People are Going to Have to Learn how to Share More

[Nadiru]

I am mainly attacking CEO's, large business owners, and others that make a absurd amount of money. Joe the plumber that makes a little more than other plumber because he works harder is not a problem.

Define "a absurd amount" though.

[nanook12]

And why not? Is there a set amount that you can actually "earn"?

Why do you hate successful people so much?

No there is not a set amount that you can earn, but the idea of a maximum wage is interesting. I don't hate successful people, I hate greedy people.

[Orange Joe]

I'm all for providing basic sustenance to the truly disabled or helpless. For everyone else, there's graffiti over there that needs scrubbin' for that check you think you deserve.

And when there is no more graffiti, or you live in a already clean neighborhood?

[nanook12]

Define "a absurd amount" though.

Anything over 50 million a year after taxes.

[BuckSparkles]

No there is not a set amount that you can earn, but the idea of a maximum wage is interesting. I don't hate successful people, I hate greedy people.

You should check out that self-hatred problem then.

I predict you want to benefit from a lil' ol' wealth redistribution, don't you?

Don't discourage success and encourage laziness, which is what you are doing.

[Orange Joe]

And yet you want to penalize people who make more than you.

I don't consider paying the same % as penalizing anyone.

[Nadiru]

Anything over 50 million a year after taxes.

Why is that the level by which you can't possibly be doing enough to earn that pay?

[BuckSparkles]

Anything over 50 million a year after taxes.

So do you hate all movie stars and many professional football players then?

[ControlWarrior]

I just wanted to post in this supremely idiotic thread.

[Masark]

I dont call sitting on your ass all day collecting welfare and popping out kids you cant pay for "contributing".

However, sitting on your ass all day collecting dividends is hard work in your mind.

[BuckSparkles]

I don't consider paying the same % as penalizing anyone.

I would be for a flat tax. But you don't want a flat tax, I bet. You want people who make more to pay a higher % in taxes.

(Note: Higher =/= Same %)

[Orange Joe]

So do you hate all movie stars and many professional football players then?

only 10 athletes in the world making over 50 million a year


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes...-paid_athletes

- - - Updated - - -

I would be for a flat tax. But you don't want a flat tax, I bet. You want people who make more to pay a higher % in taxes.

(Note: Higher =/= Same %)

You understand how markets work right? Money sitting in banks doesn't grow economies. They money needs to be spent for it to do anything.

Who do you think spends more. Millions of low/middle class or the 1% on top.

[Seranthor]

Anything over 50 million a year after taxes.

So you hate Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, the vast majority of popular musicians as well as most actors and actresses? Or had you not thought about that... and I'm still waiting on how much YOU plan to start sharing.

[Thetruth1400]

No, I still believe that people who work hard should get paid more, but does a CEO really need to make 200 million a year? No, that is a massive waste.

Do you have any proof for that? Yes, it's nice to pretend that their salaries are unjustified, but who is to say that them being in the position they are in isn't what is making that company money and that if they weren't there the company would be closed down.

Likewise, how do you quantify your comment of "people who work hard should get paid more"? Does a CEO sitting on his butt in an office making phone calls and business decisions really work harder than someone out there busting their ass working in a manual labor job? Do either of them deserve more than say an EMT, whose jobs actually can save lives? Hell, should we forget about people that work as septic tank drivers? If it weren't for them, we'd literally be swimming in shit.

How do you quantify "My fair share?" The answer is, you can't. We need a tax system in place that taxes people at the right rates, and it needs to apply to everyone. We need a minimum wage that affords at least the basics of society without government assistance. That's all just on a local / country level. How do we spread this globally? How can you force "fairness" on a country that is run by a dictator? Should someone in Mexico, whose average income is $12,850 and someone in Luxembourg whose average income is $61,511 all have to equal out and get $37,180 each? Do you force the prices of goods to change to a "standard" price so the new leveled out amount is the same in both places? How is that fair in any way, if you look at a good or service that is produced in country vs one that has to be shipped half way across the world to reach its destination?

At the end of the day, it all seems to boil down to "I want more so the world should make it accommodate my wants." here. If you want a true global economy, everyone and that means OP are going to have to make some form of sacrifice. Until that time though, everything is a pipe dream.

[BuckSparkles]

o

You understand how markets work right? Money sitting in banks doesn't grow economies. They money needs to be spent for it to do anything.

Who do you think spends more. Millions of low/middle class or the 1% on top.

So you are saying the successful people with 3 summer homes, sports cars, and a yacht aren't spending?

I suppose if you are comfortable with other people telling you what to do you with your money.

[nanook12]

Venezuela is one of those "sharing societies" lets see how they are doing.

Venenzuela is doing a hell of a lot better than Somalia which is a completely unsharing country.

[Nadiru]

You understand how markets work right? Money sitting in banks doesn't grow economies. They money needs to be spent for it to do anything.

Who do you think spends more. Millions of low/middle class or the 1% on top.

Banks grow economies through lending, which is their primary function now that physical security isn't quite as mandatory as it once was. The problem seems to be that the economies which banks are growing through lending have primarily been developing countries which can create better returns.

Who do you think spends more: Millions of low/middle class Americans or billions of formerly-extremely poor Chinese/Indians/Vietnamese?

[Orange Joe]

Trashy people are a self-contained eco-system. They create as much or more shit that needs to be picked up after than they can be forced to pick up. Source: every major inner city.

Guess what isn't a major inner city and still has people in poverty.


Small rural areas.

- - - Updated - - -

Banks grow economies through lending, which is their primary function now that physical security isn't quite as mandatory as it once was. The problem seems to be that the economies which banks are growing through lending have primarily been developing countries which can create better returns.

Who do you think spends more: Millions of low/middle class Americans or billions of formerly-extremely poor Chinese/Indians/Vietnamese?

They don't normally lend money to people in poverty. And the middle class is shrinking.

[nanook12]

Actually, the conditions of living have never been better for a typical low income household.

Conditions have never been more unequal either.

[Seranthor]

Conditions have never been more unequal either.

Says who? please, provide your evidence.