This topic contains 123 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Laptops Daddy 3 years, 10 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #57927

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Deathbal :

    On the war and Senator Sanders :

    @deathbal wrote:

    I did find some things I agreed with him on, just not enough. There
    were also some deal breakers. I would also like to know what his
    opinion is on a good tax code. That means a lot. And to tell you the
    truth, i’m not confident i’d like it.

    It appears that I didn’t explain myself well. What I am attempting,
    is to get you to reverse the way you have been taught to think and
    try a more positive and perhaps a better avenue of investigation.

    The negatives will still be there to fall back on but for now, if
    this exercise is to get under way, you have to let go of them
    until we finish exploring all of the positives.

    This isn’t just an exercise for the two of us, but an example for
    anyone that happens along here, of a more civilized way to
    have a productive and civil discussion. Since you have a
    very good idea of what I’ll find acceptable, it should be
    easy for you to present a policy statement that I’ll accept.

    Then I will attempt to find and post one (for all to read)
    that I think you will accept. Each iteration will become
    more difficult, granted, but try to be diligent, as shall I.

    When we have both exhausted all possibilities, we will
    have presented a very positive picture to each other.

    Then, if the previously perceived negatives still
    appear worthy of tearing him down, have at it.

    @deathbal wrote:

    I can only speak for myself here, but I was uninsured for about
    5 years of my life. I did go to the emergency room on at least
    three occasions for non life threatening events. The only
    difference I noticed between no insurance and being insured
    was, they didn’t run a battery of needless tests. Other than
    that I was well taken care of. Oh and, they sent me a bill.

    I’m unsure of the time frame but assume that your episodes of no
    insurance are long past. Please inquire of insiders in heath care.
    Hospitals are quietly suffering from a lack of sufficient income.

    @deathbal wrote:

    ‘Cause he’s a rouge renegade.
    Just like me. Wink, wink, you betcha.

    What I find interesting about comments like these are that
    they persist after 5 years with a proven amateur in the
    Whitehouse. Not only that, but the victorious VP is
    stunningly ignorant. You can’t get worse than a jester
    next in line to be president.

    What I find interesting is that I have to rewrite this to get you to
    see the intended message. Sarah Palin was supposed to be a clue
    that kept me from having to state my message like this :

    Thank you my friend. That was an excellent observation my friend.
    I will have my staff look into those policy statements my friend and
    get back to you. Thanks again my friend. All right my friends, next
    question.

    I would insert a smiley here but I’m still boycotting them.
    In fact there would several in this post if I still used them.

    A politician, and most anyone with any sense, is going to make
    their proposal as appealing as they can to as many as they can.

    Using the word fairness in a bill intended to promote fairness is
    fine with me. Calling me your friend and doing it with the most
    obvious insincerity is something that I find to be disgusting.

    Carter :

    @deathbal wrote:

    Ok, not sure what your point is with all of this, but i’ll respond to
    the last part. You gave an ideal example and are using it to make
    your case. Those types aren’t the norm. Do you want to limit
    investment to near sure things?

    You said you found most of what you clipped to be true. Being
    unsure what you found to be untrue and striving for the truth,
    it bothered me that I couldn’t find the untruths that you clipped.

    Yes, I want to limit my investments to near sure things. Those
    that don’t, are playing against the odds and although high risk
    is generally more profitable when you win, the longer you play
    the more likely you are to lose. A big win or two and you’re
    hooked into the idea that the next big risk will be the big one.

    Allowing compulsive gamblers (like me) to control our economy
    resulted in the housing bubble and the bank and stocks fiascos.

    @deathbal wrote:

    Semantics. Any gains is income. But any income from your
    wealth is not treated the same as the income tax brackets.

    No, it wasn’t merely semantics. If you read what you posted again,
    you should see why I corrected you. If not I’ll “elaborate” further.

    @deathbal wrote:

    But the 15% is not an income tax bracket percentage. It is a capital
    gains tax, the same for everyone. It is a bit ridiculous to expect
    someone to pay 28% or 39% on the sale of their house.

    You’re fixation on the tax brackets is fascinating but Semantically
    Speaking (I’m not an anti-semantic by the way) the capitol gains
    tax is still an income (profit) tax and to suggest otherwise is wrong.

