Income Inequality.

[Kfox]

In theory and as long as you have only wage income. Income from not working (i.e. dividends) is taxed at lower rates. E.g. Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, as he himself said.

yeah; if you are a gagillionaire and you pull a million out to live on, you will pay taxes on the million for that year; but if it takes you 10 years to burn through that million dollars, you pay no taxes for the other 9 years because you have had no income during those years.

 

[Koldo]

Agree means you are happy with the situation or at least not unhappy with it.

Then any economical system is going to be inherently exploitative because people are often going to be unhappy...

 

[Koldo]

Good question. People define the word differently. I would say that if institutionalized or normalized bigotries unfairly limit your economic opportunities while enriching others greatly, you are being exploited. Others would say that anybody who generates more for the company than they receive from it - the usual reason people are hired and paid what they are - is exploited. I think Marx would.

My perspective leans more towards the latter, but it doesn't align perfectly. It is reasonable, up to a certain point, to have monetary return for capital investment, and it seems like a bad idea to prohibit the existence of any and all capital.

 

[Nakosis]

Then any economical system is going to be inherently exploitative because people are often going to be unhappy...

Yes, people can certainly see it that way.

 

[CharmingOwl]

How are the Proletariant different from Blue Collar workers?

Anyone except those who own land or the means of production are the proletariat. Even if they're paid well they need to work for the bourgeoisie for a living.

 

[Koldo]

That's power also! Black Lives Matter had the power to do so, but their lack of leadership prevented them from coming up with ideas that warrant seriousness. But the fact that the idea of getting rid of the police was actually taken seriously for a while rather than getting dismissed immediately as it should have been, proves they had much power. Now imagine what they could have done had they had leadership with the common sense of a billy goat?

There were millions of people involved in the protests. It is the lack of a centralized leadership that allowed so many people to unite across the country.

But all of this is irrelevant, because living in a democratic country naturally means that any large number of people when standing united will have power. That's not a problem. But when you are standing alone and able to enact massive changes because you have money... That's a problem.

 

[Kfox]

Anyone except those who own land or the means of production are the proletariat.

Which includes a lot of multimillionaires in today's economy

Even if they're paid well they need to work for the bourgeoisie for a living.

Don't confuse not owning land or the means of production with having to work for a living.

 

[Kfox]

There were millions of people involved in the protests. It is the lack of a centralized leadership that allowed so many people to unite across the country.

Perhaps.

But all of this is irrelevant, because living in a democratic country naturally means that any large number of people when standing united will have power.

No; that is not irrelevant; it proves my point, you can be poor and still have power

That's not a problem. But when you are standing alone and able to enact massive changes because you have money... That's a problem.

Can you name someone who has actually done this in today's economy? IMO the problem with this idea of billionaires using their money to buy legislation is for every billionaire using his money to get some law passed, there is another billionaire using just as much money to get the law defeated and they cancel each other out. Rich people do not agree on issues, there are just as many progressive rich people who fight to get progressive ideas passed, as there are conservative rich people who fight to get conservative laws passed. They are not like black people voting 95% democratic or for the same type of ideas, and get vilified by other blacks if they don't tow the line; rich people have ideas that are as diverse as can be.

 

[Heyo]

Which includes a lot of multimillionaires in today's economy

Don't confuse not owning land or the means of production with having to work for a living.

You know that owning stocks is owning the means of production?

 

[Heyo]

Can you name someone who has actually done this in today's economy? IMO the problem with this idea of billionaires using their money to buy legislation is for every billionaire using his money to get some law passed, there is another billionaire using just as much money to get the law defeated and they cancel each other out. Rich people do not agree on issues, there are just as many progressive rich people who fight to get progressive ideas passed, as there are conservative rich people who fight to get conservative laws passed. They are not like black people voting 95% democratic or for the same type of ideas, and get vilified by other blacks if they don't tow the line; rich people have ideas that are as diverse as can be.

So, there are just as many billionaires bribing politicians to raise their taxes as those who bribe politicians to lower their taxes. And the general populace wants the billionaires to pay their fair share.
Then how come that politicians rarely raise taxes on the rich - and get re-elected?

 

[Kfox]

You know that owning stocks is owning the means of production?

You have to own all the stock to own the means of production

So, there are just as many billionaires bribing politicians to raise their taxes as those who bribe politicians to lower their taxes. And the general populace wants the billionaires to pay their fair share.
Then how come that politicians rarely raise taxes on the rich - and get re-elected?

The same reason politicians who do raise taxes on the rich get re-elected all the time.

 

[Heyo]

You have to own all the stock to own the means of production

Do you know why stock owners are called "shareholders"? Because they share ownership in a company (which produces goods or services). A shareholder gets his share of the revenue, called "dividend" and he gets to vote in the annual shareholder meeting.

What are you thinking? Corporations are self-owned? Owned by the CEO? Owned by the public?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So how do you explain the power of Black Lives Matter?

Isn’t Black Lives Matter a direct response to a perceived lack of power? Humans who lack power over their ow lives individually, have discovered many times over the centuries that collectively, they are powerful. Often more powerful, if they work together, than the forces lined up against them. Because, in the words of 19th century English radical Percy Shelley, “Ye are many, they are few”.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Flat tax is when everybody regardless of income pay the same percentage of taxes, IOW the rich pay the same percentage of their income as the poor

That part I understood.

What I didn't understand was your comment of how it means "taxing the poor, because they raise the taxes on the poor and cut the taxes of the rich"

If everybody pays the same %, how is that a tax cut for the rich?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Black Lives Matter, and what they accomplished.

A social movement made up of millions of people with explicit political goals is not comparable to the actual social elites.

I think entertainers, athletes, actors, and influencers are disproportionately represented within the social elites of America

No comment on the wealthy? Because I'm pretty certain wealthy people make up a significant majority, far more than any of those groups (and not forgetting that all of those groups are wealthy).

 

[PureX]

Ahhh….So rather than answer my question, you tell me a bunch of obvious stuff I already know? Let me put it this way; if you say 100%, that’s impossible no business enterprise can do that; if you say a reasonable percentage, an argument can be made that they already do that; and for those few that don’t aren’t in business for very long.

There is no 'percentage' involved. You're trying to ignore the obvious. Which is motive, not percentage. Do I seek to trade for my own enhancement, only? Or do I trade with the intent of our collective enhancement. In other words, am I out to exploit the other person in the trade for everything I can get, or am I out to make a FAIR trade in which we are both benefiting equally. It's a question of fair trade, or exploitation.

Right now, in pretty much all capitalist countries, and in pretty much all instances, the intent of trading is completely selfish, and therefor as exploitive as possible. Because that's the singular goal of the capital investors that control commercial activity in a capitalist system. This has nothing to do with perfection of percentages. It is all about intent: how we intend to treat each other when we engage in commercial trade. And why greed is so toxic wen it poisons that intent. As it does under capitalist commercial rule.

First of all; what you are calling “exploitation” is completely subjective.

It's not subjective at all, because it defines the intention behind the trade, not the content of the trade.

But I have no doubt that in your attempt at dismissing this reality, you will continue to stoop to whatever nonsense you can muster. Becau you aren't trying to understand anything, you're trying not to.

What YOU call exploitation, someone else might call a unique opportunity.

No one calls being exploited for their ignorance, or their lack of cash, or for whatever reason a "opportunity".

Second, you seem to believe all business owners are rich, successful and if they sell cheap and crappy products, it’s because they want to make even more money that they could if the did business in a honorable way.

They are rich enough to invest in a commercial enterprise when very few people are. And if they cannot conduct that business in a way that benefits all that engage in it, they should not be conductiing any business ar all.

This is unrealistic thinking. Many business sell cheap and crappy products because that is all they can afford to sell; the fact that 50% of business fail within the first 5 years proves all business owners are not rich and successful.

Then they should not exist. The world does not need their cheap, crappy, over-prices junk.

 

[Koldo]

Perhaps.

No; that is not irrelevant; it proves my point, you can be poor and still have power

What power does any random individual has on BLM?

Can you name someone who has actually done this in today's economy? IMO the problem with this idea of billionaires using their money to buy legislation is for every billionaire using his money to get some law passed, there is another billionaire using just as much money to get the law defeated and they cancel each other out. Rich people do not agree on issues, there are just as many progressive rich people who fight to get progressive ideas passed, as there are conservative rich people who fight to get conservative laws passed. They are not like black people voting 95% democratic or for the same type of ideas, and get vilified by other blacks if they don't tow the line; rich people have ideas that are as diverse as can be.

Source that the billionaires are cancelling each other's political influence?

 

[Heyo]

That part I understood.

What I didn't understand was your comment of how it means "taxing the poor, because they raise the taxes on the poor and cut the taxes of the rich"

If everybody pays the same %, how is that a tax cut for the rich?

Because, at least in theory, taxes are progressive. The higher the income, the higher the tax rate. A flat tax would raise low income tax rates and lower high income tax rates.

 

[metis]

I haven’t accepted anything, I read the links you posted, and I explained why I disagree with them.

Links aren’t gospel, they can be biased, or wrong just like you or I. That’s why I offered my critique of your link. Now if you disagree with my critique, by all means express your disagreement

Just because something works in Northern Europe does not mean it will work here; the gun issue has proven that time and time again.

Your opinions are not intrinsically facts, nor have you provided even one economic source to substantiate what you have chosen to believe.

 

[Kfox]

Do you know why stock owners are called "shareholders"? Because they share ownership in a company (which produces goods or services). A shareholder gets his share of the revenue, called "dividend" and he gets to vote in the annual shareholder meeting.

What are you thinking? Corporations are self-owned? Owned by the CEO? Owned by the public?

You are making my point; nobody owns the means of production, they own a tiny fraction of the means of production