the OTC" but a little more reading ruined all that, unfortunately.

Currently most players just want the ego-boost attached to getting every dollar a team can spare, it's not just about the take home pay. The Florida and Texas teams don't have state income tax but we've only seen the Heat dominate a year of free agency and that was more about cap space. James still ended up leaving Miami, Shaq left Orlando for a high-tax state all those years ago, Kawhi Leonard forced his way out of SA. Taxes are important but they don't appear to majorly effect players thinking yet.

Players colluding to make a superteam might just consider the ramifications of the Cortez tax plan the next time that kind of thing happens but I bet the average FA still doesn't care.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]Income redistribution to that degree doesn

Her plan is too extreme and starts at too low of an amount at 10 million, but she is on the right track.

There has to be some redistribution of wealth as the growing wealth inequality is a real problem.

Whether the fix is UBI facilitated by a tax of companies profiting from AI or a much heavier tax on the ultra wealthy...I don't know the answer, but with the coming AI revolution...

The average person out there is going to be pretty screwed if we as a society don't agree to make some modifications to our current system (which is clearly the best, I'm not hating on capitalism, but some things do have to change)...

Just one clarification here, our tax system is progressive, meaning, the 70% rate kicks in on anything above $10mm. Still, a significant chunk for those making, say, $50+mm a year.



[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
Kyle Lowrys taee home pay on 28 million in salary in canada owuld look pretty good compared to only getting 30% off top here:

[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/33tnp82.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kap]Just one clarification here, our tax system is progressive, meaning, the 70% rate kicks in on anything above $10mm. Still, a significant chunk for those making, say, $50+mm a year.[/QUOTE]
It's like that in most places. I guess most people have just never done or understood taxes.

Bigtime players hit 10 million off shoe deals alone. It would hit your entire nba salary.

heavens, no! how will the sprewells of the world feed their families now? :(

[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/4MHv5aIo6SI2A/giphy.gif[/IMG]

At that rate would it be worth it if you won the Powerball to just take all the money upfront not have any withheld and find a way to leave the country and pull it out in cash or gold elsewhere?

I

[QUOTE=SomeBlackDude]heavens, no! how will the sprewells of the world feed their families now? :(

[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/4MHv5aIo6SI2A/giphy.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

This.

28 million or 12 million. I wouldn't know what to do with 12 million... or even less than that.

How much is enough for these rich f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ckers?

[QUOTE=bullettooth]This.

28 million or 12 million. I wouldn't know what to do with 12 million... or even less than that.

How much is enough for these rich f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ckers?[/QUOTE]
Capitalism kinda falls apart at that point but the alternative is socialism.

I starting to think taxing rich people will never work. Even if you do it they always get out of it. We need a minimum income. People can still be rich as hell but no one should fall through the cracks. We have the wealth and resources to do that.

[QUOTE=RoseCity07]I starting to think taxing rich people will never work. Even if you do it they always get out of it. We need a minimum income. People can still be rich as hell but no one should fall through the cracks. We have the wealth and resources to do that.[/QUOTE]

You give people a minimum income and products/services will just go up in price. The rich still win.

[QUOTE=bullettooth]This.

28 million or 12 million. I wouldn't know what to do with 12 million... or even less than that.

How much is enough for these rich f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ckers?[/QUOTE]

kinda weird how working joes stan for oligarchs these days.

like you can ask a dude working at wal-mart or some factory making $9/hr why he doesn't have healthcare and he'll say 'cuz sochulizm bad'.

but say hey, maybe the owners/ceos of your company who are making like $50 mil per year should be taxed more and that same dude will march to dc to burn the whole place down.

[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/sIlHfE2wu1xFS/giphy.gif[/IMG]

[B][SIZE="4"]"taxation is theft!"[/SIZE][/B]

like why are you crying tears for a dude who makes in a year what like 10-20 generations of your family has/will? :wtf:

kyle lowry's gonna be alright. maybe he might have to cut back to 3 mansions instead of 5, maybe sell one of his yachts, but he's gonna be alright. trust that.

It won't pass so why bother?

[QUOTE=bullettooth]You give people a minimum income and products/services will just go up in price. The rich still win.[/QUOTE]Not an economist, but wouldn't adjusting minimum wage with inflation hurt in the short-term but help in the long-term?

