Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

Saying that businessmen create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood. Investment is static, work is dynamic.

"Risk" means stupidity, as in "That was a pretty risky thing you did." Why should we reward gambling? Why should we reward, to the extent that you demand, using money to make money?

Finally, if someone steals my wallet, am I just "jealous" because then he has money and I don't? We don't have to recognize your self-serving definition of what you claim to "earn." Owners aren't earners; they just come in and collect what was produced by "their" workers. If you own a man's work, you own the man.

 

That reminds me of what GIs claim the modern name for C-rations stands for, "MRE: Meal Refused by Ethiopians."

 

How often do you smoke weed and listen to MSNBC?

You can do one or the other but for the love of god please stop combining those bad habits.

Greed will destroy any business faster than you can imagine. That's where Libs are misguided. They have no clue what it really means run a business of any size. Greed gets you Enron. Where is Enron today? Gone... Why? Because those in charge wanted money more than success.

You my friend are confusing the two. Ambition is an important part of human nature. Without ambition we would have never strived to chisel a wheel out of stone to move goods faster. Ambition can also be a destructive force but only in combination with something like Greed. The most successful businesses are driven by their desire to grow. That desire naturally forces companies to play by certain rules. You don't screw your customers. You don't screw your partners. You don't screw your employees. The real key to success is a desire to improve everything around you. I want my business to grow. I want my customers to speak highly of me therefore I must provide quality services at a market price. I want my employees to be comfortable because they are the representatives of my company. Therefore I pay them well and treat them as equals. Even the lowest man on the totem pole deserves to be treated as well as the owner. That's the recipe for success and NO business gets off the ground without it.

Two years ago I took over a struggling construction company. The owner was deeply in debt. He was taking out loans to pay his employees. The first thing I did was find those with high character and gave them a raise. The second thing I did was renegotiate the materials costs with the various companies he purchased from and we bought higher quality products for a slightly higher price. Those things met the most important goals of any business. The employees were happy. The customers were happy. Within 6 months we paid off his debt and turned his business into a thriving endeavor. I recommended my replacement and began my own business a few months ago. I still have strong ties to that company and good relationships with everyone. I came to love many of the employees as close friends and I can tell you that the lessons I taught my former boss have resulted in a strong and continually growing business.

That's the truth about the free market. Libs have no idea what it takes. You have a closed minded view of the world and therefore cannot understand it. Nearly every liberal I've ever met is cynical, ignorant, and completely closed minded. You choose to see the worst in things because you are probably not a very good person. You naturally assume that everyone who has success MUST be equally devoid of morality.

Any business big or small that cuts costs in an attempt to make a little bit of money now ie GREED..... will fail. That's a certainty. If Apple starts cutting employee costs and uses substandard products it's not going to take very long for Android to overcome them.

 

First... talent is key. I did not think it was necessary to mention lol.

Second.... Capitalism is not the only ingredient to freedom. A free market is a necessary part of a free society but not the only one. Being a free society in combination with a free market is the recipe for success so it's no wonder Russia failed. China is another example. they are one of the most capitalist communist nations on the face of the Earth. However the nature of government power and corruption overcomes much of the good caused by the free market hence when GDP gets too high in China they devalue their currency by half..... keeping everyone poor. So it's not enough to be "capitalist."

Furthermore my "limited" perspective on capitalism is probably one hell of a lot broader than yours. Capitalism creates the ruling class of the rich you say? How so? Through government. In a true free market no monopoly can survive. Nobody can truly stay at the top because time never stops moving. No business can avoid the inevitable decline from various unkown elements. Even a recent example was Microsoft's monopoly on PC operating systems. Sure the government became involved but what really changed the market? A little invention called the IPod. From it an explosion of new technology hit the showrooms and all of the sudden Microsoft's domination of the PC market isn't nearly as strong. Several companies are challenging them in the new markets.

So that's the first thing you miss. If you freeze a moment in time and project it.... you get your world view of capitalism. However nothing is truly stagnant in a free society and new technologies, new ambitions ect, will always keep the market churning. Especially in this day in age with new technologies revolutionize our way of life every decade.

