The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post Reply
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74151
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by JimC » Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:13 am

Seth, in civilised countries with industrial relations laws designed to protect workers from rapacious employers, there are minimum wages set by independent tribunals which mean that the poorest workers are not exploited to the hilt by greedy capitalist scum.

Oh, I forgot, you don't live in a civilised country.

And don't give me that tired crap about how minimum wages drive up prices and push unemployment queues. I don't see the economies of countries who believe in a fair go for the lowest paid workers falling in a heap - most have, per head of population, better economies that yours... Workers spend money on goods, you see...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60734
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:05 am

Seth wrote:
Rum wrote:Marx called it exploitation of labour. Your stocks, rents etc. were acquired one way and another through the labour of others (in classical Marxist theory). The rich own the means of production and exploit the labour of others in the process of acquiring more wealth. They seem to be doing pretty well at it right now.
If the employer pays the employee an agreed-upon wage for that labor, how is the worker being "exploited?"
The worker is at a power disadvantage. Don't bother responding, I already know what you are going to say. You'll never understand this issue.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60734
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:09 am

Seth wrote:
mistermack wrote:Going by that summary, the standard for being a professor at UCLA is incredibly low.

He claims to be qualified in economics, but he throws around words like ''earn'' without any definition at all. He makes no distinction between receiving income, and earning income.

Talking about fair shares, without exploring how the money was acquired, is moronic.

I've never done an hour's study of economics, but even I can see that there's a difference between earning, and acquiring.
Depends on how you define "earning." Marx's definition doesn't include investment risk (rent seeking) as "labor" and therefore any such income is "unearned" therefore illegitimate and therefore exploitative of the workers in the factory. And that's the single, slender, fallacious reed upon which his entire philosophy, and the philosophy of every Marxist who has come after him, rests.
It's FAR less arbitrary than using a pretty symmetry as the basis for defining "fairness". :fp:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60734
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:11 am

Seth wrote:
mistermack wrote:
laklak wrote:Why should there be a difference? If I acquire money through rents, stock dividends, or inheritance is that somehow less moral or ethical than earning money by digging ditches?
The question was about fairness of taxation, not morality or ethics.
I think it's perfectly fair for someone who earns billions through investments to pay higher rates than someone who shovels shit.
Why is it "perfectly fair?" As long as each pays for the benefits and amenities of society that each uses, why does the rich person have to pay more than someone else for each "quantum" of public benefits?
Why is an arbitrary pretty symmetry "fair", Seth? Answer your own conundrums before asking others to answer theirs.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60734
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:17 am

Seth wrote:
JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:
Rum wrote:Marx called it exploitation of labour. Your stocks, rents etc. were acquired one way and another through the labour of others (in classical Marxist theory). The rich own the means of production and exploit the labour of others in the process of acquiring more wealth. They seem to be doing pretty well at it right now.
If the employer pays the employee an agreed-upon wage for that labor, how is the worker being "exploited?"
When there is a surplus of labour (which is most often the case), and if the wage paid is a pittance compared to the value the employer gets from selling the goods, and if the wage earner is barely able to support a family in a state of poverty, then I call it exploitation.
Then the worker needs to improve his or her skill set to make them worth more to the employer, or find another employer.
As I said, you simply don't understand labour relations. Jim stated the pertinent point (that I could have stated, but didn't bother as I knew it would make no difference to your response) that being "when there is a surplus of labour". You don't just go and "find another employer" when you are on the outnumbered side of the equation. The power lies with the employers, as employees will often need to take a job no matter how shocking the conditions as they need the money to literally survive. The employer isn't in that situation as they have many potential employees to choose from.

Please don't respond to this, as I know you are just going to repeat the same shite again in total ignorance of what Jim and I are trying to explain to you. (Or alternatively you'll give another one of your usual responses "life ain't fair, get used to it", which is response totally devoid of anything other than rhetoric).
Last edited by pErvinalia on Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60734
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:18 am

mistermack wrote:Because gambling isn't work, in the way that other work is.
It's no more work to bet a million, than to bet a pound.
But if you load a thousand bricks, it's twice the work to load two thousand.

There might be some work that goes into gambling. But mostly, it's money making money.
Not work making money.
I'm happy to be taxed higher on money I've done little work to get.
But if I've worked my bollocks off to put a bit of food on the table, I don't think I should be paying as much.
Good post.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by Seth » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:15 am

mistermack wrote:Because gambling isn't work, in the way that other work is.
Ever bet the farm on one hand of poker? It'll make you sweat just like you lugged a hundred pound sack of potatoes to the top of the Empire State Building.
It's no more work to bet a million, than to bet a pound.
First you have to have a million, and that takes work, and then you risk losing that million, which is every bit as much "earning" it as carrying bricks.
But if you load a thousand bricks, it's twice the work to load two thousand.
Not if you rent a forklift.
There might be some work that goes into gambling. But mostly, it's money making money.
Yes, it is, but the downside is risk.
Not work making money.
And that's the failure of Marxism, the assumption that if one doesn't do manual labor to earn one's paycheck it's not "labor." But it is. Just because it's intellectual labor, like coding or analyzing stocks, or its risk-based labor of putting money to work, it's still labor. If you'd ever invested a significant sum of money in trying to start up a business you'd know just how much work it is, and it's an enormous amount of work, and stress, and risk.