[QUOTE=bullettooth]You give people a minimum income and products/services will just go up in price. The rich still win.[/QUOTE]

Will they though? Companies still have to compete. I'm not talking about a minimum wage. Couldn't prices actually fall if employers pay their employees less?

I would like to know what would really happen. I'm not an economist.

I'm pretty sure programs like medicare prevent drug companies from price gouging. There would have to be some regulation.

[QUOTE=RoseCity07]Will they though? Companies still have to compete. I'm not talking about a minimum wage. Couldn't prices actually fall if employers pay their employees less?

I would like to know what would really happen. I'm not an economist.

I'm pretty sure programs like medicare prevent drug companies from price gouging. There would have to be some regulation.[/QUOTE]It depends on which industries, goods, and services that you're talking about. In theory, it would happen in an unregulated market unless a monopoly was in place(then they could do w/e the f*** they want).

Medicare and price controls are super complicated as well, it depends on millions of factors.

[QUOTE=RoseCity07]Will they though? Companies still have to compete. I'm not talking about a minimum wage. Couldn't prices actually fall if employers pay their employees less?

I would like to know what would really happen. I'm not an economist.

I'm pretty sure programs like medicare prevent drug companies from price gouging. There would have to be some regulation.[/QUOTE]

Small shops would get hurt badly. Mom and pop shops don't have so much extra cash to be able to afford such a drastic change in paying their employees extra. Most people that have small businesses are middle class with modest incomes and modest means. It's not like just because you're a business owner you're well off.

[QUOTE=SomeBlackDude]kinda weird how working joes stan for oligarchs these days.

like you can ask a dude working at wal-mart or some factory making $9/hr why he doesn't have healthcare and he'll say 'cuz sochulizm bad'.

but say hey, maybe the owners/ceos of your company who are making like $50 mil per year should be taxed more and that same dude will march to dc to burn the whole place down.

[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/sIlHfE2wu1xFS/giphy.gif[/IMG]

[B][SIZE="4"]"taxation is theft!"[/SIZE][/B]

like why are you crying tears for a dude who makes in a year what like 10-20 generations of your family has/will? :wtf:

kyle lowry's gonna be alright. maybe he might have to cut back to 3 mansions instead of 5, maybe sell one of his yachts, but he's gonna be alright. trust that.[/QUOTE]


You really can

NBA owners would move the teams and their other businesses.

It boggles my mind how many ppl think more government is the solution to all of our problems. Anyone who has been to a dmv or even experienced public education will tell you how terrible the government is at providing services to it's citizens. The ppl running these programs arent held accountable for efficiency and simply think that throwing more money at a problem will fix everything.

Socialists like aoc are cowards. They propose this 70% tax on the rich because they dont have the guts to tax everyone 50% like the nordic countries. I'll be more comfortable paying higher taxes when these parasites become more transparent with how they spend. I'll be more comfortable when these politicians are held to the same standard as a company executive.

[QUOTE=Tainted Sword]It boggles my mind how many ppl think more government is the solution to all of our problems. Anyone who has been to a dmv or even experienced public education will tell you how terrible the government is at providing services to it's citizens. The ppl running these programs arent held accountable for efficiency and simply think that throwing more money at a problem will fix everything.

Socialists like aoc are cowards. They propose this 70% tax on the rich because they dont have the guts to tax everyone 50% like the nordic countries. I'll be more comfortable paying higher taxes when these parasites become more transparent with how they spend. I'll be more comfortable when these politicians are held to the same standard as a company executive.[/QUOTE]

Norway isn't a country of idiots though. The tax money the government gets isn't pissed away.

It's a marginal tax. It would be 70% on every dollar AFTER $10M

Also, redistributionist taxes have been in place, in America, in the past. We are in the lowest tax era of the last 100 years by a huge margin.

Regardless, income tax isn't how the really rich make their money. Capital gains is. Capital gains is the money you make when you sell and asset for a profit. It's taxed way lower than income.

This means someone who doesn't work, but owns stocks or other assets for a living is taxed at a lower rate than someone who works. There should be a cap gains tax for over $500k annually, so as not to impact any retirees who are living off 401(k) type accounts.

