Entitlements - what's so bad about them?

Except in Massachusetts (there may be others): that is the federal limit.

Agreed, some base number could be set, similar to my proposed simple tax system of first $50.000 is tax free and all earnings from any sources above that taxed at 50%.Those that benefit most from the system pay the most to ensure the system keeps working.

Yes, he identified himself very clearly, but with enormous verbosity.

Yes, however I do have a quibble: This is not really the opposite of "1: There are the "zero sum game" people. "A true dichotomy would be non-zero sum game, a synergy, where the result is greater than the sum of the individual parts.Synergy - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Synergy is the interaction of multiple elements in a system to produce an effect different from or greater than the sum of their individual effects. The term synergy comes from the Greek word synergia from synergos, meaning "working together".

---

Society is a synergy.You can also simplify it by:1. Top down economics
2. Middle out economics
3. Bottom up economicsConservative (Teabilly) Republicans are in favor of (1) -- trickle down economics -- in spite of it's absolute catastrophic failure ...Liberal Republicans (if any are left) and conservative Democrats are in favor of (2) -- current president for example, with more emphasis on rebuilding the middle class than helping the poorLiberal Democrats are in favor of (3) -- and I put Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in this category.Curiously I have always found sound systems to be based on a firm foundations that are then built on to make finer constructions.Bottom up is natural and self-sustaining. Synergies occur naturally.Top down erodes the base and ultimately collapses. Housing market collapse is a prime example of the eroded base causing the failure, and the erosion was caused by greedy top banksters sucking money out of the system.Were the banksters entitled to the bailouts?Were the people entitled to bailouts? ... see Iceland.Edited by RAZD, : .

So when a CEO takes a large salary because they feel entitled to it, then someone else is obliged to pay ... which would be the workers responsible for the actual production ... correct?When a CEO gives themself a massive bonus for shutting down operations because they feel entitled to it (they worked hard to undo production after all), then someone else is obliged to pay ... which would be the workers that no longer have a job ... correct?

So when a CEO takes a large salary because they feel entitled to it, then someone else is obliged to pay.....namely the rest of us.Increasingly in the UK the state is subsidising the profits of corporations and the obscene salaries execs pay themselves by allowing companies to pay their workers wages on which it is impossible to actually live thus necessitating those workers to receive government assistance in the form of welfare payments of one sort or another. Welfare bill up and profits made on the back of poverty wages.Any objection to this is met with the standard cry of "market forces, market forces" while those at the top are hailed as wealth creators and the working poor (many working more than one job) are demonised as scrounging layabouts.It really is a rigged system.....

I mostly agree with that.

And that is the ultimate rub. The individuals that scream the most about a 'free market' are the ones actually using their influence and higher status to adjust parameters to their favor. CEOs generally have boards that are essentially just a buddies club. So they all essentially give each other perks by serving on their friend's boards. Ergo, the pay at the top continues to skyrocket while the actual living wages are stagnating or declining.The stock market is another great example of gaming the system. With all the electronics in place now, it is easy to perform actions like 'front loading', which is making trades in the first 30 minutes of stock action because the money manager can see the queued up stock requests and know exactly which way the market will move in the first half hour. It is something that has been known about for years and the SEC does nothing about it.And don't look to Congress for any assistance in this regard as they are guilty of more insider trading than anyone else.

Which nation best exemplifies the successful implementation of the sort of economic system you are advocating?Is there an example of such an economy actually working?

That subject-verb construction typifies American black vernacular.Is that the "type" you wished to invoke?There are many dialects in the U.S.: you could have used "youse guys or "dose guys" or "ya'll" (the most common dialect among the predominantly white folks on the government teat)--or even the simple "You owe me" which would typify the attitude across groups.But you didn't.The typical conservative response at this juncture is to complain that the race card has been put in play.But you put the card on the table.I just turned it face up.

quote:

---

Communism is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterised by the absence of classes, money[1][2], markets and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims at the establishment of this social order.[3]

---

Sadly, Coyote actually 'thinks' North Korea is a prime example of a system that has all the classic benchmarks of communism like: common ownership, absence of classes, and where decisions are made collectively. Coyote's 'thinking' is akin to what creationists unilaterally construct in their little minds about atheists.Unfortunately, as an american, he is not alone in his willful ignorance.Viva la Faux News!!!

And the dupes - the ordinary folks who call themselves "capitalists" but don't have any capital.

No doubt there are many of those good for nothing lazy bums.The chances are that those good for nothing lazy bums actually work a lot harder than you do. And the chances are that your own standard of living is very dependent on the work of those good for nothing lazy bums.Here's my puzzle: You are an anthropologist, and a Randroid. But would a purely Randroid world even have anthropologists? Surely anthropologists (and mathematicians such as myself) are just lazy bums living of the fat of the land and the work of others.

Indeed, greed is not a right nor a basis of entitlement. That has been going on here for a while -- looks like the big corporations are exporting this model around the world ...Wallmart workers are responsible for something like 34% of all food assistance (SNAP) in the US while they make record profits. So I don't shop there yet part of my tax money goes to help the workers and indirectly into the pockets of the Waltons (Wallmart owners). Hopefully your unions are in better shape than ours (they have been gutted and neutered pretty savagely in the last several decades - since Reagan, the first Teabilly).The right to form unions and bargain for better working conditions is a basic human right (UN declaration)The Occupy movement rose because of this, and the numbers of strikes and walkouts for low wages in the food industries are another result. This undercurrent of dissatisfaction has not gone away.This year is an OFF year election cycle (non-presidential) and the opposition party usually picks up seats.If the democrats can get it together and build a solid program of jobs, fair minimum wage, equal pay and oh by the way WE gave you healthcare ...If they can rally the young people and the single women to get out and vote it is feasible that the election could be a surprise ...... especially if all the GOP runs on is repealing obamacare ... taking healthcare away from people that now have (and like) it.Because they are not entitled to win more seats, no matter how much they have rigged the districts.

Our lack of socialism is causing us to run out of money, at least in the middle class where health care costs continue to outpace wages. If we had socialism, we would actually have MORE money. Notice that the UK is spending LESS THAN HALF of what we are on healthcare per capita.