The Next President is...

[Negatory]

Eh, the blunt truth is that wealth or debt transfer aren’t as much of big boogeyman words for a huge amount of people anymore after the stock market literally entirely detached from reality this year. Tens of millions are suffering and the top 1% or .1% were disproportionately (and ironically) the group the poor people’s wealth was “transferred to.”

Just Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg made ~$250B this year while the majority of the world was suffering. I’m not saying they shouldn’t make money - they should as they provide services that are in demand - but this is plainly immoral. I get that most people can’t fathom what making over 200,000 times what the average, well off, family makes. But what if the system only had them make... $25B? What if it was only $25M?!? Oh they couldn’t live comfortably anymore probably. And socialism amirite? 

Philosophically, many will scream foul. “They earned it!” But that requires the current iteration of the capitalist system and tax structure we have set up now to, at a baseline, already be “moral” or “fair” in the eyes of society, and that’s just an opinion. An opinion you’re gonna have a harder time defending if things continue. Why is 2020’s system morally superior to say the 1960s when top tax brackets would be taxed at 90%? Back when people could graduate college debt free working part time and then immediately buy a house with their union job.

More and more, working class people are starting to wonder if, just maybe, the  current iteration of the system doesnt work for the average American. IMO, reagonomics did what it was supposed to do; it defeated the USSR. 30 additional years was a tragedy, and it needs an immediate revision.

[SurelySerious]

Man, I must be immoral for making money on the stock market this year. 🙄

[Hacker]

8 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Tens of millions are suffering and the top 1% or .1% were disproportionately (and ironically) the group the poor people’s wealth was “transferred to.”

Except for the fact that the pie size is not fixed....especially in a time when so much "free money" has been pumped into the system by the Fed.

So, no...someone getting richer does not mandate someone else getting poorer.

[Negatory]

How about the money that’s pumped into the fed disproportionately going to a small swath of society? That’s moral, right?

And of course we all made money on the stock market. But you’re blinded to it’s bigger long term disparity effects because you “got yours.”

[SurelySerious]

14 minutes ago, Negatory said:

How about the money that’s pumped into the fed disproportionately going to a small swath of society? That’s moral, right?

And of course we all made money on the stock market. But you’re blinded to it’s bigger long term disparity effects because you “got yours.”

It’s not the zero sum game you’re portraying. 

[Hacker]

30 minutes ago, Negatory said:

But you’re blinded to it’s bigger long term disparity effects because you “got yours.”

Envy is an ugly emotion.

[brabus]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

But what if the system only had them make... $25B? What if it was only $25M?!?

Well for one people like MacKenzie Scott probably wouldn’t have donated $9B. Yeah there are some “filthy rich” people, but many of them donate shitloads of money, collectively provide millions of jobs, etc. They may be “selfish” in your eyes, but that doesn’t mean they’re not simultaneously contributing a substantial amount to our economy and way of life. Bottom line - not a zero sum game and we need those people far more than we don’t need them. 

[pawnman]

4 hours ago, Negatory said:

Eh, the blunt truth is that wealth or debt transfer aren’t as much of big boogeyman words for a huge amount of people anymore after the stock market literally entirely detached from reality this year. Tens of millions are suffering and the top 1% or .1% were disproportionately (and ironically) the group the poor people’s wealth was “transferred to.”

Just Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg made ~$250B this year while the majority of the world was suffering. I’m not saying they shouldn’t make money - they should as they provide services that are in demand - but this is plainly immoral. I get that most people can’t fathom what making over 200,000 times what the average, well off, family makes. But what if the system only had them make... $25B? What if it was only $25M?!? Oh they couldn’t live comfortably anymore probably. And socialism amirite? 

Philosophically, many will scream foul. “They earned it!” But that requires the current iteration of the capitalist system and tax structure we have set up now to, at a baseline, already be “moral” or “fair” in the eyes of society, and that’s just an opinion. An opinion you’re gonna have a harder time defending if things continue. Why is 2020’s system morally superior to say the 1960s when top tax brackets would be taxed at 90%? Back when people could graduate college debt free working part time and then immediately buy a house with their union job.

More and more, working class people are starting to wonder if, just maybe, the  current iteration of the system doesnt work for the average American. IMO, reagonomics did what it was supposed to do; it defeated the USSR. 30 additional years was a tragedy, and it needs an immediate revision.

Someone doesn't know the difference between income and net worth.

Unless you're proposing that we start taxing people based on net worth?  Because I don't think Bezos or Musk would have paid a single extra dollar in taxes under the 90% income tax scheme...because they don't have large incomes.  They have large stakes in companies that increased in value this year.