I used to be certified to sell securities and financial planning.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]You really can’t get your mind around the concept that some people don’t think they deserve other peoples money when they didn’t earn it?[/QUOTE]

People making hundreds of millions of dollars didn't earn it either. They benefited from a system where the folks who own assets are entitled to the excess value of everyone's labor.

Athletes are a tiny percent of the very rich. Most do not get rich from working. Most wealth is inherited or comes from capital appreciation and profit (money you get because you own the resources).


Athletes, actors, musicians, and reality/social media stars are emphasized in our media in order to obscure the true nature of the extremely wealthy in our country

We are trusting the same ppl who have us 21 trillion dollars in debt to spend this money?

I keep hearing this rhetoric about the 70% only kicking in after 10 million, as if that somehow justifies the theft.

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]It's a marginal tax. It would be 70% on every dollar AFTER $10M

Also, redistributionist taxes have been in place, in America, in the past. We are in the lowest tax era of the last 100 years by a huge margin.

Regardless, income tax isn't how the really rich make their money. Capital gains is. Capital gains is the money you make when you sell and asset for a profit. It's taxed way lower than income.

This means someone who doesn't work, but owns stocks or other assets for a living is taxed at a lower rate than someone who works. There should be a cap gains tax for over $500k annually, so as not to impact any retirees who are living off 401(k) type accounts.

I used to be certified to sell securities and financial planning.[/QUOTE]

A lot more deductions and loopholes were in place back then which was the justification for bringing it down so low during the Reagan era. Nobody actually paid that tax rate. The tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is from 18-20% no matter the tax rate since the 50s.

And to act like people today can't buy things at a much lower price and higher value than the 50s is absurd.

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]People making hundreds of millions of dollars didn't earn it either. They benefited from a system where the folks who own assets are entitled to the excess value of everyone's labor.

Athletes are a tiny percent of the very rich. Most do not get rich from working. Most wealth is inherited or comes from capital appreciation and profit (money you get because you own the resources).


Athletes, actors, musicians, and reality/social media stars are emphasized in our media in order to obscure the true nature of the extremely wealthy in our country[/QUOTE]

Without someone owning those assets, the labor wouldn't exist though. Most people were working at some point before they decided to become a businessman and take a risk (aka owning resources for example). People who own resources create things that people want (and then provide it to them) not simply because they own it. It's a win-win for everybody.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]You really can’t get your mind around the concept that some people don’t think they deserve other peoples money when they didn’t earn it?[/QUOTE]

Who said anything about deserving other people's money? Why are you parroting a conservatard canard that the rich paying more tax = wealth redistribution?

Unless you were old enough to be in the top tax bracket before 1981, you probably had no clue that 70% was what they paid at that time. Back then, the rich actually had to pay for the government that they own and operate.

Every Republican elected to office since 1980 has been working tirelessly to grow the wealth inequality gap back to the Hoover era. Massive deficit spending is great for them. Massive debt means that the government has to print more money to pay off the interest, which = inflation. Who do you think inflation affects more?

Rich people won't suddenly decide to stop doing whatever made them rich just because their taxes went up. One of the biggest problems we have going forward is that the rich can afford to fund think tanks that publish literature to misinform all the stupid people (hello Heritage Foundation).

Trump passes a tax cut that gives most middle class earners 40-50 extra bucks/month and expires in 6-7 more years while it remains permanent for corporations and will add 2.3 trillion more to the debt over the next 10 years. How many people do you think understand that this is essentially passing on debt to future generations while making the rich richer?

GE pays no taxes. Walmart gets subsidized to the tune of 6+ billion a year because they don't pay a living wage and the taxpayers have to foot the bill for housing aid and food stamps for their employees. "Wealth redistribution" is happening, but not in the way that your typical RW Faux-News-viewing simpleton believes.

[QUOTE=greymatter]Who said anything about deserving other people's money? Why are you parroting a conservatard canard that the rich paying more tax = wealth redistribution?

Unless you were old enough to be in the top tax bracket before 1981, you probably had no clue that 70% was what they paid at that time. Back then, the rich actually had to pay for the government that they own and operate.

Every Republican elected to office since 1980 has been working tirelessly to grow the wealth inequality gap back to the Hoover era. Massive deficit spending is great for them. Massive debt means that the government has to print more money to pay off the interest, which = inflation. Who do you think inflation affects more?

Rich people won't suddenly decide to stop doing whatever made them rich just because their taxes went up. One of the biggest problems we have going forward is that the rich can afford to fund think tanks that publish literature to misinform all the stupid people (hello Heritage Foundation).

Trump passes a tax cut that gives most middle class earners 40-50 extra bucks/month and expires in 6-7 more years while it remains permanent for corporations and will add 2.3 trillion more to the debt over the next 10 years. How many people do you think understand that this is essentially passing on debt to future generations while making the rich richer?

GE pays no taxes. Walmart gets subsidized to the tune of 6+ billion a year because they don't pay a living wage and the taxpayers have to foot the bill for housing aid and food stamps for their employees. "Wealth redistribution" is happening, but not in the way that your typical RW Faux-News-viewing simpleton believes.[/QUOTE]

Complaining about the heritage foundation brainwashing people is hilarious. Liberals have the media, pop culture, hollywood, public schools, academia etc. and think there's absolutely no brainwashing going on there at all. Please.

Wealth inequality is really a dubious statistic that doesn't take into account age at all. When you break it down by age, the distribution isn't as drastic. Nonsense to compare a 25 year old to a 60 year old and scream about "inequality."

GE and Walmart may not provide taxes but they still provide a ton of social good in the products they supply.

Anyway, doesn't matter what the tax rate has been, revenue has been steady.

[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Hawker][B]Without someone owning those assets, the labor wouldn't exist though[/B]. Most people were working at some point before they decided to become a businessman and take a risk (aka owning resources for example). People who own resources create things that people want (and then provide it to them) not simply because they own it. It's a win-win for everybody.[/QUOTE]


Labor exists without property ownership.

I can be a lumberjack without anyone owning the forest.

[QUOTE]People making hundreds of millions of dollars didn't earn it either. They benefited from a system where the folks who own assets are entitled to the excess value of everyone's labor.[/QUOTE]

Tell you what.....

Go get hundreds of millions of dollars for nothing...without winning the lottery. Tell me how that goes.

Everything comes from somewhere and few little of it is free.


[QUOTE]Athletes are a tiny percent of the very rich. Most do not get rich from working. Most wealth is inherited or comes from capital appreciation and profit (money you get because you own the resources).[/QUOTE]

Where did those resources come from exactly?

[QUOTE]Athletes, actors, musicians, and reality/social media stars are emphasized in our media in order to obscure the true nature of the extremely wealthy in our country[/QUOTE]

Thats a matter of perspective and where you start defining people as extremely wealthy. Wealthy to me now is far from what I thought it was 20 years ago. Im wealthy by the standards I used to have. Im broke by the standards of the people I deal with now.

[QUOTE]Who said anything about deserving other people's money? Why are you parroting a conservatard canard that the rich paying more tax = wealth redistribution? [/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]Unless you were old enough to be in the top tax bracket before 1981, you probably had no clue that 70% was what they paid at that time. Back then, the rich actually had to pay for the government that they own and operate. [/QUOTE]

Really? You think you are the one who informed modern society of the tax laws of generations ago?

Everyone who ever had a tax discussion knew that taxes used to be much higher. Who could you possibly think didnt know that?


[QUOTE]Every Republican elected to office since 1980 has been working tirelessly to grow the wealth inequality gap back to the Hoover era. Massive deficit spending is great for them. Massive debt means that the government has to print more money to pay off the interest, which = inflation. Who do you think inflation affects more?

Rich people won't suddenly decide to stop doing whatever made them rich just because their taxes went up. One of the biggest problems we have going forward is that the rich can afford to fund think tanks that publish literature to misinform all the stupid people (hello Heritage Foundation). [/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]Trump passes a tax cut that gives most middle class earners 40-50 extra bucks/month and expires in 6-7 more years while it remains permanent for corporations and will add 2.3 trillion more to the debt over the next 10 years. How many people do you think understand that this is essentially passing on debt to future generations while making the rich richer? [/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]GE pays no taxes. Walmart gets subsidized to the tune of 6+ billion a year because they don't pay a living wage and the taxpayers have to foot the bill for housing aid and food stamps for their employees. "Wealth redistribution" is happening, but not in the way that your typical RW Faux-News-viewing simpleton believes.[/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.

