|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
posted March 31, 2009 06:36 AM |
|
|
whoa, this is the angriest I've ever seen you Corribus 
why do you say it's unconstitutional though?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 07:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Net income: 10.000: keep: 10.000; tax: 0
Net income: 20.000: keep: 20.000; tax: 0
Net income: 40.000: keep: 30.000; tax: 10.000
Net income: 80.000: keep: 40.000; tax: 40.000
Net income: 160.000: keep: 50.000; tax 110.000
Net income: 320.000: keep 60.000; tax 260.000
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard...unless it's the answer to the joke "What do you get when you cross Karl Marx and Euler?"
Why don't you just grab a shovel and bury productivity while you're at it? :rolls eyes:
That's just polemics, isn't it? I don't see any point. WHY is it ridiculous? Because we need people earning 10 million bucks a year while running a company into hundreds of billions into debts?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 07:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't these monkeys understand that the markets will fix themselves, and that these regulatory policing policies only make things worse? It doesn't take an economist to see that every time you monkeys do ANYTHING, the markets drop like 4000 points.
I'm not so sure who the monkey here is. Who cares about the MARKET? About share values? You don't seem to understand THE PROBLEM.
The problem - to explain it SIMPLY - is, that world economy is intertwined due to all corps and banks being active internationally and all corps have a balance of (credit) debts and assets. If a very big company goes down, this will have three immediate effects:
1) Those companies they have debts with won't get any money soon from them and if they get money it will only be part of it.
2) A lot of people will become unemployed resulting in a decline of demand.
3) The death of the company will result in a decline of business for those who made business with the dead company, dooming some, toppling others.
And that's the whole point. The whole freaking economy is like a town where buildings are leaning on each others for support. You can afford 300 billions of depth when you have 200 in coming and assets of another 150. But if that drops - for example, if you are a bank and building prices drop sharply because people can't pay the suddenly higher mortgages anymore, and you suddenly have only 120 in coming, while your assets in stocks and shares and bonds and fonds and property drop to 80, you are done, since you suddenly can't pay your own debts anymore.
And there is the very real danger that if one or two or three go down, more will go down, and if ENOUGH go down, ALL gows down.
Now, while this is an extremely enticing prospect for all those of us who wait for the collapse of world economy, capitalism and order to make way for something new, in reality it probably would be a mess for most people.
And that's why the government MUST do something. Not because they owe it to the corps. THEY OWE IT TO THE MONKEYS WHO VOTED THEM! The sheeple who'll pay the bill anyway.
And it's HIGH time that the monkeys overtake the business from all the sharks, for god's sake.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 07:30 AM |
|
|
Polemics? No, just the opposite if anything.
You can talk about ideals all you want but that's just not reality.
I work for money, period.
No money, no work.
No work, no productivity.
No productivity, no wealth.
Multiply that times millions of people and you have a total collapse of the economy and a quick road to national poverty.
It's as simple as that. What else is there to explain?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 08:45 AM |
|
|
In case that is directed to me - which I'm afraid it is: this is either even more polemics or you can't or don't want to read.
Isn't it strange that people who never ever in their life will earn millions of bucks a year are the loudest when it comes to defending their theoretical right to do just that, when all they do in reality is defending the rights of the obscenely rich to have a couple of private jets and a vault full of paintings instead of the public having more money to clean out the garbage?
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 02:25 PM |
|
|
|
Yes it is strange. Would you even believe there's lower middle class people like me who believe in a flat tax?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 02:32 PM |
|
|
JJ:
What you don't seem to grasp is that people take risks. And when they took too many risks - or when the system is having a readjustment - it is only fair that they lose once in a while.
And, you know, I don't mind the "obscenely" rich. I only want to be like them someday.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 02:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Polemics? No, just the opposite if anything.
You can talk about ideals all you want but that's just not reality.
I work for money, period.
No money, no work.
No work, no productivity.
No productivity, no wealth.
Multiply that times millions of people and you have a total collapse of the economy and a quick road to national poverty.
It's as simple as that. What else is there to explain?
And yet there was a really funny experiment that showed people who don't actually work for anything are most productive, quality wise
One person worked for 5 $ an hour, another for 0,50$ an hour, and the other for free. Least productive was the 0,50$, most productive was the one who worked for free.