    Not at all ridiculous to me. We are talking about gains (profits) not
    the selling price. What I find ridiculous is that working people have
    been persuaded to believe that when we sell something priceless
    at a loss ( our time ) for any sum, we have made a profit. Untrue.

    And that when the wealthy resell our time at a profit, they should
    pay a lower tax rate on their REAL profits, than we do on our loss.

    Oh if I could, what wouldn’t I sell to have back my youth and
    still know what I know today? All I would keep would be the
    clothes required to stay out of jail. The things that were sold,
    could all be recovered and much more, in rather short order.

    But alas, once our time is sold, we can never buy it back. Not
    at any price. The best we can do is to find someone that has a
    lower value on their time than what we do on ours. Then we
    can buy their time and use them to do the things we need done
    while spending the “Free Time” they have allowed us, in the
    manner we see fit. The wealthy have free time in abundance.

    Our limited time here, with family and friends, is sold for nothing.

    CEO Compensation :

    @deathbal wrote:

    I think you’re right. Probably over 100.

    Oh and, speaking of robots. I believe there was a company in
    Australia back in the 70’s that replaced their employees with
    pigeons to work the conveyor belt items. They were found to be
    quite reliable. But a ruling came down that it was cruelty to animals.
    So the humans came back! If you don’t see the irony in that….…

    Thank you. Yes, I imagine that several million dollars besides the
    CEO’s 13.8 Million was quietly disbursed and feel that the reporter
    missed a large portion of the story by failing to investigate all the
    executives and their mutual connections through other companies.

    Sometimes I get more out of saying less, than by saying more.
    It pleases me that you didn’t ignore my point the second time.

    About the Pigeons : What I saw was a company exploiting
    living creatures with no regard for the wellfare of workers.

    I know what you saw though. My idea of irony would be if the
    workers got a fungal bird disease and bankrupted the company.

    But the workers share blame, the fickle finger of fate strikes :

    Dead Workers Have Day in Court – Kill Bird-Brained Company.

    @deathbal wrote:

    You’re right, I did miss this.

    You, along with many others failed to recognize the key word in
    “Trickle down Economics”. Care to take a guess? I’ll give you a
    hint. If you asked someone how the weather was, and they told
    you the rain is trickling down, do you get into your knee high
    wading boots?

    Trickle down economics is exactly that, you get some leftover scraps.
    What did you really expect? Think of a Union at the bargaining table
    and their company has their books open. Their contract is fought for
    based on what primarily? You better believe that Rep. wants to see
    nice profits. The bigger the profits the better the contract, trickle down.

    It was never meant to shower people with money. It isn’t even an
    economic system, it’s more of a concept. the basic idea is, a company
    makes more, they may expand their business. As a result more employees
    are hired. That does not mean employees are paid more, just more
    employment. So obviously the business sees double the profit while
    employees see the same pay.

    You don’t have to tell me demand is the driving factor for a business
    to expand. Like I said, it is a concept based on the demand already
    being present.

    Hiding things in my posts is a little thrill I get sometimes but unless I
    revealed them (usually I don‘t) I always feared most of them were
    being overlooked. However, if as I suspect, they are now being
    examined more closely … Oh what fun it is to hide things in them.

    Where do I begin? This whole section seems to be saying :
    “Yeah Beaver, we’ve really been tooken!” – Wally Cleaver
    And if you don’t think so, please read what you wrote again.

    Make no mistake, I didn’t believe in trickle down when it was
    implemented. What did I expect? The results we have now.
    There was no increase in good jobs for all, no increase in the
    standard of living for all, no increase at all for the working class.

    There was instead, a dramatic increase in the cheaply made import
    goods; cars, tools, electronics, appliances, etc.; that were still being
    produced by Americans that were working in American factories.

    This was required if American workers were to retain their ability
    to make purchases as their buying power was being eliminated. “So
    what, they cut my hours and everything is higher, check out my new
    Celica! Yeah, it’s Japanese but what the hell, it’s all I could afford.”

      The year was 1975 or 76. My friend had just bought a new Toyota
      Celica on credit, in spite of his low prospects for advancement.
      There was nothing wrong with the Oldsmobile that he traded.

      He thought the gas savings would make the purchace worthwhile.
      I kept the tires on my Ford LTD longer than he made his payments.

    Then in order to be “competitive” American factory workers were
    required to make concessions. Unions were broken and nearly all
    upper and mid level middle class workers were demoted in status.