I'm happy to be taxed higher on money I've done little work to get.
Liar.
But if I've worked my bollocks off to put a bit of food on the table, I don't think I should be paying as much.
Sounds arrogant and selfish to me. You use public services just like the rich man does, so you owe for your share of the costs, whether it's a dollar or a thousand dollars, and that doesn't also mean that somebody else, who doesn't work as hard as you do (according to you) should have to pay more.

Your argument is pure Marxist class-warfare propaganda.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by Seth » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:19 am

JimC wrote:Seth, in civilised countries with industrial relations laws designed to protect workers from rapacious employers, there are minimum wages set by independent tribunals which mean that the poorest workers are not exploited to the hilt by greedy capitalist scum.
So who needs a fucking union? Nobody, that's who.

And don't give me that tired crap about how minimum wages drive up prices and push unemployment queues.


It does.
I don't see the economies of countries who believe in a fair go for the lowest paid workers falling in a heap - most have, per head of population, better economies that yours... Workers spend money on goods, you see...
Then why not raise the minimum wage to $150 per hour, or $200, or $1000? After all, it can't drive prices up and cause unemployment, right?

Figure that one out, Einstein.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by Seth » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:25 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
Seth wrote:
Rum wrote:Marx called it exploitation of labour. Your stocks, rents etc. were acquired one way and another through the labour of others (in classical Marxist theory). The rich own the means of production and exploit the labour of others in the process of acquiring more wealth. They seem to be doing pretty well at it right now.
If the employer pays the employee an agreed-upon wage for that labor, how is the worker being "exploited?"
The worker is at a power disadvantage.
He's a commodity in a marketplace. The more he's worth, the better his chances of having his skills purchased by an employer. The more rare and valuable his skills are, the higher the wage he can command as employers compete with one another to gain access to his skills.

Gold is valuable because it's rare. Granite is only valuable in certain forms. Sandstone isn't worth much at all, and river rock is pretty much worthless.

If you want a higher wage, turn yourself from river rock to gold. If you don't care to do this, then you're as worthless as river rock and therefore shouldn't expect to bring more on the open market.

Don't bother responding,
When have I ever taken orders from you?
I already know what you are going to say.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be said.
You'll never understand this issue.
I understand it far better than you do, I'm just not a Marxist useful idiot who thinks that he's valuable to society merely by existing and therefore ought to be supported by everyone else.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by Seth » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:27 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
Seth wrote:
mistermack wrote:Going by that summary, the standard for being a professor at UCLA is incredibly low.

He claims to be qualified in economics, but he throws around words like ''earn'' without any definition at all. He makes no distinction between receiving income, and earning income.

Talking about fair shares, without exploring how the money was acquired, is moronic.

I've never done an hour's study of economics, but even I can see that there's a difference between earning, and acquiring.
Depends on how you define "earning." Marx's definition doesn't include investment risk (rent seeking) as "labor" and therefore any such income is "unearned" therefore illegitimate and therefore exploitative of the workers in the factory. And that's the single, slender, fallacious reed upon which his entire philosophy, and the philosophy of every Marxist who has come after him, rests.
It's FAR less arbitrary than using a pretty symmetry as the basis for defining "fairness". :fp:
Not really. There is no rational or logical argument that supports Marx's definition beyond class warfare rhetoric, greed, envy and jealousy.

At least a pretty symmetry has a mathematical foundation.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by Seth » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:29 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
Seth wrote:
mistermack wrote:
laklak wrote:Why should there be a difference? If I acquire money through rents, stock dividends, or inheritance is that somehow less moral or ethical than earning money by digging ditches?
The question was about fairness of taxation, not morality or ethics.
I think it's perfectly fair for someone who earns billions through investments to pay higher rates than someone who shovels shit.
Why is it "perfectly fair?" As long as each pays for the benefits and amenities of society that each uses, why does the rich person have to pay more than someone else for each "quantum" of public benefits?
Why is an arbitrary pretty symmetry "fair", Seth? Answer your own conundrums before asking others to answer theirs.
Because if I consume quanta X of service A, and you consume quanta X of service A, there is no logical or rational reason why I should be required to pay more for that consumption than you do.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by Seth » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:41 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
Seth wrote:
JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:
Rum wrote:Marx called it exploitation of labour. Your stocks, rents etc. were acquired one way and another through the labour of others (in classical Marxist theory). The rich own the means of production and exploit the labour of others in the process of acquiring more wealth. They seem to be doing pretty well at it right now.
If the employer pays the employee an agreed-upon wage for that labor, how is the worker being "exploited?"
When there is a surplus of labour (which is most often the case), and if the wage paid is a pittance compared to the value the employer gets from selling the goods, and if the wage earner is barely able to support a family in a state of poverty, then I call it exploitation.
Then the worker needs to improve his or her skill set to make them worth more to the employer, or find another employer.
As I said, you simply don't understand labour relations. Jim stated the pertinent point (that I could have stated, but didn't bother as I knew it would make no difference to your response) that being "when there is a surplus of labour". You don't just go and "find another employer" when you are on the outnumbered side of the equation.
Now you're misinterpreting the laws of supply and demand. If you can't find another job in field X, which pays wage Y because there are too many other people qualified to do the job, then improve your skill set so that you qualify to work in field W, which pays wage Y2.

