Im all for it, except that morally, I dont believe in killing anyone. Again im stuck! I have to do evil to win, and I cant do evil. argggh
Well in this revolution we could be nice about it and just enslave the 1% send them to a gulag of some sort
Thing is the worse it'l get before something is done the worse the 1% will be off in the end.
I couldent kill a person either it was just a part of my rant, there are plenty of other options to what we could do that wouldn't collide with your morality.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Because the secret american motto is "work hard enough and you can be the 1%". The american dream is built on selling the masses that if they aren't yet rich, they will be if they work hard and long enough. Why would the rest of us want to harm what we aspire to be? See that businessman over there making 6 or 7 figures a year? Work hard enough and you can be just like him. See those rock stars on MTV cribs? Work hard enough and you can have that too.
Thing is most of the 1% dint haveto work hard they where just borne into the right family with the right connections.
Its not impossible for someone to become rich, hell i could be considered rich but working hard is not enough your axe hasto land in some honey too, but wealth i mean real wealth the kind that allows you to shape the world as you want that is almost impossible now days or possibly even impossible at least a billion to one in a generation. Thing is once you got wealth you cant get rid of it so a new typ of monarchy gets borne like the Rockefeller's.
that's the 1% the world could do without, the people who are so worried abbout loosing their wealth that they keep making sure that the rules of the game change so no one else can follow.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Thing is most of the 1% dint haveto work hard they where just borne into the right family with the right connections.
No, they worked hard too. It's hard work being rich. Why do you hate america? They pay all the taxes and support the country and people at the opposite end of the spectrum (let's call them "poor people") do nothing but suckle at the teet that is there because of the hard working rich people. Work hard and you can be a rich people too!
the people who are so worried abbout loosing their wealth
Why should they lose the wealth they worked so hard for? America! Fuck yea!
I jest. the best I got is a sarcasm laced "devils advocate" and any further input like this and I will earn my troll title.
Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
Do you have numbers to support this assertion? I'd like to see evidence that the wealthy actually pay more tax dollars than the middle and lower classes.
The Bush tax cuts cut the taxes of the wealthy the most but due to investment and incentive these same wealthy contributed record tax revenues, The stats are astounding and revealing.
quote:The American Enterprise Institute is a think tank with more than 50 scholars and experts engaged in public policy research promoting freedom, opportunity and enterprise.
quote:3. But didn’t the Bush tax cuts favor the rich?
The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a static worldthat is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior and economic performance as a result of the tax codethen these numbers are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.
But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.
4. But haven’t the tax cuts put more of the burden on the backs of the middle class and the poor?
No. I examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 percent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
I think that we're all aware of capitalism's strengths. We all know that capitalism is good at running a marketplace and providing opportunities. The major complaint is that unfettered capitalism doesn't do these things well enough.
Capitalism is very good indeed at making the rich richer. It's just that it has proven itself very bad at making the poor richer. Those "highest wages on the planet" that you mention are scant comfort to the hundreds of millions who will never have a hope of such decadence.
No, Granny. Capitalism makes all richer and affords the poor the amenities that they have. You should copy and paste my messages above as to why this is and respond to those reasons cited.
It's not up to the rich to make the poor better off. It's the government which subsidizes the poor who feed at the government trough paid for by the taxes of the middle class and far more by the rich (see the stats).
Whatever the government subsides you get more of. The milk subsidies produced so much milk that they were dumping it. Government subsidized poverty brings more poverty. Welfare and freeloading is the way of life for a large proportion of the poor. I know many of them who have no interest in helping themselves. Why should they? They get free everything including medical and often dental. They get food stamps, housing etc. You name it. Why should they work? Some get more from welfare than if they worked.
When I was young we lived on a cattle ranch leased on the Shoshoni Indian Reservation near Fort Washakie. Our Indian neighbor would plant his alfalfa but was too lazy to harvest it. There was the Shoshones and the Arapaho Reservations about 20 miles apart in Fremont County.
Before Dad began ranching he had a business in town. All of the Indians got government pay check and oil royalties. The more children they had, the bigger the checks. This ruined them. It mad them lazy bums with nothing to do but drink carouse, get in fights, etc. All to often a bad car collision would involve a drunken Indian driver. When they got their checks the bars were full of them. It was not unusual to see them passed out on the sidewalks.