    All the while, many factory owners were making plans to move
    their operations to countries where they could pollute without
    consequence and openly use child and/or slave labor. I was a
    witness. Ask around. The more stories you hear the better.

    Ultimately, the working class helped to fund the destruction of
    American factories by being led to believe they were helping them
    to survive. That was one of the most cruel things that I can recall.

    The result of giving the top tier an abundance of excess investment
    capital was the rapid escalation of American companies building
    new factories in other countries with the goal of closing ours.

    Historically, people that can see what‘s happening, have a most
    difficult time finding others that will believe them. It’s almost as
    if belief in lies, is subconsciously preferred to belief in the truth.

    @deathbal wrote:

    What do you propose? Have any ideas? I would also like to know
    one minor detail, what do you consider wealthy? Another thing to
    consider. Even if you got your wish, and the “wealthy” paid a
    higher tax for Cap. Gains, that is not putting a single dollar in
    that Burger King employees check. Congress would simply waste it.

    The “Paying a Fair Share Act” is nothing more than a congressional
    money grab named appropriately to stir up class envy. I can
    guarantee you our poverty rate would not drop a single iota as a
    result. Speaking of fair. What about a good portion of the population
    paying little to nothing in federal income taxes? I have the firm belief
    that everyone should have some skin in the game. Or better yet,
    instead of redefining the word “fair”, come up with a different term
    regarding who pays taxes and how much.

    Yes, if you look back (in this thread, I think) or search for moral
    bankruptcy with Rommel as the author, you should find where
    you told me my ideas sounded good but they weren’t practical.

    I replied that if they sounded good, you should look at them again.
    Still holding to those beliefs, please don’t make me type them again.

    Wealthy is a very subjective term with a variety of definitions. To a
    homeless person, I might be considered wealthy. However, in order
    not to dodge your question, I’ll offer that the top 20% are wealthy.

    My rational : The statistical Standard Bell Curve.

    Perhaps you’re right. That’s why we need our elected officials
    phone numbers near a phone. In days of yore they had this book
    with damn near everyone’s phone number in it. Handy thing that.

    Back to your point, Federal tax dollars aren’t supposed to be paid to
    fast food workers and I hope they aren’t. What they can do, is put
    the cost of these wars onto the backs of those that are profiting
    off of them and make them, Pay as You Go Excursions from today
    forward and forever.

    If the threat of Vietnam was real, and since
    we lost, why aren‘t we a conquered country?

    Perhaps we are, eh?
    But not by Vietnam.

    In war, even if you win, you may not be the winner.
    If you aren’t the winner, regardless of the story, you lost.

    We lost in Korea too.

    Class Envy : Why don’t you call it what it really is? The desire for
    fair and decent treatment for all. I’m not concerned with myself in
    these postings and have no desire to do anything but move into a
    smaller house in the country, so I can try and live out the rest of my
    days in peace and quiet. Class envy, me?, my mother would bust a
    gut and die. She’s decided that I don’t have human envy. She might
    be onto something there but it’s beyond her capacity to understand.

    I told her that looking like Moses
    had helped me feel closer to God.

    Taxes : Good! I’m tickled pink that the poor don’t have to give any
    more support to the rich. Too many have been forced to push their
    children into the military due to the traitorous bastards that ran us
    aground off the coast of England and then used our gold to hire a
    bunch of pirates to take us to safe harbor. Their harbor, we were
    to learn, only after being sufficiently disabled. Run by their pirates!

    No, Please. Fair is a good word and although it has fallen into
    misuse and disuse, it hasn’t gone down the rabbit hole yet. Let us
    strive to make it once again, a word we can all be proud to use.

    If you want everyone to pay their fair share, as do I, then first, we
    have to give everyone a fair share. That’s a proposal I can support.

    And do. Hoping you will too, sometime … while it still counts.

    If you want a short reply next time, say : “It’s all true Rommel.
    I can’t believe I never saw that myself and I’m a changed man.”

    Funny stuff … the things we remember … the things we forget.

    Wishing you health and happiness, now and always,

    Rommel

      Recent Edits : Added a few lines to the section on Pigeons.
      Corrected a few typos : they’re to their … ect..
      Minor change to section about war, costs and profits.
      Minor change to section about taxes.
    #57928

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    Wealthy is a very subjective term with a variety of definitions. To a
    homeless person, I might be considered wealthy. However, in order
    not to dodge your question, I’ll offer that the top 20% are wealthy.

