Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%. - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15050849
Truth To Power wrote:It wasn't condescension. I was skeptical that you would find a willingness to understand what I wrote, and in the event you unfortunately demonstrated that you in fact did not understand it:

Sure it is. Capitalism is defined by ownership, not competition. Free market capitalism is an oxymoron. No capitalist economy has ever come close to a free market or absence of monopoly.

There's nothing uncapitalist about that.

I doubt that.

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” -- Adam Smith

See? You chose not to understand. The Beatles' monopoly was the copyright monopoly on the music they wrote and performed. No one else was allowed to produce additional copies or create different arrangements without paying them for permission. That is how they got so rich.

But others were not permitted to produce them. That is a monopoly.

But monopoly means your rights have been taken away to given someone more profit at your expense and the expense of potential competitors.

Nonsense. If not for the copyright monopoly, they would have heard more of it.

More nonsense. The albums would just have cost close to their production cost.

Your feelings do not alter the fact that they got rich through government-issued and -enforced copyright monopoly privileges.

Competition does. Monopoly doesn't.

But it is still more expensive than it would be in the absence of the patent monopolies that reduce production and increase prices. You just can't even imagine what that genuine free market would be like, how much more abundant almost everything would be.


TTP you are arguing with someone without a basic Economics 101 education.

I told you he doesn't read other people's arguments well or even bother to check what he is told.

Lol.

Monopoly is not capitalism, neither is crony capitalism, and neither is this or that (his answers sound like a parrot's of whatever he is told. Doesn't he realize how easy it is to find out if what you are writing to him is true or not? You go and open a good book on Capitalist modes of production and markets. That is it. You don't have to be struggling at all. You work and read. The end of the ignorance. But no, got to keep insisting on thinking what you think is right when everyone in the world who ever studied Adam Smith knows what it means and how the system works.)

Socialism is OPPRESSION. Lol. He doesn't understand some basic things.

I think he reads bad propaganda and thinks he knows things.
#15050865
SSDR wrote:Someone being payed by an owner is wage slavery.

Slavery is labor compelled by force, so "wage slavery" is an oxymoron. It is literally Orwellian doublethink -- as one might expect of Marxist tripe.
In a moneyless economy, no one is paid, since currency would not exist. The abolition of private property via currency destroys the construct of economic "theft."

Taking the fruits of someone's labor without paying them is theft. It also makes it impossible to judge what is worth doing and what is wasteful.
The worker does not have the decision since they would have their occupation terminated due to imposing an economic threat to the plumbing company's exploiting owner.

How is consensual exchange exploitation?
#15050890
Truth To Power wrote:Slavery is labor compelled by force, so "wage slavery" is an oxymoron.

Slavery is when a human is owned by another human. A human being owned by force, or by voluntary support, is a slave. Force has nothing to do with slavery.
It is literally Orwellian doublethink -- as one might expect of Marxist tripe.

Non socialist rant of socialism. You are opinionating about socialism, since you are not a socialist.
Taking the fruits of someone's labor without paying them is theft.

This is correct in a non socialist economy. In non socialist economics where currency exists, people need currency to survive. Not being payed in an economy where a currency exists and people need it is theft.

Workers relying on wages is a form of slavery that is not forced. This is known as wage slavery. If a wage slave in a non socialist economy is not payed, this is a form of economic theft, and is slavery since in that non socialist economy, they need currency to survive.
It also makes it impossible to judge what is worth doing and what is wasteful.

Humans know what is worth doing, and what is wasteful and useless. Humans know that harvesting crops is more important than creating useless golden statues.
How is consensual exchange exploitation?

The owners who sell their products are selling their products for more than what it is worth via economic profits. The owners live off of those profits, which exploits the labour that produces the wealth that is sold for those profits.
#15050905
@Julian658,
Julian and all the lurkers,
Manistream economics teaches that all economic actors must be "rational" for the market to work its magic.
Rational here means 'ruthlessly selfish'. Any deviation from acting in this way is bad for the economy.**
So Julian must be in the top 5% of incomes because he thinks he has a chance to someday benefit directly from the top income bracket being taxed at less that 50%.
Everyone else should agree that the top income bracket should be taxed much higher if they are using mainstream economics as their theory. IMHO, this is because mainstream economics says the Gov. needs the money*** to spend to help everyone {in some large or small way} who earns less than the top 10%. The top 0.1% {or maybe top 1%} are the only ones who will be taxed at 99% and they will never spend their money to benefit the masses, never.