The power lies with the employers,
No, the power lies with skilled employees.
as employees will often need to take a job no matter how shocking the conditions as they need the money to literally survive.


Therefore, one should obtain the highest and best set of skills that one is capable of, in order to be more valuable to an employer and thus more rare and desirable in the workforce marketplace.
The employer isn't in that situation as they have many potential employees to choose from.
And they must select not only the employee who is the best fit for the job in terms of cost versus productivity, but they must pay them according to their skill set lest a valuable trained, skilled and experienced employee defect and go to a higher-paying employer.

Supply and demand, pure and simple. Rarity increases market value.
Please don't respond to this,
Go fuck yourself, you don't get the last word.
as I know you are just going to repeat the same shite again in total ignorance of what Jim and I are trying to explain to you. (Or alternatively you'll give another one of your usual responses "life ain't fair, get used to it", which is response totally devoid of anything other than rhetoric).
You see workers as infantile, disable, powerless and helpless against rapacious employers who must be brought under the omnibenevolent wings of a labor union because they are too fucking stupid and simple to look out for themselves. Patronizing asshole.

I see workers as individuals who are in control of their own skill sets and marketability in the labor market who make choices about what they are willing to input and what they are willing to accept by way of work skills and compensation. Those who want more than minimum wage (which comprises only about 5% of employees, and of whom more than 90% move out of minimum wage status within a year) will make themselves worth more than the minimum wage.

If they don't, then they have achieved their level of incompetence and will stay right where they are in the workplace hierarchy for the rest of their lives, which is good enough for a great many people who are satisfied to take home a regular paycheck for doing as little work as they can get away with. They don't care to risk anything, and they don't care to push their own abilities and limits to become more valuable, so they get what they ask for and nothing more. And that's their right.

What is not their right is to demand more compensation that they are worth to the employer, because the employer has no obligation to pay anyone more than they are worth to the company. And what they are worth to the company depends mostly on how skilled and driven the individual is.

After all, somebody's got to dig ditches and flip burgers, and that ain't worth $15 an hour to anybody.

If you don't like it, improve your skill set.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74151
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by JimC » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:42 am

Seth wrote:

Then why not raise the minimum wage to $150 per hour, or $200, or $1000? After all, it can't drive prices up and cause unemployment, right?

Figure that one out, Einstein.
Because, dummy, in a civilised and well regulated economy, the independent tribunal has to way up all the factors at play, and come up with a reasonable compromise. As long as the employer organisations and the peak union bodies are complaining about the figure about equally, then a useful compromise has been reached.

Of course, extremist absolutists like yourself don't know the meaning of the word "compromise"...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by Seth » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:47 am

JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:

Then why not raise the minimum wage to $150 per hour, or $200, or $1000? After all, it can't drive prices up and cause unemployment, right?

Figure that one out, Einstein.
Because, dummy, in a civilised and well regulated economy, the independent tribunal has to way up all the factors at play, and come up with a reasonable compromise. As long as the employer organisations and the peak union bodies are complaining about the figure about equally, then a useful compromise has been reached.

Of course, extremist absolutists like yourself don't know the meaning of the word "compromise"...
As I said, collective bargaining is fine with me (it's very Libertarian in fact) so long as, and only so long as both the union and the employer are on equal footing at the negotiating table and membership in the union is entirely voluntary.

But you evade the question again. If it is true that imposing a higher minimum wage does not cause job loss and higher prices, then why can't the government simply raise the minimum wage to some arbitrary high level that provides a comfortable income to everyone?

Please explain the math involved.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60734
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The rich pay their "fair share"...

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:25 am

Seth wrote:
mistermack wrote:Because gambling isn't work, in the way that other work is.
Ever bet the farm on one hand of poker? It'll make you sweat just like you lugged a hundred pound sack of potatoes to the top of the Empire State Building.
It's no more work to bet a million, than to bet a pound.
First you have to have a million, and that takes work,
Orly? Luck of inheritance doesn't play any part?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests