Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%. - Page 6 - 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.
#15049720
Red Rackham wrote:That's sad. I'm not an outraged lefty, but I guess some things need shouting about. People shouldn't be allowed to live, or exist like that. I'm guessing those pics were from the US, the richest country on the planet! But there's worse poverty out there. Street kids living in sewers in Brazil, and the poverty in India should be an embarrassment to a government who spend $billions on nuclear weapons and a space programme. Somewhere, priorities have become very confused.



This is a very simplistic view.

How do you help a mentally ill person that ones to live in the street rather than in a home or shelter? These homeless people live in the most left wing liberal cities in America. And the local government works on the problem 24/7. And the problems gets worse! The ones that are not mentally ill are drug addicts. Do you think that gets fixed by providing an apartment and a meals. Who is going to clean the apartment? Before long the apartment would be inhabitable.

Do you think the local residents of these cities enjoy walking the sidewalks with these people around? Public defecation in San Francisco is a massive problem. Do you think the locals like to step on human feces as they walk to work?

OTOH, helping a truly poor person that is willing to work and help himself is rather easy. The poverty rate is plummeting in India and China because they want to get better and the help means a lot. However, you cannot help most of these homeless in LA.
#15049726
@Julian658,
To the lurkers.
The core group of MMTers has a solution.
It is a Job Guarantee program that offers a job to all who want to work and welfare to those who can't hold a job.
This job would by definition pay a wage sufficient to be fully involved in the economy if the worker worked 40 hr/week. It would provide a full range of benefits; retirement, paid vacation, sick days, full healthcare, enough to eat out sometimes at a set down restaurant, etc.
Clearly, they say "offer", not provide. To me this means that if the worker doesn't show up sober on time or call in sick and also do the job then they will be fired. The worker can try again, but eventually, if they can't hold one of these jobs, they will have to live on welfare.

MMTers say this is intended to replace the pool of unemployed people who currently keep inflation in check.
That the national gov. pays their wages but local gov. decides what jobs are allowed. One MMTer would allow surfers to be paid for surfing if they also taught beach safety and were life guards.
MMTers say that this will make the local economies healthy because businesses need customers with money, and this program will provide local businesses with such people. Healthy economies will provide more private jobs.
MMTers say that there is no FINANCIAL constraint on deficit spending by the national gov. {except in EU and especially EZ], and this is how this program will be paid for.
Last edited by Steve_American on 20 Nov 2019 08:57, edited 1 time in total.
#15049727
Julian658 wrote:This is a very simplistic view.

How do you help a mentally ill person that ones to live in the street rather than in a home or shelter? These homeless people live in the most left wing liberal cities in America. And the local government works on the problem 24/7. And the problems gets worse! The ones that are not mentally ill are drug addicts. Do you think that gets fixed by providing an apartment and a meals. Who is going to clean the apartment? Before long the apartment would be inhabitable.

Do you think the local residents of these cities enjoy walking the sidewalks with these people around? Public defecation in San Francisco is a massive problem. Do you think the locals like to step on human feces as they walk to work?

OTOH, helping a truly poor person that is willing to work and help himself is rather easy. The poverty rate is plummeting in India and China because they want to get better and the help means a lot. However, you cannot help most of these homeless in LA.


I know there are no easy solutions but I have to say, you seem comfortable with such poverty in the richest country in the world? As for India, you claim the poverty rate is 'plummeting'... I suppose it's what you mean by 'plummeting'. Two thirds of the population in India live on less than $2 per day and 30% (of 1.4 billion) live on less than $1.25 per day. In spite of the government spending £billions on nuclear weapons and the space programme for the majority in India abject poverty remains a fact of life.
#15049760
Julian658 wrote:Tell me how billionaires oppressed you when you lived in the USA. Be specific.


I have never lived in the US. However I am not blind to their problems. If only you knew the benefits of a national health service perhaps your poor need not go bankrupt over something like appendicitis.

If billionaires were indeed these revolutionary types that gave the world new and exciting technology then it would be different. But you find that most billionaires are just lucky in heritage. Nepotism is a thing. And so is private property. The Teslas of the world do not die rich. They too are exploited by the rich unless they happen to be rich to begin with.

Actually, the original goal was 2030. The fact that poverty has been declining rapidly is unknown to most on the left. This is known as living in an echo chamber where they all tell each other what they want to hear 24/7. This leads to profound ignorance since they are never exposed to different point of views. And when presented with different point of views they yell insults.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-glob ... SKCN1LZ2JL


Define poverty.

As I said when you look into it, you will find it called "moving the goal posts" big time. The graph is about extreme poverty. That is low wages along with no excess to essential commodities. The goal is not to improve wages which are shit and will continue to be so even in 2500, but build wells and schools in shanty towns. Hence the dip down. It makes the West feel better that they give something even though it really doesn't solve the underlying problem of the global wealth divide.

Show me a graph of the global "relative poverty" figure and then we will talk some more.
#15049765
Godstud wrote:@Julian658 This still doesn't give them food, shelter, or healthcare, and they are still poor. The only difference is now they can take pics of their shit living conditions and put them on FaceBook. :knife:


Not to mention that a charity would have provided them. I doubt any homeless person went out to buy a phone and laptop out of his begging pot. And for some reason Julian thinks drugs are their reason for being homeless. I suspect most are on drugs because they are homeless and wasn't the cause to begin with. Merely being evicted due to rent arrears from being redundant or landlord rent increases can make someone homeless. Or in terms of the housing crisis of 08, given a mortgage they cannot afford.

@Steve_American, you mentioned rents have gone up a lot within the last 2 decades. Of course they have. It is called supply and demand. Without a social program to build the homes required for everyone to live in you have competition within the private sector and landlords will charge the maximum because they hold the cards. Again proving why housing should be nationalised. Like in the film trading places, Julian needs to start from the bottom to see why the system is fucked up. Living in a bubble doesn't help him at all.
#15049776
Steve_American wrote:
Adam Smith used the words 'rent' and 'rentier'.



I was talking about rent seeking. That's a modern concept which I've explained more than once.
#15049785
B0ycey wrote:I have never lived in the US. However I am not blind to their problems. If only you knew the benefits of a national health service perhaps your poor need not go bankrupt over something like appendicitis.

If billionaires were indeed these revolutionary types that gave the world new and exciting technology then it would be different. But you find that most billionaires are just lucky in heritage. Nepotism is a thing. And so is private property. The Teslas of the world do not die rich. They too are exploited by the rich unless they happen to be rich to begin with.



Define poverty.

As I said when you look into it, you will find it called "moving the goal posts" big time. The graph is about extreme poverty. That is low wages along with no excess to essential commodities. The goal is not to improve wages which are shit and will continue to be so even in 2500, but build wells and schools in shanty towns. Hence the dip down. It makes the West feel better that they give something even though it really doesn't solve the underlying problem of the global wealth divide.

Show me a graph of the global "relative poverty" figure and then we will talk some more.


How did the French and Bolshevik Revolution worked out? And they were likely justified. Robert Mugawe a well known socialist nationalized all property and means of production in Zimbabwe, Africa. Mugawe drove the nation to near famimine. This is significant because Zimbabwe was the bread-basket of Africa. How did Mao do? How about Chávez? He also nationalized everything and eventually the shelves in grocery stores were empty. Do you know the difference between South Korea (one of the most prosperous nations on Earth) and North Korea?

Relative poverty is a meaningless term. Next to the billionaires I am dirt poor even though I make a nice income.
#15049789
Julian658 wrote:How did the French and Bolshevik Revolution worked out? And they were likely justified.


OK I guess. Russia is still a superpower with little debt. France seventh largest economy. Although both were caused by their prespective Royal Families fucking up the economy and most definitely not about Capitalism at all but social justice.

Say what you like about the Bolsheviks (Communists Party) and their human rights, you cannot deny that before the Russian Revolution, Russia was just a block of ice and they turned it into a power house.

Robert Mugawe a well known socialist nationalized all property and means of production in Zimbabwe, Africa. Mugawe drove the nation to near famimine. This is significant because Zimbabwe was the bread-basket of Africa. How did Mao do? How about Chávez? He also nationalized everything and eventually the shelves in grocery stores were empty. Do you know the difference between South Korea (one of the most prosperous nations on Earth) and North Korea?


Personally I don't ask for enterprise to be nationalised. That is for pure Socialists to advocate. Although your points don't reflect Socialism or its faults at all. Mugabe let farms turn to dust and Mao sent the farmer to the factory. Political mistakes. Although Mao is loved in China so he must have done something right. Chavez is adored in Venezuela and changed the fortunes of their poor. Maduro is being stitched up by the Yanks as is Morales now with their interference. And North Korea is crippled by sanctions. Again the Yanks. If you let Socialism thrive it doesn't fail at all. And although not pure Socialism, the list of declared Socialist countries include some very wealth countries indeed. :p


Relative poverty is a meaningless term. Next to the billionaires I am dirt poor even though I make a nice income.


Well it isn't a meaningless term. It is term that at says wages doesn't exceed living costs. And that is increasing in America. And the global figure is 53%. Lets eliminate that by 2030 please.
#15049831
By the way, contra to what some lefties might try make out, I've never hidden the fact that I'm not a member of the Far Right and I've never tried to hide the fact that I'm not and have never been a Conservative. This was true even before my explicit declaration that I'm a member of the far centre.

I support universal food stamps and universal housing support. The latter would be paid to owner occupiers, with or without a mortgage as well as renters. Of course drug addicts will try to trade food stamps to get drugs but we can at least make it more difficult. I support heavy taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco and potentially Cannabis. However we should recognise that they are quite regressive taxes and should be balanced by more progressive taxes and benefits. The most regressive taxes are Poll Taxes. Margaret Thatcher was an evil person for pushing the Poll Tax. I'm proud to have taken part in and even helped organise "robust" Direct action against the Poll Tax.

I would like to see the super rich pay more taxes. But this needs to be done in an intelligent way, populist sound bites won't cut it in a complex world where big capital is international but governance national. We should be trying to put a bit of a squeeze on the billionaire class, but they can not simply be abolished. There can not be some arbitrary limit to success in market system. The important taxes for the really are capital gains, corporation, inheritance and mansion taxes, not income tax.
Last edited by Rich on 21 Nov 2019 09:02, edited 1 time in total.
#15049853
Julian658 wrote:Rich people create their own wealth.

GARBAGE. Rich people are, overwhelmingly, rich because they are privileged: i.e., legally entitled to take wealth created by others.
When I buy a book by a best selling author I transfer my money to the pocket of the author, but I gain much more in the pleasure I get from reading the book,. If the pleasure I receive is much greater than what i spend for the book. If the author gets rich because the author is providing an invaluable service.

How many of the rich are authors, or other creative or even productive people? We know a handful of famous names, but they are a tiny fraction of the rich, few of whom have made any commensurate contribution to earn their wealth.
When I buy a Mac Notebook I can operate my business 50 times more efficiently. I make more money due to the fact someone created the computer. The computer manufacturer gets rich and i make more money using the computer. That is wealth creation!

IP monopolies work by PREVENTING wealth creation.
#15049900
Truth To Power wrote:GARBAGE. Rich people are, overwhelmingly, rich because they are privileged: i.e., legally entitled to take wealth created by others.


OK, let's try this one. I am The Beatles and I wrote a lot of music that gave immense pleasure to the listeners . In return the listeners paid a small stipend that was not much at the individual level. The listeners felt it was worth it to spend the money on the music. BTW, when one spends money the assumption is that one gets value in return. I would not spend money if I do not get value from my money. Millions of listeners felt it was worth to buy the records and hence the The Beatles became VERY RICH. How were they privileged? Do you mean they were talented? How did The Beatles take the wealth create by others? What wealth did the others create? Were they robbed by The Beatles?

Steve Jobs work out of a car garaf-ge and invented the Apple computer. At the onset he was penniless, however, he designed a product that millions wanted to have. Obviously the people felt they were getting a LOT of value by purchasing Apple computers. Jobs became rich. How did he steal money from the customers? He provided a gadget that customers wanted very badly. How is this stealing? How is this stealing the wealth of others?

IP monopolies work by PREVENTING wealth creation.


Could you explain this? Thanks
#15049902
Rich wrote:By the way, contra to what some lefties might try make out, I've never hidden the fact that I'm not a member of the Far Right and I've never tried to hide the fact that I'm not and have never been a Conservative. This was true even before my explicit declaration that I'm a member of the far centre.

I support universal food stamps and universal housing support. The latter would be paid to owner occupiers, with or without a mortgage as well as renters. Of course drug addicts will try to trade food stamps to get drugs but we can at least make it more difficult. I support heavy taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco and potentially Cannabis. However we should recognise that they are quite regressive taxes and should be balanced by more progressive taxes and benefits. The most regressive taxes are Poll Taxes. Margaret Thatcher was an evil person for pushing the Poll Tax. I'm proud to have taken part in and even helped organise "robust" Direct action against the Poll Tax.

I would like to see the super rich pay more taxes. But this needs to be done in an intelligent way, populist sound bites won't cut it in a complex world where big capital is international but governance national. We should be trying to put a bit of a squeeze on the billionaire class, but they can not simply be abolished. There can to be some arbitrary limit to success in market system. In particular through higher levels of capital gains, corporation, inheritance and mansion taxes.