.** . This view of rational actors is, of course, based on false assumptions, and therefore is bullsh*t.
*** . Again this is not really true. However, the top 1% are currently using their money to buy Congress and the Gov. in general to do their bidding. So, we need to take a lot of their money away from them {so we can have majority rule again} while letting them keep enough to be able to do whatever good it is that some people think they do in the economy that only they can do. therefore, the bottom line is the same, they should be taxed at 99% at the highest bracket.
#15050909
Steve_American wrote:@Julian658,
Julian and all the lurkers,
Manistream economics teaches that all economic actors must be "rational" for the market to work its magic.
Rational here means 'ruthlessly selfish'. Any deviation from acting in this way is bad for the economy.**
So Julian must be in the top 5% of incomes because he thinks he has a chance to someday benefit directly from the top income bracket being taxed at less that 50%.
Everyone else should agree that the top income bracket should be taxed much higher if they are using mainstream economics as their theory. IMHO, this is because mainstream economics says the Gov. needs the money*** to spend to help everyone {in some large or small way} who earns less than the top 10%. The top 0.1% {or maybe top 1%} are the only ones who will be taxed at 99% and they will never spend their money to benefit the masses, never.



.** . This view of rational actors is, of course, based on false assumptions, and therefore is bullsh*t.
*** . Again this is not really true. However, the top 1% are currently using their money to buy Congress and the Gov. in general to do their bidding. So, we need to take a lot of their money away from them {so we can have majority rule again} while letting them keep enough to be able to do whatever good it is that some people think they do in the economy that only they can do. therefore, the bottom line is the same, they should be taxed at 99% at the highest bracket.


Humans align themselves according to talent and competence. I agree that those at top should help people at the bottom.
The problem I have with the lefties is that they think rich people are the cause of their poverty. They think that if a rich man makes 5.00 dollars it means a poor bloke lost 5.00 dollars. How can you even have a dialog with someone that is so narrow?

They tend to compare poverty to an Utopia and fail to see that the poor of this era in the West are living the highest standard in world history.
#15050940
Julian658 wrote:
Humans align themselves according to talent and competence. I agree that those at top should help people at the bottom.
The problem I have with the lefties is that they think rich people are the cause of their poverty. They think that if a rich man makes 5.00 dollars it means a poor bloke lost 5.00 dollars. How can you even have a dialog with someone that is so narrow?

They tend to compare poverty to an Utopia and fail to see that the poor of this era in the West are living the highest standard in world history.

Julian and all the lurkers,
The people we are talking about in this thread are not the rich.
They are the super rich, the top 1% of incomes.
All of the incomes of such people come from investments.
The comp. the investments are in pay them {directly or indirectly} with $$ that the comp. didn't pay to a low level worker. If the comp. paid its workers more the comp. would make less profit and dividends come out of profit, or with less profit the company's stock would be worth less and the 1%er would have gotten less income.
Economics is not a zero sum game IF you look at the big picture.
However, as soon as certain possible actions by some players are taken off the table, it becomes much more of a zero sum game.

I am a MMTer. I am not an economist, though. Julian, you are a believer in mainstream economics. Therefore, you don't want the US Gov. to greatly increase its deficit spending to provide every unemployed worker {who can hold a job} with a job doing something socially useful and to provide $$ for investments in infrastructure to fight ACC, aka AGW.

Instead you want the 1% or 0.1% to get more and more so they can buy Congress. I hope some lurkers can see that MMT does provide a way to fight ACC which we must fight to avoid a disaster worse than the Great Depression or worst than WWII even.