    My rational : The statistical Standard Bell Curve.

    Before I get to the rest of your post I want to address this one first.

    You know, where you live in this country makes a big difference. If you just used the top 20% in this country as a whole, I am well within that range. In fact, my wife alone puts us within the top 20%. Now if we lived in New York City I wouldn’t be able to afford Cigarettes! I certainly do not feel wealthy. If I were, I certainly wouldn’t have had to play this game for several years with most of the graphics turned off. I’d have a super computer.

    The sad thing is, in the county I live in within the state of New Jersey, me and the wife make more than double the median income. But if you do make the median income here, a couple cannot afford a house, kids, transportation, and other expenses. It simply isn’t possible.

    What is my point? You brought up the fact that pay has not kept up with inflation. That people are making less or just barely more. That is true. But just because someone makes the median income does not mean they are living a middle class lifestyle. You may want to rethink your bell curve. Statistics alone does not tell the whole story. If you have 80 poor out of 100 people, that does not necessarily mean the top 20 are wealthy.

    #57929

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Again :

    The cost of living varies by locality. Granted.

    If 80% are in poverty and 20% are well to do,
    the bell curve would not be an accurate graph.

    A long gently sloping curve that rises and falls
    abruptly near the right side would be better.

    Under the bell curve I proposed :

    20% would be low income,
    60 % would be middle income,
    20% would be upper income.

    I’ve spent hours trying to find the posts where we discussed
    the economic suggestions I made. No luck yet but I have
    found some with the words moral bankruptcy in this thread.

    One of them referred to the post sought. It’s elusive.

    The middle class lifestyle has been declining. Granted.
    The middle income wage is close to poverty. Granted.

    That’s what I have been protesting.

    Using this 2010 income percentile calculator :

    http://www.whatsmypercent.com/

    You must earn $ 97,298 per year, to be
    in the top 20 % of income earners.

    I thought it would be higher.

    Using this 2010 Calculator for net worth yeilds :

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-distribution-of-net-worth-in-united.html

    A net worth of $ 391,000 puts you in the top 20 %

    I thought this would be higher too.

    Later,

    Rommel

      PLEASE NOTE : My proof reader missed a critical error above :

      If 80% are in poverty and 20% are well to do,
      the bell curve would not be an accurate graph. … (this is true)

      A long gently sloping curve that rises and falls
      abruptly near the right side would be better. … (this is not true)

      Given the anual income earned on the x-axis and the
      number of people earning that amount on the y-axis,
      A long gently sloping curve that rises and falls
      abruptly near the left side would be better.

      Net, Gross, Left, Right … What’s next … up and down

    #57930

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi All :

    While waiting on Deathbal, I played with the calculators.
    Keep in mind that these results are based on 2010 figures.

    ==============================================

    Pecentile Status Based on Annual Income :

    If you earn less than $ 16,992 per year,
    you are in the lower 20 % of income earners.

    If you earn at least $16,992 but not over $ 97,298 per year,
    you are in the middle 60% of income earners.

    If you earn more than $ 97,297 per year,
    you are in the top 20 % of income earners.

    If you earn more than $ 42,326 but less than $ 43,564 per year,
    you are in the 50 % percentile of income earners.

    Oddly, the figures above seem to fit the bell curve.
    An actual graph may not agree with my suggestion.

    20 % of the people are below the poverty level.
    60 % of the people are middle class income earners.
    20 % of the people are upper class income earners.

    ===================================================

    Pecentile Status Based on Net Worth :

    If your net worth is less than $ 7 (Seven Dollars)
    You are in the lower 20 % in net worth.

    If your net worth is at least $ 7 but not over $ 391,500
    You are in the middle 60% in net worth.

    If your net worth is more than $ 391,500
    You are in the top 20 % in net worth.

    If your net worth is $ 56,500 you are in the 50 % percentile.

    For better clarity on the figures above, consider the following :

    20 % of the country has a net worth less than a six pack of Budweiser.
    50 % of the country has a net worth less than a 2013 Lexus GS450H.
    80 % of the country has a net worth less than a nice home with a pool.

    ===================================================

    Best wishes to you all for a better tomorrow,

    Rommel

    #57931

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Deathbal :

    The “exact” wording, that I thought I remembered, was off a bit.

