1 edit
@no1marauder saidYes, The ‘People’s’ (Karl, you love to say The People’...creepy) representatives are government, so they can make regulations, an example being Obama’s thousands of regs that he laid on corps. Trump got rid of them, and economy boomed.
Corporations are artificial entities that exist only because the representatives of the People say they can exist. Therefore those same representatives can make whatever regulations regarding them as they please.
You keep flying incoherently from one subject to another but I think I've proven my point i.e. Corporations have plenty of money to pay higher wages and the wealthy have plenty of money to pay higher taxes.
So what is your point. I read it three times. You might as well say the sun comes up in the morning ☀️
Your second para says corps have plenty of money, the wealthy have plenty of money. What a HELL of a statement. Only a lib has the balls to say such stupidity. Clueless. Fact is, if a Corp is setting revenues aside to grow, to put additional stores in surrounding counties, they indeed have ‘plenty of money’. But not for you and the govt to take, resulting in the implosion of the Corp. Suzianne told me you are a lawyer? No business law I presume.
Wealthy have plenty of money? Yeah, you noticed Dexter has plenty. But he is saving it to buy a yacht, Marauder. So a govt guy, and you, come to his door for that money, and the dream he worked for for FORTY years is down the tubes. To use a lib word, is that fair?
@averagejoe1 saidDid Karl Marx write this:
Yes, The ‘People’s’ (Karl, you love to say The People’...creepy) representatives are government, so they can make regulations, an example being Obama’s thousands of regs that he laid on corps. Trump got rid of them, and economy boomed.
So what is your point. I read it three times. You might as well say the sun comes up in the morning ☀️
Your second para says corp ...[text shortened]... ney, and the dream he worked for for FORTY years is down the tubes. To use a lib word, is that fair?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We all live in a society and those who gain great wealth in it do so in significant part to the rules and institutions the People have created. They should be grateful for what this society has made possible for them not begrudge their fellow citizens a decent living and protection against the " hazards and vicissitudes of life". (FDR https://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#signing).
If it comes down to Dexter's yacht or ten children starving to death, which should society choose?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIf 'Society' rules the subjects (citizens) that you refer to, like the guy who has saved and saved for his personal life, then Society can go to his front door and take anything they want, even his car, clothes, house, anything they want. :Whew.
Did Karl Marx write this:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We al ...[text shortened]...
If it comes down to Dexter's yacht or ten children starving to death, which should society choose?
You see, I see that this is the world that you want the USA to turn into. Really really bad and sad. But I hang here, because I will never ever have the occasion to chat with a Marxist The first thing you do....you interpret the constitution to mean what you want it to mean. For instance, you surely misinterpret the word welfare. I guess I could make up my own story about what "mary had a little lamb' means.
@averagejoe1 saidThe point was you call me a "Marxist" (which I'm not) for using the term "the People" when the Framers of the US Constitution used the exact same words.
If 'Society' rules the subjects (citizens) that you refer to, like the guy who has saved and saved for his personal life, then Society can go to his front door and take anything they want, even his car, clothes, house, anything they want. :Whew.
You see, I see that this is the world that you want the USA to turn into. Really really bad and sad. But I hang here, be ...[text shortened]... et the word welfare. I guess I could make up my own story about what "mary had a little lamb' means.
Were they "Marxists", too?
@AverageJoe1 A strong and expanding middle class with money to spend on goods (future landfill) and services creates jobs. Corporations expand when they have a market. A fair living wage is essential. Currently we have welfare for corporations which can pay wages too low for workers to live on necessitating that they receive government assistance. This amounts to welfare for corporations. It benefits the entire economy if we have a well educated, healthy, relatively debt free population.
@averagejoe1 saidAnd you didn't answer my question:
If 'Society' rules the subjects (citizens) that you refer to, like the guy who has saved and saved for his personal life, then Society can go to his front door and take anything they want, even his car, clothes, house, anything they want. :Whew.
You see, I see that this is the world that you want the USA to turn into. Really really bad and sad. But I hang here, be ...[text shortened]... et the word welfare. I guess I could make up my own story about what "mary had a little lamb' means.
If it comes down to Dexter's yacht or ten children starving to death, which should society choose?
@no1marauder saidFunny stuff, but the references were different. Marx was thinking of people as sheep.
The point was you call me a "Marxist" (which I'm not) for using the term "the People" when the Framers of the US Constitution used the exact same words.
Were they "Marxists", too?
Think on this, seriously. You seem to believe that the framers thought we should start right out with a welfare state, making people dependent on the govt. So, picture Ben Franklin and the rest of them chatting, saying ‘we need to stipulate in there that welfare will be provided to everyone who does not pull their load”. Just to be sure we are on the same page. Is that the way you interpret those words, to carry out their wishes for dependency, when in fact their WHOLE PURPOSE was to create independence????????? Come back on that, please.
. Before answering, consider that the net worth of George Washington, in today’s dollars, was 587 million, and Jefferson? 236 million. Did they ‘spread their wealth around? No, so what are you saying after all?
I
@averagejoe1 saidActually, Corps aren't "setting revenues aside to grow". Following the Trump tax cut:
Yes, The ‘People’s’ (Karl, you love to say The People’...creepy) representatives are government, so they can make regulations, an example being Obama’s thousands of regs that he laid on corps. Trump got rid of them, and economy boomed.
So what is your point. I read it three times. You might as well say the sun comes up in the morning ☀️
Your second para says corp ...[text shortened]... ney, and the dream he worked for for FORTY years is down the tubes. To use a lib word, is that fair?
"A recent analysis from the International Monetary Fund found that the top S&P 500 companies directed just 20 percent of their increased cashflow toward capital expenditures or research and development, while putting the other 80 percent toward buybacks, dividends, and other asset planning adjustments. These types of expenditures overwhelmingly benefit foreign investors and the wealthy, who own the majority of corporate stocks."
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2019/12/19/478924/tcja-2-years-later-corporations-not-workers-big-winners/
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidNo, he wasn't but you do. You call the majority "a mob", don't you?
Funny stuff, but the references were different. Marx was thinking of people as sheep.
Think on this, seriously. You seem to believe that the framers thought we should start right out with a welfare state, making people dependent on the govt. So, picture Ben Franklin and the rest of them chatting, saying ‘we need to stipulate in there that welfare will be provided to ...[text shortened]... fferson? 236 million. Did they ‘spread their wealth around? No, so what are you saying after all?
I
Some Framers favored some sort of welfare State (see Thomas Paine's last few chapters in Rights of Man) but the idea was a little too advanced for 1787. Then again, the vast majority of white people at the time were farmers and small businessman working for themselves, not large corporations and businesses. This is obviously no longer true and their economic position is eroded by this inevitable development of capitalism.
At any rate, the Framers made it so the Constitution could be amended and the 16th Amendment gives no restrictions on what the rates may be. Nor are any restrictions spelled out in Article I, Section 8 regarding what may be spent for the "general welfare". So kids don't have to starve so Dexter can have his yacht.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidWouldn’t it be rather that the guy buying the yacht would make the decision ? Not me. Not you. It is his money, you and I have no standing to make that decision.
And you didn't answer my question:
If it comes down to Dexter's yacht or ten children starving to death, which should society choose?
Sometimes I think you are putting me on. I still hope that I answered logically and to your satisfaction.
In your lib mind, you actually think that people, govt, whomever, should have a right to dictate how a person spends his money. On himself, or on someone or something that they decide. You think that way. Marx thought that way.
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidSo you'd rather have kids starving to death than the rich being "deprived" of extra income enough to buy a yacht and maybe a few buckets of caviar to put on it.
Wouldn’t it be rather that the guy buying the yacht would make the decision ? Not me. Not you. It is his money, you and I have no standing to make that decision.
Sometimes I think you are putting me on. I still hope that I answered logically and to your satisfaction.
Yes, you answered the question.
