Except the wealth isn't yours to redistribute. Maybe try earning their wealth and then redistribute yours into something you may not approve of and see how much you like it.
General CE Chat
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Except the wealth isn't yours to redistribute. Maybe try earning their wealth and then redistribute yours into something you may not approve of and see how much you like it.
Maybe try becoming a billionaire and then get back to me? I don't care whether they like it or not. We are many, they are few. Taking money from billionaires to feed and house people is the right thing to do and I'm not interested in what Wyatt Koch has to say on the issue.
That wasn't always the case as recently as the late 90s. We had a balanced budget, wage growth, and positive GDP movement. Ultimately, you make progress through cooperation and incrementalism, not through loudly declaring how you will never work with the opposition.
Its not me who is advancing these ideas, its you, so you have to actually do the work and convince those who have why they should give you their money.
I can kind of understand someone who's making a decent amount but not that well-off being mildly annoyed about high tax-rates when the money isn't being spent well but I've got no sympathy whatsoever for a billionaire having to pay substantial amounts of tax when they're still ultimately going to be incredibly rich after said tax has been paid...especially when taxes go into things that indirectly benefit them, i.e. their workforces being better educated and in better health etc. If it was a case of trying to strip the rich of their wealth entirely then I'd understand but very few people are arguing for that...just that they just back fair amounts to society in order to help those who aren't so well-off.
Incrementalism is how you make incremental progress, while accepting that thousands upon thousands will die of preventable causes in the meantime.
You'll probably alter their own incentives as it relates to what they do, spend and save, as well as the incentives of others. My point is that you might be surprised about the unintended consequences - and their magnitude - of certain changes.
Also, the more extreme the underlying differences in income (before tax/distribution) the more extreme the measures required to achieve your desired outcome. At a high enough marginal tax rate people are altogether willing to move to a different country, but still do the same services.
We don't need their consent to give it to us. We need to elect leaders who will enact laws to take it.
This is true, there might well be changes I can't forsee. But it's not as if the system is working now. The status quo already has horrible consequences that elected officials didn't forsee.
lol....well that won't be happening even if there's a Dem wave. Most Dems know that this sort of thing will get them voted right back out.
Trump gained power by doing the exact opposite of that. I do agree in compromise and cooperation but if you're someone who believes the Republicans have shifted too far to the right to be worked with then I'd argue trying to convince society of your message to the point where you get to implement those ideals without having to work with a bunch of extreme right-wingers may be a preferential choice.
Obviously all politicians compromise certain ideals and have to work with people but there are plenty of cases of strong-minded, conviction politicians coming to power on the basis of people admiring what they've had to say, and believing that they'll actually implement what they've promised. Instead of someone giving a nicely worded but vague message that doesn't really resonate at all.
And gridlock is how you make no progress at all because you aren't willing to compromise on policy. Incrementalism is therefore a more rational approach to standing still while the same thousands you cited die of preventable causes.
Trump is an extreme outlier in all of this. He obviously wouldn't have been possible without all the money in politics and the help of the right wing progaganda machine to undergird and spur his nonsense. Once he departs, we still have to work together to advance policies. There are plenty of non- Trump Republicans who are willing to meet Dems half way on a variety of issues, which will be a good starting point.
Here's another challenge of trying to target levels of income equality as #1 economic goal: you can't be an open economy in terms of trade. Because of the incentives you create to off-shore, and the high incomes that people in your own country might derive from goods/services exported. Sure, you'll say that you'll just tax them anyways... but then they'll just never onshore their income.
Brexit happened last year too, in spite of many seeing it as an outsider movement. Sanders wasn't able to gain the Democratic nomination but gained a wave of support and certainly made more inroads than expected in doing so. In the UK, Corbyn was able to gain a foothold and dent the Tory majority in spite of the fact that he faced a hostile news media and a party that were reluctant in backing him.
Obviously compromise will remain and I'm a firm believer that compromise often should be an important part of the political process, but who you're compromising with remains important at the same time. Irrespective of the so-called moderate Republicans there are a lot of the party's rabid tea party elements who're seen as undesirable and repulsive even by US standards. It's easy to understand why a committed Democrat would rather pursue a positive and change-driven agenda instead of one dominated by compromising on key ideals which might actually get Dems out to vote.
Politics is an evolving process and what was once true may not be in the future; Trump may be an outlier right now but there's no guarantee he will be in the future.
Correct, which is why I'm not just supporting democrats whose values don't match mine.