And the living wage shit is hilarious to me. Bunch of people take minimum wage(or near it) jobs and complain about the pay. You know why Walmart can pay what it does? There are always a thousand people willing to take the job of anyone who quits.

A job is worth what the people working it decide it is. You know what it would take to raise pay at walmart(even more I mean...its going to 15 an hour soon just like Target)?

Not showing up to work.

I know a dozen people who worked at walmart. I worked at Kmart myself back in the day. Know what I did?

Quit. You only load so much pine straw at 4 bucks an hour in 100 degree weather.

There are so many better jobs....people who work at walmart do it by choice. Its a lack of ambition...or being ok with it. There are thousands of elderly greeting because its supplemental income. Tens of thousands of students. The able bodied normal adults bitching about 11 dollars an hour(what they pay now) get not ****s given from me.

Pay 100 bucks of that walmart check to get a state licence to drive a forklift. Get a factory job. Work hard and advance....get a raise. My friend is the supervisor of TLE at a local walmart. He isnt making minimum wage now.

Ive had retail jobs....its mostly lazy pieces of shit that a few workhorses like me carry until we see it doesnt make sense longterm.

There have always been and will always be low paying jobs for one very simple reason...

Someone ALWAYS thinks the pay offered is enough to show up.

Talking about Walmart making people be on food stamps. 45 million people arent on food stamps because of jobs not paying well for incredibly simple work that in some cases...can be performed by children or the learning impaired.

People are on food stamps because they ****ed their lives up at 16 and didnt graduate high school. Because they didnt go to school. Because they wont even google trade schools. Because they had 4 kids by 23 while living at their moms house and not having a good relationship with the father of any of them before they started having unprotected sex. They are on stamps because they cant pass a drug test. Because they have a disability. Because the breadwinner in the family passed before they learned to support themselves. Because they robbed a guy in 1994 or stole from the register when they worked at Wendys.

Having a shit job or no job isnt the fault of a business that pays what shit work is worth.

Ive owned businesses. Tell me...why should I pay someone twice what THEY tell me they need for a days work because....otherwise I get richer? The morals dont change if I had 30,000 employees instead of 6. Your work is worth what you will take to do it. If guys wont take 60 bucks a day to cut grass....id have to stop operations or pay 100. This is simple. And its not the fault of the people offering the job.

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=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]

I agree with all of your posts and especially the quoted. Amen, amen, amen.

And also I always just llove how such a large percentage of people think it

Morgan Freeman said this best...

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r72a19Lbz7k[/url]


A lot of people just don

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Tell you what.....

[B]Go get hundreds of millions of dollars for nothing...without winning the lottery. Tell me how that goes.

Everything comes from somewhere and few little of it is free.[/B]




Where did those resources come from exactly?



Thats a matter of perspective and where you start defining people as extremely wealthy. Wealthy to me now is far from what I thought it was 20 years ago. Im wealthy by the standards I used to have. Im broke by the standards of the people I deal with now.[/QUOTE]


It happens every day, it's called inheritance. Almost 40% of wealth is inherited in America.

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.

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.

Btw, I'm saying all this because I've studied it, not because I'm some sort of jealous hater. I have a good job and I could sit on my ass for the rest of my life and eventually be a multi-millionaire....because I'm white and white people control most of the wealth in this country. Eventually I'm just going to inherit a bunch of money that I did nothing for...

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=Ben Simmons 25]Morgan Freeman said this best...

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r72a19Lbz7k[/url]


A lot of people just don’t want to believe they stay in the spot they’re in because of themselves and their own mindset.

As a child this is obviously not true but as an adult... in the United States... it is 100% true.[/QUOTE]

Mr. Freeman is an exception to this, but most Hollywood stars are the children of directors/actors/producers who got them into the Screen Actors Guild at a young age. Hollywood is more nepotistic than almost any industry.

This is changing somewhat with social media. It's harder to pretend you got your roles off merit when anyone can look up who your dad was.