The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Which is fine. My only criticism is that if you do that through cutting spending on social programs, you have achieved nothing different. If you take away a voucher and grant the same ammount of money in exchange, you achieve nothing. You need to either cut spending in other areas (which is what I have been asking you to specify) or increase taxes on the wealthy.

I said cut 15% across the board would do it.

By paying significantly less than what their employees generate in revenue to the employer when they could afford to pay much more.

So what, the employees can leave if they want to if they don't like what they are getting paid. No company owes you money because you want it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What I said is that the same underlying reasoning applies to limiting wealth. We don't want ordinary citizens to hold a lot of power over the others.

With proper laws they won't.

Erm....I mean, sure, many rich people obtained wealth by working hard, but many rich people also obtained wealth through other means. And working hard, when present, is always just a little part of the equation.

How can you possibly know this?

That's just libertarianism rhetoric. We can only speaks of stealing when it is ordinary citizens taking wealth away, but not when it is the State lawfully doing it.

What ordinary citizen in stealing money from others? If they are they need to be prosecuted.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

In the US the rich - often - are not paying their fair share of taxes. The biggie I see is that they tend not to pay for their companies' use of the infrastructure. Roads, the grid, schools, police, fire, and so on. All of which they use to their benefit.

In the US the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes. I think that is more than their fair share.

 

[Revoltingest]

You thought it was about your proposal, @PureX already said that it wasn't about illegal bribery.

Yes. You don't call it so, but the "legal kinds of influence" are a way to keep the politicians indebted to their donors. In most other countries, it would be illegal or at least highly questionable.
I'd also go as far to call the US a plutocracy.

Influence should be regulated, but specifics
are beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

more bad faith...

Goodness gracious.
No wonder you have so much difficulty here.

 

[Revoltingest]

They can see through....

They imagine this because it's self serving.
It's easy for you to believe things if you
don't investigate them for evidence &
reasoning.

 

[icehorse]

Goodness gracious.
No wonder you have so much difficulty here.

and even more bad faith!

 

[Revoltingest]

and even more bad faith!

Such hostile posts don't serve you well.
And they're made worse by your misunderstanding,
& extreme prejudice towards trans folk & Muslims.

 

[icehorse]

Such hostile posts don't serve you well.
And they're made worse by your misunderstanding,
& extreme prejudice towards trans folk & Muslims.

even MORE bad faith!

 

[Revoltingest]

even MORE bad faith!

I understand that your many interactions here
involve people criticizing you for these views.
This would make anyone angry. But to respond
with hostility out of anger creates a dysfunctional
feedback loop.
Please consider this.

 

[Koldo]

I said cut 15% across the board would do it.

Which would include the social programs. Thus, my criticism.

So what, the employees can leave if they want to if they don't like what they are getting paid.

Why do you think so many work for low wages if it is that simple?

No company owes you money because you want it.

Same goes for low taxes.

 

[icehorse]

I understand that your many interactions here
involve people criticizing you for these views.
This would make anyone angry. But to respond
with hostility out of anger creates a dysfunctional
feedback loop.
Please consider this.

even MORE bad faith - please consider this

I'd be willing to go back and reconstruct our exchanges on this thread. You've already declined that offer.

I see you make bad faith posts with many posters. You might find it an interesting challenge to se if you can restrict yourself to only good faith posts. It would be better for everyone if you did that

 

[Revoltingest]

even MORE bad faith - please consider this....

Oh, well.
I tried.

 

[Koldo]

With proper laws they won't.

Like limiting their wealth?

How can you possibly know this?

What specifically? That working hard is just a small part of the equation? Are all/most hard workers that you know rich?

What ordinary citizen in stealing money from others? If they are they need to be prosecuted.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You must have misread what I wrote.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Which would include the social programs. Thus, my criticism.

Ok. Why would you need them?

Why do you think so many work for low wages if it is that simple?

I don't know, ask them.

Same goes for low taxes.

The thing is I have a say in taxation through representative government. Taxes are necessary and companies do get taxed.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Like limiting their wealth?

If a law is made ok, but that does not make it good or moral.

What specifically? That working hard is just a small part of the equation? Are all/most hard workers that you know rich?

Not all people that work hard are rich but all people that have created their own wealth have worked hard.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You must have misread what I wrote.

Maybe.

 

[Koldo]

Ok. Why would you need them?

We would need them because cutting them and replacing them with money in the same ammount would be equivalent to doing nothing.

If you want to add extra money, you would need to cut more money from other places (which ones?) or increase taxes on the wealthy.

I don't know, ask them.

Do you mean this topic never showed up in your conversations? The answer is simple: they have nowhere else to go that will pay higher wages.

The thing is I have a say in taxation through representative government. Taxes are necessary and companies do get taxed.

Sure, but nobody is entitled to paying only low taxes.

 

[Koldo]

If a law is made ok, but that does not make it good or moral.

That's fine by me.

Not all people that work hard are rich but all people that have created their own wealth have worked hard.

What does 'create their own wealth' mean exactly? Rags to riches?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

We would need them because cutting them and replacing them with money in the same ammount would be equivalent to doing nothing.

If you want to add extra money, you would need to cut more money from other places (which ones?) or increase taxes on the wealthy.

I guess we are not communicating. I have said numerous times I would not replace services with money. If we cut 15% across the board and give it to people in poverty that means everyone is above the poverty line and services have only been cut 15%, not 100%.

Do you mean this topic never showed up in your conversations? The answer is simple: they have nowhere else to go that will pay higher wages.

Why can't they get a better paying job? They are out there.

Sure, but nobody is entitled to paying only low taxes.

No, we vote on taxes by voting for our representatives.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What does 'create their own wealth' mean exactly? Rags to riches?

It means wealth is created. Most (60-80%) people who have a net worth over $1M created the wealth themselves. Do you not think poor people can create wealth over time? If we taught people how to create wealth, then we will need a lot less programs to give people money.