    Post subject: Re: 4 years from now ………….. Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:00 pm

        @rommel wrote:


        Zdravstvujtye :

        Not wanting to restrict anyone’s pay unfairly, I’m not sure that the
        type of salary caps being discussed recently are a good idea. I could
        care less if the CEO of a company makes $ 50 Thousand a year or
        $ 50 Billion as long as the pay is fair in relation to the profits of the
        company and the pay of the lowest level workers. A better solution
        seems to be tying the wages of managment to those of the workers.

        If the company is doing well and the CEO is deemed worthy of a raise,
        the raise would be applied to all in the company, such that the status
        quo is maintained. This is the way capitalism is supposed to work.
        Those that are productive are rewarded, FAIRLY.

        Under our current system of puesdo-capitalism, rewards seem to be
        doled out to those that have the best connections with little or no
        regard for their productivity or ability. If the company falters, the
        first ones to feel the pain are the workers. The unfairness is
        compounded by the fact that the problems may not be related to a
        decrease in the productivity of the workers and quite often, it is
        quite the opposite. Productivity increases, management pay
        increases, but the workers don’t reap the benefits.

        Under my proposal, the CEO’s would be paid a resonable percentage
        above the lowest paid person in the company. Not millions of times
        the lowest wage, but a reasonable amount that is sufficient to
        encourage those with ability to take on increased responsibility for an
        increase in pay.

        When times are hard and costs must be cut to keep a company
        solvent, each reduction in pay to the workers would be preceeded
        by an even larger reduction of pay to management. The idea being
        to keep managment honest and not unfairly penilize the workers for
        the faults of management.

        Most likely, a radical restructuring of this type will only be possible
        after the collapse of the world ecomomy and the loss of millions of
        lives. Hopefully I am wrong but fairness in life is much like fairness in
        sports. It generally isn’t something that those with an unfair
        advantage find paletable. This being the case, I see much pain in
        your futures.

        Do svidaniya!,

        Rommel


        ( TR-32 : Oh man !! I just found a Russian agent !! Code Name is Rommel !! )
        ( TR-64 : Same guy keeps popping up on my screen. “Communist Propaganda.” )
        ( TRS-80 : DAMN IT SNOWDEN, ARE YOU IDIOTS POSTING IN HIS MESSAGE !!! ??? )
        ( TR-64 : Unsure sir, but it wasn’t my fault. I need to reload the page. )

      Eacepay ebay ithway ouyay,

      Rommel


        P.S.
        – Memory never recaptures reality. Memory reconstructs. All
        reconstructions change the original, becoming external frames of
        reference that inevitably fall short. – HERETICS OF DUNE by Frank Herbert

        TR : Text Reader, TRS : Text Reader Supervisor
      #57932

      Laptops Daddy
      Participant

      To LaptopsDaddy : In my country, we are no longer free to
      say whatever we think…

      Hi Rommel,

      I’ll put a reply/comment here instead of cluttering your quote thread.

      I try to abstain from fixed political or religious views as far as poss, unless I’m playing devil’s advocate : ).

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44YUfi92ls

      I think the US probably have things OK far as freedom of speech, on balance. I don’t know if we’re any more free here.

      So far as rising up in opposition to mad ‘men, I wrestle more with the idea that I should probably interfere as little as possible.

      We’re living in a world where there are people getting imprisoned and worse in some countries for refusing to believe in fairies Wikipedia says 40% of the US population believe the earth was built by a god in the bronze age.

      Here we don’t have that, but the media is largely state influenced with patsies making up most of the government face. It seems to me as though it’s usually the people who think least who have the loudest voices.

      It’s all very interesting as a social study. I empathise. For me it’s all too complicated.

      I suppose I try to watch from a distance with a personal prime directive to fall back on, comfortably numb, aware of my own insignificance and aware that any influence I could have could have unintended or unforeseen consequences that could conflict with my own little picture of how the world should look, now, 10,000 years in the past or 10 in the future. I’m not sure much has changed for as long as humans have been around.

      Maybe I’m just chicken.

      http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/headless-chicken-solution/

      #57933

      Rommel
      Participant

      Hi Laptopsdaddy :

      I’ve played Devils Advocate myself but not the flipper machine.
      Sometimes it’s the only possible way to get your point across.

      In case you missed the memo, no one, anywhere, has more
      freedom than the people of the United States of America.
      You might as well suggest that we didn’t write the Magna
      Carta as to suggest you have as much freedom as we do.

      However, given our nation wide suppression of the
      Occupy Movement and England’s recent rebuff of our
      plans to attack Syria, it seems that either you’re
      gaining on us, we’re slipping or more likely, both.

      Thanks again to your House of Commons for standing up.

      The next time a Yank gives you a hard time about the world
      wars and how much you owe us, you might remind them that
      your country delayed our plunging everyone into World War III.

      That has to count for quite a bit, especially in todays warfare.

      On those voices you’ve been hearing … me too. However, the
      volume of the wrong voices only seems strong because of the
      silence of the right voices. Their arguments are usually weak.

      As for doing nothing … Doing nothing is usually better than
      doing the wrong thing. Doing the right thing is always better
      than doing nothing as even doing nothing has consequences.

      Everything has a consequence of some sort, whether or not
      we are able to observe it. Simply ordering a pizza could be
      the event that causes someone to be killed in a car wreck.

      In case you haven’t seen The Butterfly Effect, I suggest it.

      =============================================

      On the chickens :

      If our demand for food has reached this point, it’s time to
      begin culling the herd. In order to reduce the number of
      sacrifices required, it seems best to begin with the obese.

      Not because they eat more than other people but because
      they can be used to feed so many more people than others.

      Yum Yum! Eat em up, eat em up! One of my Favorites.

      ================================================

      My Federal Representative calculates that every time he gets a
      call from someone like me, he is hearing the voice of 600 of his
      constituents that feel the same way but 599 don’t bother to call.

      So, in closing, we’re not a single voice when we make a call.
      But if we fail to make a call when we feel compelled, our
      silence essentially (for me) silences the voice of 599 others.

      Perhaps even more important, the wrong voices call and
      make demands quite frequently. We can’t let them be the
      only voices that our elected officials are hearing.

      Hoping you enjoy the video above and the Bowie here.

      Best wishes, now and always,

      Rommel

        P.S. – Your playing small does not serve the world.
        Who are you not to be great? – Nelson Mandela
      #57934

      Deathbal
      Participant

      @rommel wrote:

      Hi All :

      While waiting on Deathbal, I played with the calculators.
      Keep in mind that these results are based on 2010 figures.

      ==============================================

      Pecentile Status Based on Annual Income :

      If you earn more than $ 97,297 per year,
      you are in the top 20 % of income earners.

      Pecentile Status Based on Net Worth :

      If your net worth is more than $ 391,500
      You are in the top 20 % in net worth.

      I am well above the first, and just recently went above the second due to an inheritance. Otherwise our net worth would have been considerably lower. But what is your point about the top 20%? Do you think they hoard money and have stacks of cash just sitting in a closet somewhere?

      #57935

      Deathbal
      Participant

      @rommel wrote:

      Hi Deathbal :

      What I find interesting is that I have to rewrite this to get you to
      see the intended message. Sarah Palin was supposed to be a clue
      that kept me from having to state my message like this :

      Thank you my friend. That was an excellent observation my friend.
      I will have my staff look into those policy statements my friend and
      get back to you. Thanks again my friend. All right my friends, next
      question.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq-eeWow_WU

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn9jY9nlj1k

      His concern for the working man is heart warming. 🙄

      A politician, and most anyone with any sense, is going to make
      their proposal as appealing as they can to as many as they can.

      Using the word fairness in a bill intended to promote fairness is
      fine with me. Calling me your friend and doing it with the most
      obvious insincerity is something that I find to be disgusting.

      I disagree. In a bill that truly promotes fairness would have no need for the word. It’s only really needed when a bill truly isn’t fair.

      You’re fixation on the tax brackets is fascinating but Semantically
      Speaking (I’m not an anti-semantic by the way) the capitol gains
      tax is still an income (profit) tax and to suggest otherwise is wrong.

      Not at all ridiculous to me. We are talking about gains (profits) not
      the selling price. What I find ridiculous is that working people have
      been persuaded to believe that when we sell something priceless
      at a loss ( our time ) for any sum, we have made a profit. Untrue.

      I am fully aware of what a “gain” is. I buy my house for 100k and sell it for 300k I gain 200k. You want to now tax that as income? Or is this just limited to the rich? Oh wait, the top 20%?