Not only this, but there is a shortage of new investments BECAUSE the rich don't see that the workers can buy more stuff if the rich invest and make more stuff. Despite what MS-E says 'demand' requires the buyer to have the money to buy the thing. If the workers had more money from a Gov. job then they would buy more stuff. But, until the workers have more money the rich don't see a benefit in making more things/stuff that they can't sell at a profit. So, right now they are sitting on trillions of dollars waiting for demand to pick up so they can invest that $$ and make more profit.

I'm positive that Julian can't see any of this. But, I hope some lurkers can see it.
#15050975
Steve_American wrote:Julian and all the lurkers,
The people we are talking about in this thread are not the rich.
They are the super rich, the top 1% of incomes.
All of the incomes of such people come from investments.
The comp. the investments are in pay them {directly or indirectly} with $$ that the comp. didn't pay to a low level worker. If the comp. paid its workers more the comp. would make less profit and dividends come out of profit, or with less profit the company's stock would be worth less and the 1%er would have gotten less income.
Economics is not a zero sum game IF you look at the big picture.
However, as soon as certain possible actions by some players are taken off the table, it becomes much more of a zero sum game.

I am a MMTer. I am not an economist, though. Julian, you are a believer in mainstream economics. Therefore, you don't want the US Gov. to greatly increase its deficit spending to provide every unemployed worker {who can hold a job} with a job doing something socially useful and to provide $$ for investments in infrastructure to fight ACC, aka AGW.

Instead you want the 1% or 0.1% to get more and more so they can buy Congress. I hope some lurkers can see that MMT does provide a way to fight ACC which we must fight to avoid a disaster worse than the Great Depression or worst than WWII even.

Not only this, but there is a shortage of new investments BECAUSE the rich don't see that the workers can buy more stuff if the rich invest and make more stuff. Despite what MS-E says 'demand' requires the buyer to have the money to buy the thing. If the workers had more money from a Gov. job then they would buy more stuff. But, until the workers have more money the rich don't see a benefit in making more things/stuff that they can't sell at a profit. So, right now they are sitting on trillions of dollars waiting for demand to pick up so they can invest that $$ and make more profit.

I'm positive that Julian can't see any of this. But, I hope some lurkers can see it.


I agree that many companies could pay higher salaries but that would lower dividends for investors. For example Wall Mart was once a mom and pop store and the owner could pay whatever wages he wanted. However, once the company went public and investors purchased shares of Wall Mart the system was set up in such a way that profits dividends must be maximized at all times; therefore they will pay the lowest wages possible. As this point the company responds to investors and Wall Street and not to the whims of the Walton family. This is the ugly side of capitalism and I do not support it.

My support of capitalism has to do with freedom and ingenuity. MAN aligns himself in the world according to talent and competence, There are a few that will go to the very top, the Bill Gates of the world, others become high end professionals that make a very good living such as a neurosurgeon, most become average wage earners, others are low wage earners (working poor), and some are destined to be in the gutter. Nothing can change this distribution of talent among humans. Socialism tries to equalize these differences and everybody ends up poor. Uniform poverty is much less desire than a an economic strata.

REgarding wealth: It is not a zero sum gain! Many people create wealth and this is why the standard of living is higher in most parts of the world.
#15050983
@Julian658, you wrte, "REgarding wealth: It is not a zero sum gain! Many people create wealth and this is why the standard of living is higher in most parts of the world."

With all due respect, the MAIN reason most everyone lives better than they did 100 or 200 years ago is that the world burns a lot more energy {oil} than it did before 1900 {mostly coal}.
Also, crops have improved and a lot of infrastructure has been built. But, mostly it is simply that more energy equals more stuff.

MMT is not Socialism. Yes, MMTers want the Gov. to do more things. MMT does not intend the Gov. to take over all private companies. It wants the Gov. to take over things like healthcare, public transit, the power comp., the water comp., waste water comp., etc. Mostly 'natural monopolies', though.
. . Healthcare it the exception. Here I have explained it a few times. Before 1800 everyone agreed that the Gov. had certain jobs. These included protecting the people from foreign armies, pirates, slave raiders, etc.; also from criminals {police, detectives, courts, and prisons were all paid for with tax money} and wild animals & rabid animals, etc. IMHO, the only reason this didn't include protecting the people from germs was because a] the germ theory was still 80 years in the future, b] doctors were mostly useless for fighting germs, and c] doctors did give care for free if people couldn't pay for broken bones and other such things that doctors were not useless for. Now, every other advanced nation has some sort of Gov. run healthcare system {if we include *heavily* regulated insurance comp. as being gov. run}.
. . This works better because now that doctors are not useless, it makes sense to treat germs like criminals and have the Gov. protect all the people from them equally. It doesn't make sense to let comp. gouge people who have sick children at the price of all the parents will pay to save their child.
#15051002
SSDR wrote:Slavery is when a human is owned by another human.