Like you I am firmly in the center. However, to the rabid left we probably look right wing.
#15049909
Julian658 wrote:I am The Beatles and I wrote a lot of music that gave immense pleasure to the listeners . In return the listeners paid a small stipend that was not much at the individual level. The listeners felt it was worth it to spend the money on the music. BTW, when one spends money the assumption is that one gets value in return. I would not spend money if I do not get value from my money.

Everyone has their own personal different definitions of value. People value things differently from each other, some value things more than others. Usually, the more right winged someone is, the more they value things. This is because the more right wing the position is in the political spectrum, the more hierarchy gets promoted.

In communism, the concept of value does not exist because it does not need to exist in a communist economy.
How were they privileged?

A lot of people liked them. They idolized them, like with any other celebrity.
Do you mean they were talented?

No they are not talented - In both labour and music terms. In labour terms, a civilization cannot be built by moving strings and sticks in front of a camera. In music terms, their music was fake, overrated, contemporary, and capitalist.
How did The Beatles take the wealth create by others?

Others who purchased their music use their private spending powers. They coordinate that wealth into liberal media, that being an example, to motivate them to work. Some people need to see an idolized musician in person performing to motivate them to work because non socialists manipulate people into believing that they are so much more valued, that seeing that is a false "honour." I never understand why people get obsessed with famous people they see in person. It is because society manipulates people to think that it is good to see that. But in real conscious terms, it is as equal as seeing an impoverished person that no one knows.
What wealth did the others create?

Homes, automobiles, food, factories, engineering facilities, medical facilities such as hospitals, and technological appliances such as radios or Televisions.
Were they robbed by The Beatles?

Yes via manipulation from what non socialist society inflicts onto each other.
Steve Jobs work out of a car garage and invented the Apple computer. At the onset he was penniless, however, he designed a product that millions wanted to have.

In capitalist economies, most inventors who sell their products properly result in being wealthy.
Obviously the people felt they were getting a LOT of value by purchasing Apple computers.

Personal computers were a new invention in those times, so many people wanted it. The capitalist enterprise exploited the wealth of those purchasers who wanted the new invented technology, so the capitalist enterprise got wealthy.
How did he steal money from the customers?

Economic profit Is Theft. Profit is not real wealth. It is wealth that enterprise owners live off of.
He provided a gadget that customers wanted very badly.

He assisted on inventing a gadget that the people wanted. He sold it to them because in their capitalist economy, there was no other way onto distributing to them. He took advantage of that by including a percentage of profit in product prices, and used those remaining profits to become wealthy.
How is this stealing?

Profit is theft. In a capitalist economy, nothing is valued only by the material quality and labour effort. The third factor of determining the value (Price) of a product in a capitalist economy is Profit. The reason why profits exist under capitalism is so that enterprise owners can make money off of that after paying for everything else needed to maintain their enterprise and industry. If nothing is sold for profit under capitalism, then the economy is not capitalist anymore by definition since in capitalism, everything is produced for profit; So it can be Sold.

If there is a chocolate bar that is worth 3 Marks. One Mark is for the chocolate, packaging that covers it to protect it from outside debris, and other material related subjects. One Mark is for the labour. This includes designing the chocolate bar, industrial equipment used to make the bars, various deliveries, labour for maintaining the manufacturing centers, farming labour for harvesting cocoa crops, and loading and unloading bars into shops where they are sold. The final Mark is for profit. The final Mark pays the owner, who has no contributing factor into making the bar. The final Mark is invested into stocks, where other enterprise owners can expand via capitalist inflation, make more money for themselves, and increase prices (But not wages) for the masses.

The final Mark will Not be payed to anyone who contributed into the making of the chocolate bar. Factory workers, custodians, food engineers, ingredient coordinators, architects who designed the chocolate factory, delivery drivers who delivery cocoa beans, ingredients, and the bars themselves once they are made, And graphic designers who designed the packing will not get the final Mark.
How is this stealing the wealth of others?

The final Mark goes to the exploiter who did not make any contributions into the making of the chocolate bar. The exploiter would be getting a Free mark. Free money in an economy where currency exists is theft.

So, profit is theft.
#15049918
SSDR wrote:
So, profit is theft.


If I am a plumber and I fix your toile I make a profit by fixing your toilet. I am not going to fix your toilet for free. If I becoming the king of toilets and everybody in the nation wants me to fix their toilets I will build a fleet of mobile plumbers that carry my name to attract business. All the hired plumbers have to do is purchase the name brand from me and they will have a plumbing franchise with my name on it. They will make a lot of money and I will also make money by helping them with the brand name. That is wealth creation! and yes, profit! And everybody wins?