But the purpose of human society is protection for all, not having a few own extra toys. It's only his "money" (who actually creates money and says it will be honored? Not him.) IF the democratically elected representatives say he doesn't have to pay it in taxes.
To your edit: So did the Framers when they levied taxes.
@averagejoe1 saidWhat "right" did the Framers have taxing Dexter's great-great-great (add as many "greats" as desired) grandfather's carriage that he worked for for 40 years?:
Wouldn’t it be rather that the guy buying the yacht would make the decision ? Not me. Not you. It is his money, you and I have no standing to make that decision.
Sometimes I think you are putting me on. I still hope that I answered logically and to your satisfaction.
In your lib mind, you actually think that people, govt, whomever, should have a right to dictate ho ...[text shortened]... n himself, or on someone or something that they decide. You think that way. Marx thought that way.
During the last week of March 1794, the House set up a Committee on Ways and Means to offer plans for raising needed revenue. Two days before John Jay’s confirmation as special envoy to Great Britain, the Committee submitted its report on April 17, 1794. The Committee borrowed from proposals prepared by Hamilton in 1792 and suggested the following sources of revenue: a carriage tax (in modern terms think of a tax on luxury cars), increased customs duties on specified articles, additional tonnage duties, a stamp tax (which was ironic given the consequences of the British Stamp Act of 1765), increased excise taxes on sales at action, excise taxes on tobacco, snuff and sugar, and a license fee for the sale of foreign distilled liquors and wines."
"The Act was adopted on June 5, 1794, near the end of the legislative session. As a luxury tax, the Carriage Act applied only to personal use carriages and excluded commercial and agricultural wagons, carts and drays. The Carriage tax rates were graded from a maximum rate of $10 on a coach, $8 on a chariot, down to $6 on any other four wheeled carriage and $2 on a chaise or other two wheeled vehicle. The Act provided for a penalty for nonpayment equal to the amount of the tax. "
https://www.statutesandstories.com/blog_html/carriage-act-of-1794/
1 edit
@averagejoe1 said
Funny stuff, but the references were different. Marx was thinking of people as sheep.
Think on this, seriously. You seem to believe that the framers thought we should start right out with a welfare state, making people dependent on the govt. So, picture Ben Franklin and the rest of them chatting, saying ‘we need to stipulate in there that welfare will be provided to ...[text shortened]... fferson? 236 million. Did they ‘spread their wealth around? No, so what are you saying after all?
I
You seem to believe that the framers thought we should start right out with a welfare state, making people dependent on the govt.
Our founders would not have supported a capitalist system in which a productive, fully employed adult remained reliant on the federal government for welfare assistance.
That is the system you are supporting. Corps need to pay a living wage.
(by the way, Joe, do you ever wonder what the point of all this is? As in.. what is the point of the internet bickering. All day, dozens of posts. Have you ever changed anyone's mind with one of these rants? It's not doing anything productive, that's for sure. It's funny to me that the baby boomer generation spends hours per day on the internet complaining about the lazy millennials who spend hours a day playing video games. Instead of all these wasted hours on the internet, how many houses could have been painted? How many walls could be built in the man hours that people spend "liking" a politicians tweets about building a wall?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou have missed the issue by a country mile.
So you'd rather have kids starving to death than the rich being "deprived" of extra income enough to buy a yacht and maybe a few buckets of caviar to put on it.
Yes, you answered the question.
But the purpose of human society is protection for all, not having a few own extra toys. It's only his "money" (who actually creates money and says it will be honored? Not him ...[text shortened]... say he doesn't have to pay it in taxes.
To your edit: So did the Framers when they levied taxes.
You say “so you’d rather...”. What AvJoe would do is not on the table. This is not about me. The issue is that you said above. ‘Which should Society choose?” You imply society or govt should have the power to seize the money of the guy to feed starving children. . I say they have no right to do that. You obviously think that they should have that right.
We can thus conclude that if you are not a Marxist, thatyou are at minimum a disciple of Marxism.
Of course, if it were me , I would dump the yacht idea and construct a children’s home.