No, that's chattel slavery. There is also, e.g., penal slavery, in which the slaves are not owned but are forced to work as part of judicial punishment, and debt slavery, in which the the debt but not the debtor is owned, and the debtor is forced to work off their debt.
A human being owned by force, or by voluntary support, is a slave.

Refuted above.
Force has nothing to do with slavery.

No, that's false and absurd, as proved above.
Non socialist rant of socialism. You are opinionating about socialism, since you are not a socialist.

No, I'm just using the dictionary definition in the manner of honest people.
This is correct in a non socialist economy.

And in a socialist one.
In non socialist economics where currency exists, people need currency to survive.

Silliness. Currency is just an exchange medium. People only need it to trade.
Not being payed in an economy where a currency exists and people need it is theft.

Gibberish with no basis in fact.
Workers relying on wages is a form of slavery that is not forced.

Orwellian socialist doublethink nonsense.
This is known as wage slavery.

And is Orwellian Marxist doublethink.
If a wage slave in a non socialist economy is not payed, this is a form of economic theft,

It is also theft if a worker in a socialist economy does not get to keep the fruits of his labor, or an owner of producer goods does not get to keep the value of his contribution to production.
and is slavery since in that non socialist economy, they need currency to survive.

Garbage.
Humans know what is worth doing, and what is wasteful and useless.

That is a claim refuted every day in the market.
Humans know that harvesting crops is more important than creating useless golden statues.

Some have not known that. And you are evading. Which crops should be planted? Where? When should they be harvested? How?
The owners who sell their products are selling their products for more than what it is worth via economic profits.

Anti-economic Orwellian gibberish.
The owners live off of those profits, which exploits the labour that produces the wealth that is sold for those profits.

The owner contributes the producer goods that enable the workers to produce the wealth.
#15051007
Julian658 wrote:...others become high end professionals that make a very good living such as a neurosurgeon, most become average wage earners, others are low wage earners (working poor), and some are destined to be in the gutter.


Funny you mention that. My buddy's wife is a renowned neurosurgeon. She makes a shit ton of money. And you know what? She should, and she should be allowed to keep it all. Why? Because she's the one who'll be diggin' around in your melon if you ever need brain surgery, that's why.

I'd hate to see what would happen if her "Give A Fuck" meter got pegged...
#15051012
Truth To Power wrote:No, that's chattel slavery. There is also, e.g., penal slavery, in which the slaves are not owned but are forced to work as part of judicial punishment, and debt slavery, in which the the debt but not the debtor is owned, and the debtor is forced to work off their debt.

"Chattel slavery" is a type of slavery.
No, that's false and absurd, as proved above.

You have no evidence.
No, I'm just using the dictionary definition in the manner of honest people.

No, you are just using the false dictionary definition in the manner of dishonest people.
Orwellian socialist doublethink nonsense.

No, I'm just using the dictionary definition in the manner of honest people.
And is Orwellian Marxist doublethink.

No, I'm just using the dictionary definition in the manner of honest people.
It is also theft if a worker in a socialist economy does not get to keep the fruits of his labor, or an owner of producer goods does not get to keep the value of his contribution to production.

In non socialist economics, the worker does not keep the fruits of their labour because the workers who assemble Ferraris do not keep the Ferraris. There are no private owners in economic socialism.
Some have not known that. And you are evading. Which crops should be planted? Where? When should they be harvested? How?

A socialist state that is for the people will coordinate that.
Anti-economic Orwellian gibberish.