The second failure in your perception is that the WAY most of those super rich people have managed to perch themselves atop society and stay there is through government corruption. I'll give you a very specific example. In the early 1900's the supreme court ruled that an individual cannot sell tobacco to his neighbor. Prior to that we had a full spectrum of business related to tobacco. Local people would grow and sell it in local markets. Small companies existed which produced and distributed it. And a few large companies did the same. The beauty of a true free market is that you will find a healthy and strong expansive marketplace. Big business is as necessary as small business. They don't generally step on each others toes until...... ding ding ding..... some of the big companies sure and buy a few elections and thus..... control the market.

All of the sudden a trade which expanded across the range of income earners was limited to the top. Within a few decades the big tobacco companies realized they could buy cheaper tobacco grown in other countries. Being that the local farmers could not legally go and sell their product on the open market but instead were FORCED to sell directly to the companies many of them went belly up. They lost their land. they lost their place in the market. And because of government intervention that opportunity was forever closed.

Once tobacco companies had FULL control and the only remaining competition were also super rich huge businesses they started doctoring the formula's. they started sousing up the mix and making cigarettes even more addictive and unhealthy ect ect. This would have NEVER happened had government refused to become involved.

Government is a hammer that large corporations use to control the world. You have the right enemy in many ways but the wrong solutions. You cannot use government to solve these problems. The only answer is maximum freedom possible. If we were to take something like Marijuana and make it TRULY legal..... you would find an equal market across the board. There would be a few big businesses which would produce and distribute ect ect. But you would also find thousands of small businesses doing the same thing. Furthermore because it can be grown by anyone you would NEVER be able to move production overseas and doctor the formula like the Tobacco companies did. By in large the most successful companies would be small local businesses. That's the nature of the free market. There is a market for everything and everyone. It does not eventually funnel to the top and so many of you liberals believe. the ONLY way that happens is through corrupt government as has been the case over and over and over again. Most of it btw pushed by people of your world view.

Obamacare for example is the newest destruction of the free market. Government has been tampering with healthcare for decades and thus costs have went up.... services have gone down. Socialism is the real problem with the American healthcare system and your answer is more socialism. I wonder if you people will EVER educate yourselves and snap out of the trance. Your being used by the very people you claim to oppose. You are a pawn.

 

Risk is the way you excel, when complacency is the way you remain pond scum.
You said ... "Why should we reward gambling? Why should we reward, to the extent that you demand, using money to make money?" ... When the key rests in you simple question.
"We" or in other words "you" or "society" doesn't reward gambling or people like me ... We "earn" what we do through risking our investments.
The idea that someone won't use money to make more money is what is really stupid ... not the other way around.

the reason the Capital Gains tax is not higher is because "WE" want people to invest money in new business and more jobs ... Not the retarded other way of looking at things the way you do.

We also work as hard as we need to in order to create business, and when we are rewarded for our efforts, we don't sit around and cry about what other people have, or how they are able to ensure their own success.
Your definition of what I earn doesn't amount to crap, and you are jealous because you don't have the wherewithal or guts to do the same ... and actually think complaining about something is worthwhile.

Owners open a business that allows workers to work ... without the effort and risk we put forth, there is nothing for our employees to do.
If a worker wants to the own their own business ... then get off your butt and get to opening one ... by your logic, there is nothing to it in the first place.
You therefor admit that workers can do it better if they just had the guts and were willing to take the risk.

 

You are still missing the point. Ensuring full employment of resources in any given market through public sector intervention is quite distinct from your special pleading.

 

Oh good. I didn't realize we had morals, or a future.

 

Well, what it says is that even the lowest paid people of the food chain can't find work that pays enough to make any difference from what they already had in Mexico. They figure that if they're going to be in poverty, they may as well do it in their own country. I think that speaks volumes about the status of the US these days. Besides, any jobs will probably be outsourced there very soon if not already there. The rich that employ them have gotten so greedy that even the miniscule amount of money they paid is too much for them now. It indicates the true state of the economy here.

 

it is what happens when we don't burden the wealthiest with wartime tax rates, even for a war on drugs.