They should have been, but haven't. The current government couldn't give a shite about the most vulnerable in UK society.
I know *nothing* about tax codes, etc. From what I understand, what Amazon does in Europe is they have opened Amazon Isle of Man (or some other island), who buys things from wholesalers at low prices, sells them to the retailer Amazon UK at high prices, thus gest the profit while the "loss-making" Amazon UK doesn't pay tax. Is that roughly correct?
Last edited:
Protests in Tunisia:
Each company does their own setup and they're hard to figure out by themselves, plus I've not read about Amazon specifically. But generally, yes. Some sort of transfer pricing that leaves the profits of the activity in an entity in a low tax jurisdiction, and low to negative profits in high tax.
But that wasn't even what I was talking about, the corporate stuff. Because the underlying "earning power" of individuals has become so stretched, an attempt to adjust their after-tax income to something perceived as equitable would see some marginal tax rates approaching or at 100% (e.g. "no one needs more that $1m annually in income"). At that point I think many people would start to find it advantageous to remove themselves from that jurisdiction.
Its still well within ok for Facebook and all of its high-paid people to live in California. The number of people of people who've followed Eduardo Saverin and renounced US citizenship (because US is a global income tax country) to move to Singapore is really low. But jack the tax rate to wherever someone thinks you'll produce the equality they want, and see if a lot more people don't make similar decisions.
Right, so how would you define an organisation such as ISIS?
I would think after all the interactions we've had, you would know that "villifying" Islam is about as far as you can get from my position on things. Being accurate about something isn't villifying, and I would imagine that most Muslims like the distinction that this brand of terrorism is something apart from what normal Islam stands for.
I don't understand why anyone would not want to be precise in their description of something. Or are all terrorists the same? Calling this brand of terrorism, Radical Islamic Terrorism is not only accurate, it is in fact a huge time saver. In three simple words, you've given context to what it is, you've delineated it, correctly from Islam. There are other forms of terrorism, there are eco terrorists for example. We should probably just lump them all together into one big pot.
Or do we need to play 50 questions after any terrorist attack anywhere, where the ultimate questions are who and why? Only, apparently we're not allowed to use the worlds Radical and Islam together. Breaking news, someone in an act of terrorism blew up a school in Iraq. Who did it? A guy. What was his motivation? We can't say. Or, a radical islamist blew up a school. Oh, so a religious fanatic who believes in a heretical interpretation of his religion killed a bunch of children.
More on the Tunisia protests (Jason Burke is one of the best journalists out there writing on MENA stuff):
Tunisia rocked by second night of protests over price rises
Worth keeping an eye on Algeria these days as well...
Tunisia rocked by second night of protests over price rises
Worth keeping an eye on Algeria these days as well...
Windsor is heaven compared to Detroit which is just across the border from them. In fact, people in Windsor would prefer if the people from Detroit didn't come over. Drugs, crime, gun violence - Detroit has it all. Windsor is prosperous with healthcare for all. Detroit is skint.
"When Detroit is sending its people, they're not sending their best."
Canada drinking age is 19, United States is 21. I spent several nights in Windsor between the ages of 19 and 21.
My uncle went to Wayne State University. Every weekend would involve a trip to Windsor to drink as he and his friends were not 21 yet.
Breaks my heart everytime I read something like this. I watched the movie Help in theatre and cried my eyes out. So much so that the people sitting near me had to take me to the restroom and check on me if it's ok. What a terrible state of affairs. Not just US mind you, every fecking where.
FFS
Imagine being 20-years old and winning $451M ($282M cash option).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...451-million-mega-millions-jackpot/1030765001/
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A 20-year-old Florida man claimed the $451 million Mega Millions jackpot on Friday, choosing to get $282 million at once instead of more in annual installments. (more in the link)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...451-million-mega-millions-jackpot/1030765001/
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A 20-year-old Florida man claimed the $451 million Mega Millions jackpot on Friday, choosing to get $282 million at once instead of more in annual installments. (more in the link)
Belgian F16's have intercepted 2 Russian bombers heading to the UK. Weird.
Rougly translated from Dutch.
Rougly translated from Dutch.
Routine.
Jesus, state of emergency declared in Montego Bay, the main tourist trap, after surge in gang violence- 1,600 murders there last year!
Are you for real?
Ill bite
Are african americans in a different socioeconomic group because they decided to be poor or because there is people like the president of the united states that put a C (of coulor) in their housing request as it could happen in a CV when looking for a job (as it happened in a case in France) and without a physical mark but because of racism that permeate all levels of society?
Do african americans get pulled over more often because they speed more often because the police can´t see if they are white or black, or when they realize they are black they are less lenient with the tickets they issue?
https://qz.com/953583/new-research-shows-racial-bias-is-often-about-who-the-police-go-easy-on/
Do women earn less in average because of sexism? or you don´t have fecking idea what average means when you speak about part time BS and the comparison is always about counterparties and not between a barista or a CEO therefore you have no fecking idea of the studies?
There is height discrimination in the NBA when they had players from 5´3 to 7´7 (both first round pick and played in the XXI century) or is the Premier to have currently 5´4 to 6´8?
You could add at your list:
"Are women discriminated in bank semens because sexism or because they don´t have a penis and testicles"
"Are black discriminated to play naked hide and seek on a dark pitch night because racism or because his tone of skin (is not fair)"
"Are you making this stupid facts because you are plain racist or because you are plain dumb"? Or both?
go back to your cave
Last edited:
it triggers something very alt right at their very core
You're disgusting and I shouldn't even bother to answer your stupidity.
Yeah african americans are poor because all business owners all over Americaare racists that are refusing to give them jobs. Are you out of your fecking mind? My whole point was that there were individual cases of racism but it's tough to know the exact extent of it in a society. Most of those numbers you read that intend to show minorities are being discriminated usually have other factors in play which makes knowing the extent of racism pretty hard. That of course doesn't mean racism does not exist, of course it does. To a lesser extent than ever before but it's still very much a problem.
I was questioning the extent of it, not its existence.
That's exactly the question I was asking. Of course some cops are racist against minorities, but how many is the question.
Did you even read the article you just posted?
It's exactly what I'm saying.
You're the one who apparently have no idea what 'average' means.
I have a great idea of the studies and most do not take everything into account. If corporations could get away with paying less to women for the same job a man does they'd only hire women. Women are more likely to take holidays, to work part time, less likely to ask for a raise, etc. and most studies do not take everything into account.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
One player being 5'3 when most are tall doesn't mean shit, obviously. Just like Oprah being rich doesn't mean women aren't discriminated against. The NBA has more tall players because they're better at basketball, that's not discrimination against short people.
So you can't just scream discrimination when there's an inequality in something without knowing all the factors behind that difference. This is ALL I was saying. Out of all of this shit that doesn't even fecking matter, it was all I was saying. But you completely misunderstood it like a moron and then called me a stupid racist for it.
How about you feck off back to yours? For the third time, can I leave this thread without getting called stupid or racist now?
Last edited:
1-No, with those sad "facts", you are not questioning the extension, you are denying it
2-No, my link proofs that, even if the black people speed up more and they get caught more for the same reason (basically because I guess is difficult to see the colour of the skin when speeding). It shows that once caught, the colour of the skin matters.
3-For each "study" that you find in favour of women salary, I can find you 10 that says the opposite
same jurno than yours, 2 years later (from last november)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ap-widening-for-women-in-their-20s-data-shows
4-About your pathetic fact of the NBA, I am telling you that there is way more distance in the average short than the average tall than football for example. and that is a fact. And both extremes, as I proofed before, are more inclusive than football. If you have the talent, height does not matter in basketball. But it was just I said "Ill bite". Just another stupid fact
You microfacting to proof that there is not much of a problem in sexism and racism. And with that you joined the ranks of the ones that tries to justify them under a false "let´s know the truth" facts.
And thanks to asking the question. Both.
You can leave whenever, but you will not tell others to lie about who you are
2-No, my link proofs that, even if the black people speed up more and they get caught more for the same reason (basically because I guess is difficult to see the colour of the skin when speeding). It shows that once caught, the colour of the skin matters.
3-For each "study" that you find in favour of women salary, I can find you 10 that says the opposite
same jurno than yours, 2 years later (from last november)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ap-widening-for-women-in-their-20s-data-shows
4-About your pathetic fact of the NBA, I am telling you that there is way more distance in the average short than the average tall than football for example. and that is a fact. And both extremes, as I proofed before, are more inclusive than football. If you have the talent, height does not matter in basketball. But it was just I said "Ill bite". Just another stupid fact
You microfacting to proof that there is not much of a problem in sexism and racism. And with that you joined the ranks of the ones that tries to justify them under a false "let´s know the truth" facts.
And thanks to asking the question. Both.
You can leave whenever, but you will not tell others to lie about who you are