      Another interesting observation I have made during the “era of class warfare” for the past 5 years is that no one ever mentions or cares about how much in taxes the government takes. Ever wonder why so many companies go abroad? Sure cheap labor plays a role, but our wonderful 39% business tax has a lot do with it. But no one says a peep about that. It’s always the greedy company. It is always people not wanting to pay their fair share. Again the use of the word fair. I guess if you are going to ask some people to pay upwards of 40% in federal income taxes and others much less to none, the word fair makes an appearance.

      Oh if I could, what wouldn’t I sell to have back my youth and
      still know what I know today? All I would keep would be the
      clothes required to stay out of jail. The things that were sold,
      could all be recovered and much more, in rather short order.

      But alas, once our time is sold, we can never buy it back. Not
      at any price. The best we can do is to find someone that has a
      lower value on their time than what we do on ours. Then we
      can buy their time and use them to do the things we need done
      while spending the “Free Time” they have allowed us, in the
      manner we see fit. The wealthy have free time in abundance.

      Well, now I hope you are not talking about the top 20%. People become wealthy for many reasons. But those that do not start off wealthy have to be either very innovative or work extremely hard to get to the point of being wealthy. Take a doctor/surgeon for example. Do you know what they have to go through and the time they have to put in before they start making real money?

      For the most part we make our own beds. I’ll be honest, I never had the motivation to make it big or tons of money. All I ever wanted was a good job that paid decent money that I didn’t have to take home with me. Guess what? That is the best I ever got. But I went for union jobs because I knew they would be BETTER THAN fair to me. Some people don’t believe they can get a union job. I know, I have talked to them. They’d always say, how did you land that job? Guess what? That person will never get a union job. And the people that vote for politicians because they think by picking someone else’s pocket will make their life better, guess what? They will always be poor!

      About the Pigeons : What I saw was a company exploiting
      living creatures with no regard for the wellfare of workers.

      I know what you saw though. My idea of irony would be if the
      workers got a fungal bird disease and bankrupted the company.

      Aah ok, I was using the word incorrectly. My entire point was, if it was ruled cruel to animals, why is it ok for people?

      No, Please. Fair is a good word and although it has fallen into
      misuse and disuse, it hasn’t gone down the rabbit hole yet. Let us
      strive to make it once again, a word we can all be proud to use.

      If you want everyone to pay their fair share, as do I, then first, we
      have to give everyone a fair share. That’s a proposal I can support.

      This is a very interesting comment. But in the end it’s just a platitude. How does everyone get a fair share? What determines that?

      #57936

      Deathbal
      Participant

      @rommel wrote:

      Hi Deathbal
      Not wanting to restrict anyone’s pay unfairly, I’m not sure that the
      type of salary caps being discussed recently are a good idea. I could
      care less if the CEO of a company makes $ 50 Thousand a year or
      $ 50 Billion as long as the pay is fair in relation to the profits of the
      company and the pay of the lowest level workers. A better solution
      seems to be tying the wages of managment to those of the workers.

      If the company is doing well and the CEO is deemed worthy of a raise,
      the raise would be applied to all in the company, such that the status
      quo is maintained. This is the way capitalism is supposed to work.
      Those that are productive are rewarded, FAIRLY.

      How do you propose doing this? Through legislation? You want to tell a business owner how he pays his employees? You call that capitalism? It’s an “ism” alright, but I think it starts with the “Other C”. Capitalism is about capitalizing on opportunity for gain. It is an individualist ideology that rewards a person for directly inserting himself into the money stream and compensated accordingly. It is not about rewarding the common grunt worker that can be replaced by a monkey. Or (pigeon).

      Under our current system of puesdo-capitalism, rewards seem to be
      doled out to those that have the best connections with little or no
      regard for their productivity or ability. If the company falters, the
      first ones to feel the pain are the workers. The unfairness is
      compounded by the fact that the problems may not be related to a
      decrease in the productivity of the workers and quite often, it is
      quite the opposite. Productivity increases, management pay
      increases, but the workers don’t reap the benefits.

      This is why we have unions. Of which I am 100% in favor.

      Under my proposal, the CEO’s would be paid a resonable percentage
      above the lowest paid person in the company. Not millions of times
      the lowest wage, but a reasonable amount that is sufficient to
      encourage those with ability to take on increased responsibility for an
      increase in pay.

      I hope you don’t take offense to what I am about to say because I assure you I do not mean to offend. I also think your heart is in the right place.