It had something to do with "market incentive" and "moral incentive"
A funny conclusion out of it: If you ask your friends to help you out, don't offer them 20 bucks or something, offer them some coffee or a cake, or nothing, they'd work harder if they don't associate it with market thinking, but instead with moral incentive.
You think material wealth is important? Grow up
Quote:
I see you aren't interested in a serious discussion. Come back when you are.
Seems to be becoming your catchphrase whenever you're backed into a corner Mvass
@ Cor
Quote:
Why don't you just grab a shovel and bury productivity while you're at it? :rolls eyes:
Like OMG they must earn MILLIONS of dollars because otherwise they won't be properly productive Sounds a bit like blackmail to me. What a load of bullsnow.
Quote:
God, WHY ARE THESE MONKEYS RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT??? Don't these monkeys understand that the markets will fix themselves, and that these regulatory policing policies only make things worse?
So you have full confidence the market works for the benefit of the entire society and there is no risk of monopolies or kartel-formations ? Sounds pretty naive to me.
Quote:
And yet, monkeys, you continue to pump US tax dollars into corporations thinking, for some reason, that your bungling over-regulation is going to magically make people want to buy their crappy cars and thus turn the companies around.
And whenever I say such things I get called an idiot Imagine that!
Quote:
Hey tax-payers (mostly also monkeys).
How come you get to call Americans monkeys (obviously your term to mask more severe insults) while when I say "United stupid of America" you flame me?  Me not happy!
Quote:
Here's a thought for you, too, while I'm at it. The federal government (fellow monkeys) couldn't manage a lemonade stand (exhibit A: look at the proposed 2009 FY budget) and yet it thinks it can miraculously cure a huge US industry on lifesupport by poking it around with a big stick? Why do you monkeys keep voting those other monkeys into office?
Because -maybe- you're not living in a democracy but a country ruled by rich elites pretending to be a democracy? UH DUHR?! Nice you're waking up too!
You really think they try to cure anything?
Quote:
And let's not forget the monkey in charge of GM that, after running his company into the ground, gets 20M in retirement benefits after being asked to resign by the monkeys in the federal government.
Gosh, you'd almost think they don't care about saving your economy but rather about making some money for themselves and living a luxury life over your backs
Quote:
Why is a company as poorly run as GM deserving of US tax dollars??? Really, watching the news any more is like watching an episode of the Twilight Zone.
Hey I have answers to that But I think it speaks for itself if you would just think a little.
____________
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted March 31, 2009 03:55 PM |
|
|
Oh, come on! Let's be scientific here - after all, we are heading towards scientific socialism.
Corribus:
Unions are a positive institution because they prevent the management from exploiting the workers. Of course it's detrimental to the big auto companies. That's the point. The companies cannot surivive without exploitation.
JJ:
Wait, public money should go to private interests to reward the private interests for their flaws? It makes absolutely no sense. Just as the car companies are coming to realize that they can't have their cake and eat it too, the government comes along and says "Yes we can" and plunders money from the working man to feed the vampires. 
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 03:18 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:21, 01 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
whoa, this is the angriest I've ever seen you Corribus
why do you say it's unconstitutional though?
Well, among other things:
Check out article 1, section 9 about the limits of congress (specifically, ex post facto laws and bills of attainder). Clearly, the punitive tax law passed by the House violates both of these elements of the constitution.
Regarding JJ's "logarithmic" tax code (even though it is only thus in a qualitative sense):
Quote:
Net income: 10.000: keep: 10.000; tax: 0
Net income: 20.000: keep: 20.000; tax: 0
Net income: 40.000: keep: 30.000; tax: 10.000
Net income: 80.000: keep: 40.000; tax: 40.000
Net income: 160.000: keep: 50.000; tax 110.000
Net income: 320.000: keep 60.000; tax 260.000
And the followup:
Quote:
That's just polemics, isn't it? I don't see any point. WHY is it ridiculous? Because we need people earning 10 million bucks a year while running a company into hundreds of billions into debts?
Ok, let's forget the hundreds of millions guy, because that's just cherry picking.