No, I'm just using the dictionary definition in the manner of honest people.
The owner contributes the producer goods that enable the workers to produce the wealth.

Incorrect. The owner exploits the producer goods in an economic manner so they can get rich off the fruits of the labour, which is theft.
#15051029
B0ycey wrote:WTF. The worker who makes the profit shouldn't be paid more because a fat cat who does nothing gets an extra million. What a lackey.


I did not say it was fair. Capitalism is not supposed to be fair to all. The investor is part owner. The employee is providing a service and the compensation was accepted by such employee. The worker does not create the profit, however, his labor has value. Sadly his labor can be replace by an immigrant that will do the same job for less or by a machine that will do the job for nothing.
#15051030
Julian658 wrote:I did not say it was fair. Capitalism is not supposed to be fair to all. The investor is part owner. The employee is providing a service and the compensation was accepted by such employee. The worker does not create the profit, however, his labor has value. Sadly his labor can be replace by an immigrant that will do the same job for less or by a machine that will do the job for nothing.


If Capitalism isn't fair that means a new system should be in place that is fair as that benefits everyone. But that is besides the point. Your argument for an inventor making his wealth is creditable if not riddled with holes. The lazy fatcats in their ivory towers also getting their big payouts as well over Joe poor is just fucking morally wrong. If the poor ever understand their class distinction and rebel against the system, why would it not be fair for them to take everything from the bourgeoisie and leave them to rot in the gutter as currently that is what is happening to proletariat?
#15051038
SSDR wrote:"Chattel slavery" is a type of slavery.

Thank you for admitting you are wrong.
You have no evidence.

I gave it.
No, you are just using the false dictionary definition in the manner of dishonest people.

"False dictionary definition"? :lol: :knife:
No, I'm just using the dictionary definition in the manner of honest people.

No, I'm just using the dictionary definition in the manner of honest people.

Then you should be able to quote that definition.

Thought not.
In non socialist economics, the worker does not keep the fruits of their labour because the workers who assemble Ferraris do not keep the Ferraris.

There are no private owners in economic socialism.

The act of production -- labor -- is always private, so that means the producer's product is being stolen.
A socialist state that is for the people will coordinate that.

:lol:
No, I'm just using the dictionary definition in the manner of honest people.

Quote it.
Incorrect. The owner exploits the producer goods in an economic manner so they can get rich off the fruits of the labour, which is theft.

Where did the producer goods come from? How did they come to be devoted to production? How much would the workers produce without them?

Blank out.
#15051040
Truth To Power wrote:Thank you for admitting you are wrong.

Provide evidence that I proved that "I admitted to being wrong."
I gave it.

No you did not.
"False dictionary definition"?

You are using a capitalist dictionary that is made by a pro capitalist view point.
The act of production -- labor -- is always private, so that means the producer's product is being stolen.

It is not economically private in socialism, since privatized economics does not exist in socialism.
Where did the producer goods come from?

In non socialist economics, they come from the purchases of privately owned natural resources. In non socialist economics, everything is owned, thus needed to be purchased in order to have access.
How did they come to be devoted to production?

In non socialist economics, the workers are not devoted to production, unless if they emotionally support it out of false consciousness. In non socialist economics, the workers are wage slaves - They are economically reliant on their wages to survive since in non socialist economics, everything has to be purchased.
How much would the workers produce without them?

In socialist economics, that depends on what the workers desire. Workers in Sweden have different desires than workers in Somalia.
#15051182
Rugoz wrote:Ah yes, the "renowned neurosurgeon", how predictable. :lol:




If what you're going to offer up is stupid, you probably just shouldn't say anything...
#15051284
SSDR wrote:"Chattel slavery" is a type of slavery.

Voluntary servitude is also a type of slavery. In the Holy Bible there is the story of Jacob, who fell in love with Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, and agreed to work for Laban seven years in exchange for marriage to her (Genesis 29:16–20). In the end he was forced to work a total of fourteen years in exchange for marriage to her.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Castro came from money and then married into elit[…]

https://media.thedonald.win/post/r4tc[…]

When has paying hush money been illegal? In[…]

Social Darwinism and modern ''Racism'' (more prop[…]