 

I agree about that the Wars and War on Drugs is bad. But I don't know how are u expecting to pay for that all just by taxing the evil "RICH". Where is that arbitrary number what makes the person the evil "RICH"? And how are you going to make them pay the taxes if the top corporations controlling the Government? How about just stopping the War on Drugs and the Wars instead of taxing anybody? Oh ye if we are there then what happened with the Anti-War sentiment from Bush era since Obama is in office, where did all those protesters gone?

 

You seem to be missing the point, as usual. This point is about public policy choice that could conform more to rational choice theory. If the wealthiest were burdened with wartime tax rates, even for a war on drugs.

Do you really believe we would have these same mediocre public policies, if the wealthiest had to pay wartime tax rates for them?

 

I didn't miss the point? You missed my point.. How are you going to make them pay the war time tax if they are the ones who controls the Government?

 

That is the other point; if our elected representatives can't justify wartime tax rates, even for a war on drugs, then it can't be real times of war sufficient to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities via extra-Constitutional means.

 

So there you go isn't our freedoms and the reduction of the State and taxes overall what needs to be demanded back to stop war? Did you realized as long as the State has money they love spending it on Wars? Cuz war is the bigest business for banks and war corporations. Isn't that that prove that we need to take away all the money from the state or leave the state with a little just for the basics?

 

The point is that our federal Congress is only delegated the social Power to Tax, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Any provision of the general warfare and the common offense should require wartime tax rates to prove the exigency that exists, under our form of Capitalism.

By now you should know that any more developed economy is only so because of socialism, not merely capitalism.

We would be busier securing the Blessings of Liberty, if our elected representatives could find the moral fortitude to bear true witness to our supreme (Social) laws of the land.

 

How much do you need as a number? The 1% all by themselves pay for the military and all security costs of the country with money left to spare. They pay war time taxes now. Our military is huge and plenty powerful.

 

No reward for risking money, no reward for risking that a new business may fail etc.,, everyone makes the same, has the same car, has the same house, same wife, same dog etc.., we get it. Freedom.

 

Your special pleading argument means nothing, under any form of capitalism with any progressive rate of taxation on Incomes.

Let's say that the wealthiest only need solve poverty; if they end up eliminating any need for an income tax, too bad.

 

Why don't you solve poverty? Or the poor? Who are you to decide whose responsibility it is? Who is it that needs help? Detroit? They vote Democrat. Flint? They vote democrat. Birmingham? They vote democrat. See a pattern? I can go on for days. Maybe they should just stop being leftists with crazy ideas of the economy.

If a barber sells his shop for 360k profit, what should his marginal tax rate be at only the federal level? Lets hear how much you want. Don't get vague about "rational choice account for full labor etc..." a number, you know like 25

 

Why not simply have wartime tax rates on the wealthiest, even for a War on Drugs?

 

I am the guy who listens to the right complain they can't reduce enough social spending for the least wealthy, while the wealthiest get tax breaks large enough to drive a yacht through.

 

Unlimited reward, power and privilege for the wealthiest of the top tiers, unlimited everything and control of the entire system simply because you were born with, or stolen through corporate raiding, all because your pile of cash is the biggest. Fourteen cars, 27 houses. Yeah, we get it too. Freedom for the elite. Slavery and tyranny for everybody else.

 

Unlimited nothing. Romney has no unlimited power. What did warren buffet do to you today? If he told you to where blue, would you tell him to F off? Power is the ability to force someone to do what they would otherwise not do. The rich are not powerful, they are rich. Government has power.

 

Have you ever given us examples of or given us the real reasons of why or how everyone other than the wealthiest are slaves or living in tyrannical chains of squalor? Surely these people don't spend all their time envying the successful or looking for ways to penalize or steal from them so as to equalize the playing field, as you seem to be doing.

 

I don't envy the wealthy but I do consider it unfair for me to pay double the tax rates on my income when compared to someone making 200-times more income than I do. Why should I carry double the personal tax burden when compared to someone else making many tens of hundreds of millions of dollars that can certainly afford to pay more taxes than I can?

Why do low and middle income workers in America have a much higher tax burden relative to income than the wealthy?