 

Quote

How about the money that’s pumped into the fed disproportionately going to a small swath of society? That’s moral, right?

And of course we all made money on the stock market. But you’re blinded to it’s bigger long term disparity effects because you “got yours.”

Because that's where people spent it?  It's not like Bezos and Musk pulled a truck up to the treasury printing press.

By the way...those markets that you seem to despise so much are the key for most people to build wealth.  Even generational wealth.  Most people, it seems, would rather have the new iPhone or UHD TV than to invest in the companies that makes those things, though.

Edited January 2, 2021 by pawnman

[Negatory]

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

Someone doesn't know the difference between income and net worth.

Unless you're proposing that we start taxing people based on net worth?  Because I don't think Bezos or Musk would have paid a single extra dollar in taxes under the 90% income tax scheme...because they don't have large incomes.  They have large stakes in companies that increased in value this year.

 

Because that's where people spent it?  It's not like Bezos and Musk pulled a truck up to the treasury printing press.

By the way...those markets that you seem to despise so much are the key for most people to build wealth.  Even generational wealth.  Most people, it seems, would rather have the new iPhone or UHD TV than to invest in the companies that makes those things, though.

I do know the difference. Increase personal capital gains taxes, it isn’t that hard. Or do something more imaginative, I don’t think people care.

Whether you like it or not, disparity or perceived disparity has gotten so bad that the majority of one political party candidates proposed a wealth tax and weren’t laughed out of their races. Welcome to America where CEOS compensation has increased 1000% since 1975 while working class compensation has increased closer to 15-20%. The best part is the working class folks (that’s you guys), such as those in the military making 100-200k, will continue to perpetuate this trend.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

Edited January 3, 2021 by Negatory

[Negatory]

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

[SurelySerious]

13 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I do know the difference. Increase personal capital gains taxes, it isn’t that hard. Or do something more imaginative, I don’t think people care.

Whether you like it or not, disparity or perceived disparity has gotten so bad that the majority of one political party candidates proposed a wealth tax and weren’t laughed out of their races. Welcome to America where CEOS compensation has increased 1000% since 1975 while working class compensation has increased closer to 15-20%. The best part is the working class folks (that’s you guys), such as those in the military making 100-200k, will continue to perpetuate this trend.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

 

Just now, Negatory said:

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

Ok Bernie Bro. 

[Negatory]

Naw man, let’s have an intellectual debate if you’re capable.

[SurelySerious]

24 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Naw man, let’s have an intellectual debate if you’re capable.

Just unwilling to entertain your state controlling the means of production socialism BS. 

[FLEA]

48 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

No. Actually there is not a limit. Sorry. 

[Homestar]

That another person is rich does not make me poor. 

[ViperMan]

13 hours ago, Negatory said:

Eh, the blunt truth is that wealth or debt transfer aren’t as much of big boogeyman words for a huge amount of people anymore after the stock market literally entirely detached from reality this year. Tens of millions are suffering and the top 1% or .1% were disproportionately (and ironically) the group the poor people’s wealth was “transferred to.”

Just Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg made ~$250B this year while the majority of the world was suffering. I’m not saying they shouldn’t make money - they should as they provide services that are in demand - but this is plainly immoral. I get that most people can’t fathom what making over 200,000 times what the average, well off, family makes. But what if the system only had them make... $25B? What if it was only $25M?!? Oh they couldn’t live comfortably anymore probably. And socialism amirite? 

Philosophically, many will scream foul. “They earned it!” But that requires the current iteration of the capitalist system and tax structure we have set up now to, at a baseline, already be “moral” or “fair” in the eyes of society, and that’s just an opinion. An opinion you’re gonna have a harder time defending if things continue. Why is 2020’s system morally superior to say the 1960s when top tax brackets would be taxed at 90%? Back when people could graduate college debt free working part time and then immediately buy a house with their union job.

More and more, working class people are starting to wonder if, just maybe, the  current iteration of the system doesnt work for the average American. IMO, reagonomics did what it was supposed to do; it defeated the USSR. 30 additional years was a tragedy, and it needs an immediate revision.

Ehhhh, so party "A" makes a LOT of money, and that means party "B" needs to transfer some of their money to party "C"??? mmmmmmkay.

Copy timeout. Pk miss. Leave previous point red. Play.

[ViperMan]

On 1/1/2021 at 1:10 PM, Sua Sponte said:

Gillibrand has singlehandedly ruined the military justice system. You consider her "center?"

