Comments 1 - 40 of 92 Next » Last » Search these comments
Dear Jazz, Dan, and Communists,
If you kill the rich, in other words kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, where will the money to feed the welfare queens come from?
Strategist saysStrategist saysDear Jazz, Dan, and Communists,
If you kill the rich, in other words kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, where will the money to feed the welfare queens come from?
Why bite the hand that feeds you? Isn't that stupid?
Those clowns want to be a part of the 1%, they just don't want to WORK for it, but have it given to them. After all, they're "entitled"!!
but would it be accurate to state that generally, those who don't make it in America, are the ones most likely to become communists?
Strategist saysbut would it be accurate to state that generally, those who don't make it in America, are the ones most likely to become communists?
or Bernie Sander's Socialists.
Those clowns want to be a part of the 1%, they just don't want to WORK for it, but have it given to them. After all, they're "entitled"!!
Dear Jazz, Dan, and Communists,
If you kill the rich, in other words kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, where will the money to feed the welfare queens come from?
Sniper saysThose clowns want to be a part of the 1%, they just don't want to WORK for it, but have it given to them. After all, they're "entitled"!!
Strategist saysDear Jazz, Dan, and Communists,
If you kill the rich, in other words kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, where will the money to feed the welfare queens come from?
Ah you guys are gonna argue that the rich worked so much more than the rest that they actually deserve to own 50% of the world.
It would be unfair if they owned only 35%, right?
And if robots tomorrow produce enough for anyone satisfaction, you will still be here arguing that it's immoral to give stuff for free, and that the rich deserve to now own 99% of the world.
Your moral intuition is bankrupt.
So you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Next in line to feed the welfare queens will be the middle class. Up up up will go your taxes.
You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage. The difference between the rich and you now is, that the rich worked hard to climb the ladder to success, while you just sit and complain that you're not getting your share.
Do you think that if the rich owned only 35% of the world, the goose that lays the golden eggs would be dead?
How about 20%?
I don't know if the goose would die. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.
Exactly. There's this thing called "Working SMARTER not HARDER".
You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage.
Do you think someone is less motivated if they are paid $50 millions instead of $100 millions?
I think the CEO's would even take $5 million if he had no other choice. His goal is to get the maximum possible. In today's competitive world he would end up in a different country, where someone offered him $80 million.
You take away the incentives
Our problem is, we give too much incentives to the wrong people.
No, you assume there is a job market for CEOs where this is the pay level. This is not how it works.
Employees are in a job market where the market decides the normal wages.
But there are tons of smart people that could do most CEOs jobs. CEOs have unique positions where they arrange pay packages in one-off deals with a board often made of their buddies. There are no rules and no market. In fact shareholders activists often argue that pay packages are totally disconnected from performance and abusive.
It's a pick-a-number system. And again, given to people who are probably not the best, but happen to be here. And there is no evidence that these people could get a better deal somewhere else.
When you talk about wrong incentives in the current world, these wrong incentives are not due to not enough inequality. Often they are basically welfare, or unions, which are justified by too much inequality.
So from any angle you look at it, less inequality would be better.
What no one ever points out is that both the richest and the poorest generally live off of the labor of others.
The very rich do it by economic rent extraction, enforced at gunpoint. The very poor do it by social programs, also enforced at gunpoint.
The solution is to stop taxing labor completely and get serious about taxing land and capital gains instead.
Then everyone will have an incentive to work.
So you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Next in line to feed the welfare queens will be the middle class. Up up up will go your taxes.
Less inequality would be better for society, but not by removing incentives for the producers.
We can have less inequality by turning losers into producers by cutting off their welfare.
Strategist saysLess inequality would be better for society, but not by removing incentives for the producers.
Agreed. This means we have a huge leeway to increase taxes by a lot on rich people.
Strategist saysWe can have less inequality by turning losers into producers by cutting off their welfare.
Nope. We live in a "winner take all" world, and therefore there gonna be a lot of losers. You can't change this by more people working harder.
Heraclitusstudent saysSniper saysExactly. There's this thing called "Working SMARTER not HARDER".
So if you're dumb, it's just bad luck right?
If you're dumb it must be bad luck. All humans are not born with the same intelligence or talents.
What people in top management get is entirely up to the board. It's their company and their money. I'm OK with whatever the two sides end up negotiating.
Sniper saysExactly. There's this thing called "Working SMARTER not HARDER".
So if you're dumb, it's just bad luck right?
Strategist says. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.
How are you sure?
bob2356 saysSniper says
You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage.
How many? What percentage? .
Did they all start out rich at 16 years old?
Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.
You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Larry Page, William Harley, Bill Hewlett, Anthony Chapman, Tony Maglica , Harold Matson, Michael Kittredge???
You mean those rich guys.. Run and Hide.
Why do you keep spewing this crap. The facts are, there are multi THOUSANDS of CEOs that have small businesses and have a handful of employees.
There are plenty of people who work their tails off but are not rich
Strategist saysHere are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.
Stocks and real estate would be more tied to their fundamental income-producing values, which is a good thing.
There would be no need for a 401k, since all income from actual labor would be untaxed. People would save anyway. I know I would. And my savings would be larger because of the reduced tax on it.
OK, some poor people will never work. Not saying they should get anything special.
New investment in companies would likely go way up, because it's the ordinary people who spend the money who keep corporate investments profitable. The rich mostly hoard their wealth and do not spend it, destroying the demand side. Giving more to them does nothing for the demand side. But not taxing the labor of ordinary workers would give them more cash to spend, and therefore increase corporate profits.
Comments 1 - 40 of 92 Next » Last » Search these comments
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth - CNBC.com
https://www.cnbc.com/.../11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.ht...
Nov 14, 2017 - The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth, according a Credit Suisse report. The total ...
http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-1-own-over-half-the-worlds-wealth-2017-11