And you are the only person inthe world who thinks the Trabant was a better car than a Mercedes Benz. Listen to Ronalds Reagan tell a joke about cars and plumbers. It is really funny!
Reagan jokes about Soviet cars and plumbers
#15049980
B0ycey wrote:OK I guess. Russia is still a superpower with little debt. France seventh largest economy. Although both were caused by their prespective Royal Families fucking up the economy and most definitely not about Capitalism at all but social justice.

Say what you like about the Bolsheviks (Communists Party) and their human rights, you cannot deny that before the Russian Revolution, Russia was just a block of ice and they turned it into a power house.


But, they killed millions of their own citizens! :knife: :knife: :knife:
#15049982
Julian658 wrote:But, they killed millions of their own citizens! :knife: :knife: :knife:


France???

As for the SU, not the ones who conformed. And sure, Stalin was a bastard. Although I might like to add so does America by making healthcare unaffordable. The West have proven that socialist projects work with democracy FYI. America have yet to receive the memo. :lol:
#15050038
B0ycey wrote:France???

As for the SU, not the ones who conformed. And sure, Stalin was a bastard. Although I might like to add so does America by making healthcare unaffordable. The West have proven that socialist projects work with democracy FYI. America have yet to receive the memo. :lol:


I never met a person that excused the genocide in the SU. Or that equaled that to health care in the USA.
#15050042
Julian658 wrote:I never met a person that excused the genocide in the SU. Or that equaled that to health care in the USA.


It was famine. Or prisoner execution. No worse than what the British did to the boers either. Not that I excuse it. Stalin was a dictator in Socialist clothing. You will not find any praise for him from me. But I do like how people think Socialism is evil when Capitalism has the same kind of death rate. You think those slaves volunteered to be chained up and beaten or something? And yes America is willfully killing it's own people by not providing what is a human right. Access to health. The wealthiest nation on the planet should have no poverty and yet it does. At least the SU could blame civil war for its crimes. What is America's excuse?
#15050046
B0ycey wrote:It was famine. Or prisoner execution. No worse than what the British did to the boers either. Not that I excuse it. Stalin was a dictator in Socialist clothing. You will not find any praise for him from me. But I do like how people think Socialism is evil when Capitalism has the same kind of death rate. You think those slaves volunteered to be chained up and beaten or something? And yes America is willfully killing it's own people by not providing what is a human right. Access to health. The wealthiest nation on the planet should have no poverty and yet it does. At least the SU could blame civil war for its crimes. What is America's excuse?


The genocide of the 20th century by the Soviets and the Chinese is not the same as the colonization of countries hundreds of years ago. The genocide happened in the 20th century and The Soviets and Chinese killed their own people. Sure, the famine helped, but this was precipitated by socialism. In Venezuela most citizens have lost a lot of weight thanks to socialism.

Furthermore, violence in different eras is not comparable. The level of violence hundreds of years ago was much greater. I cannot even judge my parents with today's cultural values. Therefore, I cannot judge people that lived hundreds of yeas ago. This is a classical phony talking point that is meaningless. All cultures had tribal wars in world history.
#15050055
Julian658 wrote:The genocide of the 20th century by the Soviets and the Chinese is not the same as the colonization of countries hundreds of years ago. The genocide happened in the 20th century and The Soviets and Chinese killed their own people. Sure, the famine helped, but this was precipitated by socialism. In Venezuela most citizens have lost a lot of weight thanks to socialism.

Furthermore, violence in different eras is not comparable. The level of violence hundreds of years ago was much greater. I cannot even judge my parents with today's cultural values. Therefore, I cannot judge people that lived hundreds of yeas ago. This is a classical phony talking point that is meaningless. All cultures had tribal wars in world history.


What. So a revolution that happened a hundred years ago is so many more years than a war 120 years ago that they cannot be compared. Bullshit. The simple matter is capitalism is linked to the same crimes as authoritarianism. The British causes delibrate famine in India. Americans to Indians. Not to mention the genocide against them. Then there was salvery. Today they bomb the Middle East because they happen to sit on oil. Sanctions against states that dare to question America. You think Capitalism is roses. You are so fucking naive you are unaware of what Capitalism does to the world. You are a head dunker. Fingers in the ears. You cannot even see the system over there will kill you for the crime of being sick and poor.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Everyday people in the UK and US aren't creating t[…]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/podcasts/.prem[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

What? Labour party has existed long before Corbyn[…]

did I mention the "H" word? i'm not bus[…]