@soothfast saidYou lost me with exploitation. Please, the uninitiated, and I , would like to know what you mean by that. I think, that you think, that when a factory owner pays people in town to come out and work in his factory, whereupon he pays them money to do the work (creating jobs which would otherwise not exist), that he is exploiting the people that he is paying to create the widgets in his factory.
See, you may not like it, but it's reality: whether down on their luck fairly or unfairly, you get enough destitute people in your midst and all that's needed is a spark to get them to band together and enact new social policies (including the execution of billionaires).
Your Ayn Rand fairyland world would not hold up particularly well against the empty bellies and ho ...[text shortened]... as envisioned by the feeble children's parables that seem to inform your socioeconomic spitballing.
Am I right, or can you explain yourself? Thanks.
@earl-of-trumps saidCan you explain what you mean by backs of others. If I own a widget factory and make $10,000 each day in sales, and pay the people in the factory a total of $5500.00, which they take home thankfully to raise their families, did I make money 'off their backs'? Wouldn't that be when I'd be making money and pocketing all of it, with all the work done by Slaves??
Suzi: Maybe we need to get rid of the parasites on the system. The ones making money off the backs of others.
By all means, start a thread on that. I'll be in it.
Can you explain this. It is not logical to say I would make money off of the backs of slaves, and at the same time that I would make money 'off the backs' of people whom I pay money to. Are you saying the money I make is gained to my benefit by both categories of workers here?
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidSo Sueshe says that when she is being paid to work, that the employer is making money off of her back. If there are slaves doing the same job in the other building, not being paid, is the employer making money off of their backs?
Suzi: Maybe we need to get rid of the parasites on the system. The ones making money off the backs of others.
By all means, start a thread on that. I'll be in it.
Every employer then, makes money off the backs of those who work for them, being paid employees or slaves?
Sorry, I can't get my arms around this one.
@averagejoe1 saidWell there is a way and it is / and has been deployed to that end in many societies.
An interesting perspective, you seem to think that there is a way to balance out wealth, for lack of a better word. If you take your thought to logical conclusion, are you saying what Kamala said, that ,,,,,"at the end of the day we will all end up in the same place."?
A good starting point for discussion. Or, what are you saying? Please avoid socialism, which ha ...[text shortened]... d, please allow for helping the 50M indigent and desparate, and take it from there. A fair request.
It’s called a progressive tax system whereby you take money from the obscenely weslthy at a high rate and distribute it either directly via cash or indirectly via services to the obscenely poor.
It’s not about putting a cap on wealth Joe, it’s about putting a limit on how poor someone can be.
@kevcvs57 said....and putting a limit on how successful and productive a person that is not poor can be.
Well there is a way and it is / and has been deployed to that end in many societies.
It’s called a progressive tax system whereby you take money from the obscenely weslthy at a high rate and distribute it either directly via cash or indirectly via services to the obscenely poor.
It’s not about putting a cap on wealth Joe, it’s about putting a limit on how poor someone can be.
Sonhouse would take issue with you, because when you make this ruling to the rich people, you are taking away their freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. When that is done, liberty is lost.
But communist societies are OK with that. Brrrrrrrrrrr
@sonhouse saidI guess you know that when illegals get work permits, they will work for peanuts and our blue collar class will have to work for lower incomes to stay in the game.
@kevcvs57
His response will be SCREW those poor folks who won't even LOOK for a job, they just want to stay home, get stoned and play video games.
You would not know this, but as all free money (See my avatar) is paid out, 49% of our populations will be supporting the rest of the population. Would you be OK if your town was set up like that? Where some neighbors are paying to support the majority of the citizens? Sonhouse?
@AverageJoe1
Yeah, those poor working slobs, three quarters of their paychecks going to pay for a loser who drinks beer all day, smokes marijuana at night playing video games when he is not planning another house invasion to pay for his meth habit, right?
1 edit
@sonhouse saidI so wish you would write a post that is not cute like Suzi., can you just get it out so we know what you mean? This is not a 'cleverness' competition. Jesus. So hard.
@AverageJoe1
Yeah, those poor working slobs, three quarters of their paychecks going to pay for a loser who drinks beer all day, smokes marijuana at night playing video games when he is not planning another house invasion to pay for his meth habit, right?
For instant, what do you mean by house invasion? My first thought was the invasion at the border, it is very difficult to differentiate your post to make any sense.
@soothfast saidThe funny thing about this is that the people being paid not to steal and commit crimes are still the very people that disproportionately are committing crimes.
The Roman Empire long observed a policy known as cura annonae, which distributed free bread to about 200,000 of Rome's adult male population. This was roughly about a quarter of Rome's population. Like the US today, Rome by the 2nd century AD had a large and ever-growing population of indebted or dispossessed citizens. Cura annonae was also practiced in oth ...[text shortened]... iolent uprisings and the rotting heads of billionaires on pikes in the streets is a lot more costly.
What are the chances the person climbing through your window at 2 in the morning has to go to work at 7.00am to do a 10hr shift?
@wajoma saidWell, that person certainly is motivated and up early enough.
The funny thing about this is that the people being paid not to steal and commit crimes are still the very people that disproportionately are committing crimes.
What are the chances the person climbing through your window at 2 in the morning has to go to work at 7.00am to do a 10hr shift?
@shavixmir saidIt's called meth shag doody for brains.
Well, that person certainly is motivated and up early enough.
@averagejoe1 saidWell I suppose an outright lie is a kind of argument but it’s not a very effective one.
....and putting a limit on how successful and productive a person that is not poor can be.
Sonhouse would take issue with you, because when you make this ruling to the rich people, you are taking away their freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. When that is done, liberty is lost.
But communist societies are OK with that. Brrrrrrrrrrr
Show me in the constitution where the prohibition of a progressive tax system is laid out or try to come up with an actual response to my post.
@wajoma said“ What are the chances the person climbing through your window at 2 in the morning has to go to work at 7.00am to do a 10hr shift?”
The funny thing about this is that the people being paid not to steal and commit crimes are still the very people that disproportionately are committing crimes.
What are the chances the person climbing through your window at 2 in the morning has to go to work at 7.00am to do a 10hr shift?
Yeah capitalism doesn’t mind you stealing but you had better steal big, in fact if you steal big enough you could end up with your very own congress.