Let's focus on the guy who makes 40 K a year and the guy who makes 80 K a year. After taxes, according to your ridiculous tax code, the former will take home 30 K and the latter will take home 40 K. Also, let's say in order to make 40K base salary, you need, currently, a bachelors in science. To make 80 K base, you need a Ph.D. So, who in their right mind will go school for an extra 8 years to earn a Ph.D. in order to net an extra 10 K in salary? What are you, crazy? Who's going to put in all that extra work in order to lose all that extra money in taxes? Nevermind the fact that government is going to waste it all anyway. Makes no sense. If you render everyone's salary to be equal, nobody is going to work extra hard. You lose productivity because people know there's no reward for it. Common sense.
@Deadman
Yes, Unions served a purpose, but they've gone too far. At one time they protected that workers because the workers had no rights. Now the corporations have no rights and look what has happened to the US auto industry. This isn't that complicated.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 07:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now the corporations have no rights and look what has happened to the US auto industry.
Oh those poor corporations. Tears are running down my cheeks already.
The times they are a-changin'. Maybe it's time that some corporations change a bit, start getting managed better and get used to this new, a bit different environment, since they just can't stay the same as 50 years ago. Remember that the primary function of companies is to employ and pay workers.
Like MVass says, if a worker doesn't suit the company, tough luck, he gets discarded. So it's only fair that the effect is the same if the company doesn't suit the workers. Sure, both the workers and the company may suffer the consequences, but that's only one more reason why companies should improve the relation with their employees.
It's a financial crisis, of course someone has to pay the price. The companies are falling just like workers are losing their jobs worldwide. I don't think unions, though as far from perfect as they are, are absolutely to blame for everything.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 07:04 AM |
|
|
I don't know what you've read from all this, but that tax rate is only based on the current money value AND made easy for seeing what it amounts to. It's just a freaking example with round figures in a society where you cannot own land nor control corps via share majorities, and I said explicitely and twice that you can pick the two determining factors any which way you want it. The main thing is simply, that the more you earn the bigger the tax rate becomes for that more.
The main purpose of this is to simply stop having people earning billions.
For putting study into work, there are lots of people doing a couple of years of study currently, without earning anything at all afterwards.
Lastly, the internet seems to prove that people willingly do a lot without getting paid at all...
Draw your own conclusions.
The educational system sucks anyway, big time in Germany. It needs a financial boost and a massive overhaul.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 02:42 PM |
|
|
Bak:
Quote:
Remember that the primary function of companies is to employ and pay workers.
Actually, the prime function of companies is to do/make stuff.
Quote:
So it's only fair that the effect is the same if the company doesn't suit the workers.
The workers are free to quit if they feel the company doesn't suit them. But they're not quitting - just going on strike. And thanks to ridiculous pro-union laws, the company can't fire them.
JJ:
You have no way of performing economic calculation. That's another big problem with your analysis. Those figures could be anything just pulled out of thin air.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 03:13 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:14, 01 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Oh those poor corporations. Tears are running down my cheeks already.
Alright, fine. You have no sympathy for the corporations (even though the health of the economy and thus the prosperity of people is intimately tied to he health of the corporations).
But Unions have not only killed US corporations. They have destroyed entire cities. Look at Detroit. And having lived in Philadelphia for a decade I can tell you they're taking their toll there as well.
Consider: when I was working at the university, if I had a light bulb out in a fume hood (a safety concern!), I had to report it to the building manager. Couldn't change the bulb myself - oh no, the University might get sued by the union. And then the building manager had to report it to the University facility department. Oh no, couldn't have my building's handy man change the bulb - University would get fined and sued by the Union. So, we would wait for 6-8 weeks for the Union to finally get someone to come over and change our light bulb. Meantime, I'm doing dangerous experiments in the dark. All because of the precious Unions that protect the lazy ass workers (why are they lazy - they're jobs are overprotected by the Union, of course!) from actually working hard at their jobs.
When Unions become too powerful, competition and productivity become stifled. We've seen it time and again. It's not a hard concept to follow...
