Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There does come a point where someone just makes way too much money.
I disagree. To begin with, who gets to decide how much is too much? There are posters on this thread that would think $250K/year is too much. It is just waayyyy too slippery of a slope to begin with.
Second, do you realize a lot of this money goes to GOOD causes, sometimes in huge amounts? For example T. Boone Pickens, an uber-rich oilman in Oklahoma who attended Oklahoma State University, has donated 100's of millions of dollars to OSU to build libraries, football stadiums, etc.
Also, check out where Rockefeller Center and Madison Square Garden came from. They were built and DONATED to New York City.
How about someone like Robert Noyce, the co-founder of Intel. He is also the co-inventor of the integrated circuit, and responsible for the development of the microprocessor. Without him, there would be no personal computers or smart phones, so we couldn't argue like this. How much is he worth? Who gets to decide that? BTW, his legacy is The Robert Noyce Foundation, which provides collage scholarships to worthy individuals.
Instead, you folks want to see a 75 to 95 percent tax, where all that money gets dumped into the extremely inefficient federal government, where the majority of it gets wasted.
I fail to see the logic of punishing rich people or the corporations they create.
I think what Bill and Melinda Gates are doing is wonderful. They actually care about the poor. And then we have the Kardashians who care nothing about anyone else. If I were this rich, I would have no problem giving money to the poor.
If Bill cared about the poor, Windows would be free. Also, Bill Gates put his money in a revocable trust that allows it to generate income UNTAXED. At anytime he can just terminate the trust and not be charged back taxes.
The irony is that this thread is based on money, and no one really knows who has the power to create it.
. . .
Pursuant to Art 1, Sec 8, USCON -
Congress has the power to coin money (stamp bullion) or borrow money. It cannot create money (bullion).
(Federal reserve notes / aka / dollar bills are DEBT - IOUs - denominated in dollars, but are NOT dollars. Negative value. Minus value.)
. . .
Congress can't create money nor give that power to anyone else (like a bank).
All this arguing over debt instruments (notes), without one pointing out who the obligated party on those notes are. (See: Title 12 USC Sec. 411)
In 1933, Congress repudiated their notes in HJR 192, June 1933, and later in the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Ergo, said notes are "worthless."
". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
You might want to ask your public servant to explain how YOUR LABOR AND PROPERTY backs their worthless kited checks.
Also look up what "contribution" means in law... as in the Federal Insurance CONTRIBUTION Act of 1935.
FICA is not "insurance" for the participants.
In Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits. And that benefits are entirely at the discretion of Congress.
(Not insurance. No "Trust fund". Just a "tax and bribe" scam.)
That would suck it is there own hard earn money
Now if there were a voluntary tax of say 2% option for anyone who makes over $100mil that the money go towards lowering U.S. debt and only to lowering U.S. debt I support.
Interesting point. And I'd say the people have voted with their wallets. That's the only way Amazon could generate enough in profits to buy out other retailers.
They even have Walmart quaking in their boots! And all the food retailers.
Going to raise some very interesting issues re: competition.
And what about democracy? When a handful of people have almost all the money, will even a semblance of democracy still exist?
I'm not sure we can count on people's "votes" to be the best answer. I recall a study of rats that would forego anything for another whiff of cocaine, maybe there is a lesson in there somewhere?
They even have Walmart quaking in their boots! And all the food retailers.
Going to raise some very interesting issues re: competition.
And what about democracy? When a handful of people have almost all the money, will even a semblance of democracy still exist?
I'm not sure we can count on people's "votes" to be the best answer. I recall a study of rats that would forego anything for another whiff of cocaine, maybe there is a lesson in there somewhere?
Perhaps, but it is the people, after all, who CHOOSE from which retailer they're going to buy their goods. If the people didn't want to give Amazon so much business, and therefore the profits they're using to buy out other retailers, they wouldn't order from Amazon.
And maybe Amazon does runaway with a quasi-monopoly. Well, when they start pricing their "delivered to the door" goods at a higher price than people are willing to pay, that opens the door for a new competitor to challenge their dominance. And so it has been all along in a capitalist system.
Perhaps, but it is the people, after all, who CHOOSE from which retailer they're going to buy their goods. If the people didn't want to give Amazon so much business, and therefore the profits they're using to buy out other retailers, they wouldn't order from Amazon.
And maybe Amazon does runaway with a quasi-monopoly. Well, when they start pricing their "delivered to the door" goods at a higher price than people are willing to pay, that opens the door for a new competitor to challenge their dominance. And so it has been all along in a capitalist system.
Ah, but at some point the barriers to entry become too steep and huge players simply crush competition. Drive them out of business.
Look at the wireless players in the USA. Look at what Walmart did to small business. Maybe you are right. Something tells me there may be larger forces at play. Economies of massive scale are very difficult to overcome. Even Sprint and T-mobile only exist at this point due to past government intervention.
No Sweden is not a true socialist country it is however considered to be a social democratic country with a welfare state. Previously during the 70s Sweden was a far more socialistic country but since the 80s, deregulation has made Sweden a more liberal country. Compared to the rest of the world however, Sweden is still a relatively socialistic country with high taxes and a broad social welfare. Yes, 90% of Sweden's industry is privately owned, but with the extreme regulation and high taxes, they would better be called fascist to be actually correct
No, calling Sweden fascist is more stupid than calling socialist. We're not even going down that path. Let's get the socialism thing cleared up before we introduce another word that people use with essentially no consideration to actual definition.
Sweden can be described as a social democracy; this is true. That is NOT the same thing as being a socialist country. Again, socialism is defined by having industry owned public, which in all pragmatic terms, means the state. This means that your justification for calling Sweden socialistic, which to recap, was high taxes and regulations, does even slightly hold up. Neither of those would necessarily exist in a socialist state. A socialist state would own all industry, so regulating the industry you own isn't really a thing and taxes aren't really a thing either since what would more reasonably happen is the state would simply generate revenue through the sale and export of goods produced and pay the workers accordingly. Workers could then use that money to buy things from other state owned enterprise, which would essentially eliminate the need for taxes, as revenue is generated from the state whenever you buy soemthing and even if that's not enough, the tax would simply be deduced from the pay the state would give.
So, to be clear, Sweden is not socialist. They are not "more socialistic." "More Socialistic" would have to mean something like the state owns 50% or more of all industry or the state in in the process of taking more industry, neither of which are true.
And if we were to use your definition, or things like taxes and regulations being the definitive hallmarks of socialism, this would make people like Donald Trump, a supporter of protectionism (a form of trade regulation), a socialist, which is insane, because if you ask socialists their opinion of Donald Trump, it will almost certainly not be favorable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