No. I do not consider her center. She is extreme left.

Edited January 3, 2021 by ViperMan

[raimius]

6 hours ago, Negatory said:

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

If one dude masters the internet and makes $5trillion, while the rest of us get a 5% increase...we still gained 5%.  Good for him and good for us.

 

The "folks on the right" aren't asking the government to "give" tech billionaires more billions.  We all just do that because we use social media and like stuff delivered to our door two days after we buy the random thing in the internet.

[lloyd christmas]

On 12/29/2020 at 7:15 PM, drewpey said:

The democratic party isn't trying to force SJW justice down your throat in legislature. 

https://www.axios.com/congress-gender-identity-pronouns-rules-40a4ab56-9d5c-4dfc-ada3-4a683882967a.html

[jazzdude]

No. Actually there is not a limit. Sorry. 

There's a limit, but it changes with societal expectations and how people who are disadvantaged perceive their situation.

If those at the bottom feel exploited and that their situation is desperate, they may resort to other means to close the gap. Unionization, protests, strikes, or perhaps violence against management and company assets. Or it could be as simple as quitting and moving to another field/company where they feel better appreciated/compensated for their efforts if that option is available (not like we don't see that with AF pilots jumping ship for the airlines...and we've never seen pilots that leave be denegrated by leadership as unpatriotic...)

Is some of that illegal? Sure, but if people are desperate, they'll do desperate things, and it's not unprecedented. How history looks back on their actions depends on who wins-the line between freedom fighter and terrorist is a very thin line.

We're not there yet in the US, though it feels like we're moving that way.

[Negatory]

I am not disagreeing with many of your points. And I, along with many of you, are plenty well off. I get that. No shit we all have Roth IRAs and TSP and retirement and stable socialized jobs that allow us, very fortuitously, to be some of the lucky people in society. But most people can't, and that's the problem.

To just say there is no limit to wealth in society and entirely detach from reality by saying that how much the top 1% makes isn't connected to how much the working class makes is asinine. Because if they had incentives to give that money to workers as opposed to stock buybacks or letting it sit in stock options, maybe society would be better?

Also, it's not like the system we have today has been around for very long, yet you guys talk like it's holy and could never be altered. Since 1913 to now, the top end capital gains tax has ranged from 13%-77%. The personal income tax for the highest bracket has ranged from less than 10% to greater than 90%.

My argument is that Reaganomics and the policies that were implemented in the last 40 years have disproportionately helped the rich while making it harder to live and generate wealth for the vast majority of future and younger generations. That is the argument I want you to address.

For example, Millenials only hold 3% of total US wealth, whereas baby boomers held 21% if you go back in time to when they were the same age.

https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-less-wealth-net-worth-compared-to-boomers-2019-12

Purchasing power hasn't change at all in decades.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Inflation adjusted home costs have risen nearly 40% in the last few decades.

https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/

Education costs have tripled since 1980, after adjusting for inflation.

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college

These all began their upward trajectory after we decided that horse and sparrow (which literally comes from the sparrow getting to eat out of the horse's shit) economics (reaganomics) were what we were going to do as a nation.

My argument is that these are real, society defining, problematic issues that we need to address. We can fix some of these problems with the right market and governmental incentives/tax structure. Or you guys can keep hanging on to republican/neo-liberal fiscal conservatism which just saw over 20% of all circulating US dollars created just this year along with $4T in debt and the Fed swelling to over $7T. This is a crisis that you guys aren't addressing because your TSP appeared to go up in value, and I want to know why or when you think the current system will improve.

 

Finally, here's an additional hypothetical to one of your points: Why not just give the trillions directly to billionaires and the top 0.1% only because they're the "job creators" (actually pretty close to what already happens with large company bailouts of people like Boeing that just did stock buybacks over the last 10 years; socialize losses, privatize gains, right)? Don't give literally anyone else money, especially working class. Those billionaires, by the logic in this thread, will create all the jobs and totally donate to charity and fix the roads and trickle all over society if they just have a little more money.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Negatory

[pawnman]

19 hours ago, Negatory said:

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

Doesn't matter because it doesn't affect how much the people below them make.  They're selling goods and services, not stealing from people.

[Negatory]

Counterpoint: The money they make is entirely from the labor of the people they employ and the machines they run.

[SurelySerious]

57 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Counterpoint: The money they make is entirely from the labor of the people they employ and the machines they run.

Cool, so only single person corporations are allowed so employers can’t “exploit” workers? Let me know how that works. They’re holding down the proletariat everyone!

[Negatory]

I didn’t say anything like that and you know it.