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 03:46 PM |
|
|
Of course bureaucracy is a nuisance. But look on the other side of the coin: if the university would make their lab people work long hours under low pay, then the unions could step in and help them. The benefits far outweigh the costs.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 03:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
You have no way of performing economic calculation. That's another big problem with your analysis. Those figures could be anything just pulled out of thin air.
ehm, you know that those numbers was pulled out of thin air? He just suggested a formula with X and Y and Z for how taxes could be done.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 11:08 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:09, 01 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Of course bureaucracy is a nuisance. But look on the other side of the coin: if the university would make their lab people work long hours under low pay, then the unions could step in and help them. The benefits far outweigh the costs.
First, I didn't say that Unions weren't important. They are. But they've gotten too powerful. Your argument is a false choice fallacy of black and white thinking, and assumes that there are only two options: have unions or not have unions. Because (according to you) it is better to have unions than not, then ergo we must have unions and the status quo is acceptable. But the problem is more complicated than that, and the available choices don't just boil down to "have unions" or "don't have unions". There's a lot of middle ground available. It's a matter of how many rights the workers should have and how many rights the company should have, and striking the right balance. If workers have no rights (no unions or unions too weak), workers are exploited and unhappy, and productivity goes down. If workers have too many rights or corporations have too few (unions are too strong), then workers can be complacent and lazy with no consequences and productivity goes down.
Second, at many Universities there ARE graduate student unions. However, they often get little support from the graduate students. Why? Well, the Unions offer to, for example, make sure that graduate students work regular hours. And while that's attractive, on the other hand, most graduate students understand that to be productive, working regular hours is often impossible. For example, if I was a member of a Union that prevented me from working more than 8 hours a day, how am I supposed to do a 10 hour experiment? In other words, sometimes to get the job done I recognize I can't be lazy and I have to go above and beyond the call of duty in order to be productive. [Truth be told, Univerisities DO take advantage of graduate students, and graduate students SHOULD have more rights, but the way the graduate student unions are set up, it wouldn't work. But the problems with the current system of graduate school is a separate issue and beyond the scope of the conversation.]
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 11:14 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 23:16, 01 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
So, who in their right mind will go school for an extra 8 years to earn a Ph.D. in order to net an extra 10 K in salary?
People who are actually INTERESTED in the subject? You know, people who would do the job with a high level of integrity and desire to do quality work, rather than for the money?
OMG WHAT A DISASTER!!!! Imagine the horror of having actual PEOPLE doing work they are interested in and actually DOING their job, not for money! THE WORLD WOULD COME TO AN END!!
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 11:23 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:26, 01 Apr 2009.
|
Ok since I was absent in this but I just make a few observation from a while back. Quote:
Claiming land that was clearly owned by somebody else.
Define.
How did the europeans knew that they land was owned by someone else? "Obviously"?
Isn't it obvious that, for example, maybe the forest is some tree's or animal's property?
What's that I hear? Social contract? Well yeah it applies between humans europeans, which is exactly what it did happen. The Aztecs were not capable of "european social contract" (which is not something objective mind you, thus your whole reasoning is subjective and left for the AGGRESSOR to decide whether it is "obviously owned by someone else" or not?????).
There is a reason why some civilizations (even in the period of ancient Rome) called others "barbarians" (like Greece for example) or "animals". Heck I wouldn't be surprised if Nazis called the others animals... so basically it gave them the right to invade/pillage/destroy/whatevah, since it's what they considered them to be.
So blind people can trespass and say "sorry dude, you say this is yours, but I don't see that, so your claim is as empty as saying that you own Mars. I don't buy it."
Unless you mean I can claim I own Mars? Don't you see what happens? So the aggressor can take my word for it, or do I have it to show it to him and then the aggressor must agree to acknowledge. The blatantly obvious flaw here is in the thinking system which you suggest: it is like giving a murderer the decision whether his victim was alive or not -- and if it was, only THEN he is imprisoned; if he says that "the victim had no life" (like, say for example, someone who blew up Mars saying it was not mine so they don't have to pay massive fees ).
I think it's pretty obvious why the judicial system simply doesn't work that way, and why we don't leave the decision to the aggressors/murderers/the one who DID SOMETHING.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2009 11:45 PM |
|
|
del_diablo (who had the only serious objection):
Yes, he suggested a formula, but why should X, Y, and Z be what they are?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