They were pagans who had their war dances, etc That's another related matter.
The few Indians who were industrious and worked their ranches often became rich. They got the subsidies, cheap land and oil royalties plus the income from their ranches.
The Senecas and other tribes who never got the freebie subsidies were, by and large better off, having to earn much of their own way. Some were superb steeplejacks, etc. They got and still do get many benefits that the rest of us don't get but who pay the taxes which they are exempt from for highways which they travel on etc.
So the rich do pay the lions share of all of this. The top 10% paid 68% of the taxes last year. The poor paid about 3%. Most paid nothing but got the checks, food, housing etc.
Granny Magda writes:
I don't think that there are many people who want to dispense with capitalism entirely. It has proven itself to be a useful system. But I don't think that means that we can't try to create a fairer, more equal, more opportunity-based capitalism that doesn't leave such a massive underclass as the current set-up.
What more do you want the rich and capitalism to do for them. How about some work ethics and incentive of their own?
Then there's the millions of free loading disabled who get the checks and have do all kinds of work We all know some of them. That's become epidemic. We've become a nation of fat bloated sick who become unable to function or cheats who find a way to get subsidized by the ever diminishing working class of tax payers.
Well there's my whine. Pass some crackers, cheese and a glass of organic red wine. I'll pay for that myself, thanks.
No, Granny. Capitalism makes all richer and affords the poor the amenities that they have.
And yet there are still millions of Americans without basic healthcare. Capitalism is clearly not doing the best of jobs or this would not be the case.
It's not up to the rich to make the poor better off. It's the government which subsidizes the poor who feed at the government trough paid for by the taxes of the middle class and far more by the rich (see the stats).
You should stop playing blame games Buz. It is generally not the fault of the poor that they're poor.
Some get more from welfare than if they worked.
The answer to that then is to ensure that working pays a living wage, not to hammer the poor. Blaming poor people for their own poverty is nothing but a Band Aid over the guilt of the better off.
I'm not interested in playing blame games here; I'm interested in creating a better, fairer and more equal society. Capitalism has had plenty of time to achieve that and it has failed.
They were pagans who had their war dances, etc That's another related matter.
That is not a related matter unless you are a fucking bigot.
What more do you want the rich and capitalism to do for them.
How about bringing American health care up to the standards enjoyed in the developed world?
I agree with you that there are some lay shouts who do cock all about making their way on the world but you appear to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The issue here is that the rich use the poorer classes (everyone compared to them) to milk society for all they can get. Do you honestly think a logger who works for 30 years and is made redundant when the business owner rationalises his business so his profits stay high works any less harder than the businessman?
Yet an unregulated free market gives a disproportionate amount of wealth the the owners of the means of production.
You say your son made a of it with his business and that is grand. But I would prefer to credit him and his hard work than richer people who allowed it to happen. It was the government that set up the infrastructure to allow in to happen.
Could he have made a go of it in a country with a weak infrastructure?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
Gee I wonder why those were excluded. It couldn't be because they are substantial percentages of lower middle class and working poor salaries, yet have caps that limit the proportionate effect on high income earners. After all, the math for applying these is quite simple. Also these taxes aren't even applied to investment income, and who has the lions share of that?
None of that could be the explanation because that would mean that the numbers offered up were an incomplete, misleading picture. But the article then goes on to use the misleading info anyway.
I'll also note that these numbers are a bit dated. It's a 2007 article. Taxes on the wealthy are even lower under the Obama adminstration than under the Bush administration.
So why might the article be written in a way to promote the interest of the one percent? Please. An article published on the website of the American Enterprise Institute? Let's look at a few more articles linked to from the article Buz cites:
The Origins of Envy By Max Borders . Tim Tebow and the Atheist’s Dilemma By Lee Harris How Many Jobs Did Romney Create at Bain? By Steve Kaplan
If you read the articles you'll find that they are all heavily spun in exactly the direction any article that Buz cites would spin.
'Nuff said.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
What more do you want the rich and capitalism to do for them.
Stop parasitising them, for a start.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
The American Enterprise Institute has all of the stats. You need to read the whole page to get the whole story. The Bush tax cuts cut the taxes of the wealthy the most but due to investment and incentive these same wealthy contributed record tax revenues, The stats are astounding and revealing.