      To me this sounds like a statement born of envy than anything else. Besides, how would you accomplish this? Besides that, what impact would this proposal have on a big company? You are only affecting the CEO’s pay. It is not going to have any affect on the common workers pay.

      When times are hard and costs must be cut to keep a company
      solvent, each reduction in pay to the workers would be preceeded
      by an even larger reduction of pay to management. The idea being
      to keep managment honest and not unfairly penilize the workers for
      the faults of management.

      I can’t argue with you here. But you saw the list I put up regarding McDonald’s and other companies, right? Cutting the employees pay will always reap more money than management. Primarily because there are so many more of them. But again, this is only a measure to spite management, not help the average employee.

      Most likely, a radical restructuring of this type will only be possible
      after the collapse of the world ecomomy and the loss of millions of
      lives. Hopefully I am wrong but fairness in life is much like fairness in
      sports. It generally isn’t something that those with an unfair
      advantage find paletable. This being the case, I see much pain in
      your futures.

      Let me guess, you are for salary caps in sports?

      #57937

      Rommel
      Participant

      Hi Deathbal :

      It’s good to see that you are still alive. Let me guess, you can’t find
      any policy statements by Senator Bernie Sanders. If so, this search
      string may help get you started : “Bernie Sanders” policy statement

      About sports players … I’m not sure why but … you guessed wrong.
      The players are workers. The workers deserve a share of the profits.

      @deathbal wrote:

      Let me guess, you are for salary caps in sports?

      It may be that my memory is playing tricks on me but it seems that
      we’ve discussed this in the past … either way … a spectator is not
      forced to pay $ 250.00 for a ticket to watch highly paid performers.

      Rush Limbaugh – $ 250.00 per plate dinner and speech. No thanks.
      Vomiting up a $ 250.00 dinner might be normal for models, not me.

      Be they musicians, politicians, stock advisors, etc., the audience
      freely decides, based on the price of admission and the expected
      quality of the performer(s), that they think the cost is justifiable.

      This is not the case with what we consider to be the necessities of
      life … water, food, shelter, clothing, electricity, transportation, etc..

      I must go destroy the world now.

      Krieg ohne Hass,

      Rommel

        P.S. – The bit about the models reminded me of a poem I wrote
        in 1976 in a toilet stall on a job … I’ve cleaned it up some :

        Here you sit and poop away,
        Food that cost you half your pay,
        If these words should cause you sorrow,
        Eat some poop for lunch tomorrow.

        Funny stuff … the things we remember …

      #57938

      Deathbal
      Participant

      @rommel wrote:

      Hi Deathbal :

      Rush Limbaugh – $ 250.00 per plate dinner and speech. No thanks.
      Vomiting up a $ 250.00 dinner might be normal for models, not me.

      Greetings Rommel.

      $250 bucks for dinner and listen to Rush? Where do I sign? Or did you mean 25k?

      Be they musicians, politicians, stock advisors, etc., the audience
      freely decides, based on the price of admission and the expected
      quality of the performer(s), that they think the cost is justifiable.

      This is not the case with what we consider to be the necessities of
      life … water, food, shelter, clothing, electricity, transportation, etc..

      Yes I agree. But someone has to pay for it. It is always difficult to get someone to shell out more than they think something is worth. You know, like that 250 bucks for a dinner and speech. What is easy is to expect someone else to do what you won’t.

      The bit about the models reminded me of a poem I wrote
      in 1976 in a toilet stall on a job … I’ve cleaned it up some :

      Here you sit and poop away,
      Food that cost you half your pay,
      If these words should cause you sorrow,
      Eat some poop for lunch tomorrow.

      Funny stuff … the things we remember …[/color][/list]

      It is an excellent poem. I will “pass it on” to my fellows at work tomorrow. :mrgreen:

      #57939

      zombie
      Participant

      Well, now war seems to be bit distant possibility. Don’t do or support something like operation Ajax again.

      #57940

      Deathbal
      Participant

      @zombie wrote:

      Well, now war seems to be bit distant possibility. Don’t do or support something like operation Ajax again.

      Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. And it was working well.

      http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-operation-ajax.htm

      #57941

      zombie
      Participant

      President Obama and his advisors has got some out of box thinking. Or we can say fast adaptation to changing realities of geopolitical system.

    Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 125 total)

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.