So since the tax cuts in question were implemented everyone in the US has got wealthier, the richest have contributed more, the US economy has gone from strength to strength and all is well?
I am indeed astounded!!
I was under the misapprehension that there had been a major recession, that the gap between rich and poor had soared, that the incomes of those in the middle and bottom had stagnated or fallen, that those at the top were running off into the distance, that unemployment was rife and that the US deficit had grown.
I see that your link was written in 2007.
Were the figures this link is citing mistaking the property boom that preceded the financial crisis with some sort of right wing economic miracle?
I would suggest that it is this idea that we should just unleash the rich to make money any which way they can because ultimately we will all somehow benefit from their "innovation" that lies at the very heart of the problems we face today.
Wiki writes:
Statements by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that these tax cuts effectively "paid for themselves" have been disputed by the CBPP,[5] the U.S. Treasury Department and the CBO.[6][7][8][9] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007: "Supply side doctrine, which claimed without evidence that tax cuts would pay for themselves, never got any traction in the world of professional economic research, even among conservatives."[10] Since 2001, federal income tax revenues have remained below the 30-year average of 8.4% of GDP with the exception of 2007, and did not regain their 2000 dollar peak until 2006 (see chart at right).[11]
Some policy analysts and non-profit groups such as OMBWatch,[12] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,[13] and the Tax Policy Center[14] have attributed much of the rise in income inequality to the Bush administration's tax policy. In February 2007, President Bush addressed the rise of inequality for the first time, saying "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education."
Critics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. The cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality. Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."
My son and his wife just embarked on a new business in a Southern city which has many wealthy citizens. It is these wealthy business people who made it possible for my son and sub-contractors who work with him to open this new business, less than a year old, already having more wanting his services than he is able to take on. He's good at what he does and is trustworthy. The word has gotten around among the elitist wealthy who are already waiting in line for his services.
Yes, but that doesn't prove what you want it to prove even if it was a typical experience.
Suppose that I had all the money. Then every successful business would serve my needs, and every job created would in the end be created to serve me in some way. And anyone wanting to argue for the status quo could say: "God bless Dr A, who blesses America with his wealth, every single job that's created is created because of Dr A".
And yet it is possible --- indeed probable --- that if the wealth was more fairly distributed, so that other people had money too, they would be able to bless America with the money, and that businesses would be created to meet their needs instead of mine.
The same with your son. If the rich had less money, but the middle class had more, maybe you would be telling us with pride how he had an even more successful business catering to the needs of the middle class rather than the "elitist wealthy". The reason that the "elitist wealthy" have the money to hire his services is just because they have the money to hire his services ... it's not an argument for the existence of rich people, it's a tautology.
---
On a personal note, I'm glad your son's doing well.
And yet it is possible --- indeed probable --- that if the wealth was more fairly distributed, so that other people had money too, they would be able to bless America with the money, and that businesses would be created to meet their needs instead of mine.
Not to mention - there's only so much you can spend! Imagine how little market there would be for restaurants; Dr A only needs to eat three meals a day. He only wears one set of clothes at a time. Being one person, he can drive only one car at a time; what need are there for roads that go somewhere Dr. A never will?
As you say, a large amount of wealth in a small number of hands doesn't produce the same kind of demand that a large number of hands each with a smaller portion does, but it also doesn't produce the same level of demand, either. Our needs are not insatiable, even at truly obscene levels of wealth and decadence.
The world where wealth is redistributed out of the hands of the wealthy is a world with more potential for business growth, not less. Buzsaw is wrong, as usual, in oh so many ways.
Pass some crackers, cheese and a glass of organic red wine. I'll pay for that myself, thanks.
Too bad you're now dead. That wine wasn't as organic as the label made it out to be; laced with loads of pesticides.
Damn... if only someone would have been in charge of making sure that didn't happen. Too bad we got rid of all those regulations in favor of unfettered capitalist greed.
Obama hit it out of the park with his State Of The Union address. He addressed fairness...which for Americans anyway is mandatory. Globally, im not gonna go that far yet.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out of Existence in America . . . — Business Insider
™ Version 4.2
(1)