|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Socialism fails again
#23972770 - 01/01/17 11:30 AM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Back in April we told you about Dan Price, CEO of Gravity Payments, who said he would pay every single one of his employees $70,000 annually.
Every single one, from the lowest skilled workers on up.
Now, as expected, Price has fallen on hard times financially, even having to rent out his own home.
Employees who work for Gravity are now leaving the company, “spurred in part by their view that it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises.”
This was always going to be the outcome.
If everyone hits the jackpot, does anybody really win the lottery?
From BI:
When Dan Price, founder and CEO of the Seattle-based credit-card-payment processing firm Gravity Payments, announced he was raising the company’s minimum salary to $70,000 a year, he was met with overwhelming enthusiasm.
“Everyone start[ed] screaming and cheering and just going crazy,” Price told Business Insider shortly after he broke the news in April.
But in the weeks since then, it’s become clear that not everyone is equally pleased. Among the critics? Some of Price’s own employees.
Maisey McMaster — once a big supporter of the plan — is one of the employees that quit. McMaster, 26, joined the company five years ago, eventually working her way up to financial manager. She put in long hours that “left little time for her husband and extended family,” The Times says, but she loved the “special culture” of the place.
But while she was initially on board, helping to calculate whether the company could afford to raise salaries so drastically (the plan is a minimum of $70,000 over the course of three years), McMaster later began to have doubts.
“He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a bump,” she told The Times. A fairer plan, she told the paper, would give newer employees smaller increases, along with the chance to earn a more substantial raise with more experience.
From Fox News:
Dan Price, 31, tells the New York Times that things have gotten so bad he’s been forced to rent out his house.
“I’m working as hard as I ever worked to make it work,” he told the Times in a video that shows him sitting on a plastic bucket in the garage of his house. “I’m renting out my house right now to try and make ends meet myself.”
The Times article said Price’s decision ended up costing him a few customers and two of his “most valued” employees, who quit after newer employees ended up with bigger salary hikes than older ones.
Grant Moran, 29, also quit, saying the new pay-scale was disconcerting
“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he told the paper. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”
The Times said customers who left were dismayed at what Price did, viewing it as a political statement. Others left fearful Gravity would soon hike fees to pay for salary increases.
Brian Canlis, co-owner of a family restaurant, already worried about how to deal with Seattle’s new minimum wage, told Price the pay raise at Gravity “makes it harder for the rest of us.”
And to think, all of this came about within a few short months.
Liberal logic, for ya. One man with good intentions loses so much because he doesn’t understand how economics work.
Socialism: We all fail together!

http://www.youngcons.com/ceo-raises-salaries-to-70k-for-every-employee-now-has-to-rent-his-own-home-to-make-ends-meet/
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 16 minutes
|
|
Bigbad is going to shit his pants and have a good cry after hearing about this, that man with his delusion concepts was his idol.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: qman]
#23972815 - 01/01/17 11:52 AM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: Bigbad is going to shit his pants and have a good cry after hearing about this, that man with his delusion concepts was his idol. 
he'll never hear about it, he's in his safe space. Free from the logic, reason, and those pesky facts that the rest of us are plagued with
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien


Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
|
Most socialists understand that you need an economic incentive for people to work harder, longer, and better. We just don't think this economic incentive should be so large that we get a society that progresses towards more and more economic inequality.
Dan Price shouldn't have given the same salary to everyone, but could perhaps have reduced the salary a bit for those earning most, and increased the salary a bit for those earning the least. Then there might still be an incentive for people to work harder, longer, better.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: Zanthius]
#23972971 - 01/01/17 12:57 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
socialism is a system which provides fail-safe to parties that A: incur a break down in their current series of systems (to put it frankly) and B: to parties that wish to depart from the norm, which is capitalism. capitalism reigns, and it does so both figuratively and literally speaking. that's why socialism exists. as a counter-balance.
to extent the current system to a "true capitalism", it'd be reverting to ways that have been "outdated", as it were, for more than a century now. with the extant population and corporate/institutional/bureaucratic foundations we have now, will it be functional? only to attempt it can give us the answers; you can calculate all day, but until you implement the plan you cannot know for sure if it'll work as expected.
both theories have merit and need to be expanded on, on their own merits, just as anything else in the political spectrum...even Anarchism (in the sense of a personal philosophy and not as a literal functioning non-governmental system- that probably would be unsustainable. but there should be room for debate, of course....)
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien


Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: to extent the current system to a "true capitalism", it'd be reverting to ways that have been "outdated", as it were, for more than a century now. with the extant population and corporate/institutional/bureaucratic foundations we have now, will it be functional? only to attempt it can give us the answers; you can calculate all day, but until you implement
I think it is pretty obvious that laissez-faire capitalism isn't a very good system, since it doesn't take into consideration environmental costs, and health costs. Banks also naturally favor the rich, since they receive interest rate from their investments, and this will progress towards increasing economic inequality. Economic inequality is not good for the rich either, since it creates a much more unsafe environment for the rich.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,874
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
your opinion piece was written 1 1/2 years ago. I wonder if we can source a more recent story about this...
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/70k-ceo-labor-secretary-pbs-pundit-floats-seattles-dan-price-cabinet-position/
Quote:
Price has been celebrated and criticized for the $70,000 minimum salaries, but the resulting publicity has largely been a financial boon for the company. Gravity Payments said this summer that annual profits nearly doubled, to more than $6 million, following the announcement.
http://www.today.com/money/gravity-payments-70k-minimum-salary-ceo-dan-price-shares-results-t101678
Quote:
But that’s not what happened. Instead, sales skyrocketed after the announcement, and Gravity Payments continues to take on new clients at a rate it never had before. It reports nearly doubling profits in a year, from $3.5 million in 2014 to $6.5 million in 2015.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/05/26/does-70000-minimum-wage-work/84913242/
Quote:
In a nutshell: It’s complicated. Revenue at the Seattle-based firm has soared, though that largely appears to be due to the worldwide publicity generated by the announcement. Profits surged as well, but have dipped so far this year, in part because of the higher labor costs but mostly because of other one-time factors. Employees describe more comfortable, stress-free lives, allowing them to better focus on their jobs. And some other firms inspired by Price to lift wages dramatically are reporting positive outcomes.
The lesson? Big pay hikes may yield surprisingly beneficial results, especially in the current tight labor market.
What’s not in dispute is that the raises have been a bonanza for the company. Gravity was inundated with 4,600 customer inquiries the first two weeks after the announcement, vs. 30 a month previously. The company added 4,155 new clients last year, a 55% increase from 2014, compared to typical 5% growth. Some were inspired by the raises, while the news made others aware of Gravity’s discount prices. Yet several customers left in anticipation of rising fees and declining service or concerns about the implication of the raises for $15 minimum wage proposals, according to a Harvard Business School case study. Overall, however, customer attrition fell to about 5% from 9%.
Company revenue also leaped 35% to $21.8 million last year. And despite a $2 million increase in payroll costs, profits jumped from $3.5 million to $6.5 million.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: Zanthius]
#23972995 - 01/01/17 01:08 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said: I think it is pretty obvious that laissez-faire capitalism isn't a very good system, since it doesn't take into consideration environmental costs, and health costs. Banks also naturally favor the rich, since they receive interest rate from their investments, and this will progress towards increasing economic inequality. Economic inequality is not good for the rich either, since it creates a much more unsafe environment for the rich.
i think it's the best philosophy for a personal political intent...but it's not a productive system outside of barriers. there needs be some regulation, even the forefathers knew this at least to be so, as they understood fair taxation, as well- they did indeed. so you can't have a "tr00" unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, but a restrained one, with the ethos and logos and pathos, in mind whilst doing so, if you want to have the closest approximation to what is a "tr00 capitalism".
but a "tr00" one will never persist as an overarching system. there are some good trademarks, if you will, that i think we can take from it, though.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said:
Quote:
Zanthius said: I think it is pretty obvious that laissez-faire capitalism isn't a very good system, since it doesn't take into consideration environmental costs, and health costs. Banks also naturally favor the rich, since they receive interest rate from their investments, and this will progress towards increasing economic inequality. Economic inequality is not good for the rich either, since it creates a much more unsafe environment for the rich.
i think it's the best philosophy for a personal political intent...but it's not a productive system outside of barriers. there needs be some regulation, even the forefathers knew this at least to be so, as they understood fair taxation, as well- they did indeed. so you can't have a "tr00" unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, but a restrained one, with the ethos and logos and pathos, in mind whilst doing so, if you want to have the closest approximation to what is a "tr00 capitalism".
but a "tr00" one will never persist as an overarching system. there are some good trademarks, if you will, that i think we can take from it, though.
The forefathers didn't intend for people to pay upwards of half their incomes to govt, big business be bailed out on taxpayer dimes or any of this other crony capitalist big government bullshit we have now
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien


Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: The forefathers didn't intend for people to pay upwards of half their incomes to govt, big business be bailed out on taxpayer dimes or any of this other crony capitalist big government bullshit we have now
With socialism poor working class people would be paying much less taxes, because it would have a highly progressive tax system, where the poorest do not pay taxes at all, while the rich pay a very high percentage.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: Zanthius]
#23973027 - 01/01/17 01:18 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: The forefathers didn't intend for people to pay upwards of half their incomes to govt, big business be bailed out on taxpayer dimes or any of this other crony capitalist big government bullshit we have now
With socialism poor working class people would be paying much less taxes, because it would have a highly progressive tax system, where the poorest do not pay taxes at all, while the rich pay a very high percentage.
This is what we have now
And it only encourages laziness and apathy
When you say a segment of people should pay nothing and still reap all the benefits of a system. You skew incentive to work and basically enslave them.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien


Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: When you say a segment of people should pay nothing and still reap all the benefits of a system. You skew incentive to work and basically enslave them.
Nope, because the incentive is still there of course. People that earn less than 10 000 USD / Year barely have enough to make it in the US. Why should the government take from them, when they are more likely of needing social help?
And of course there is still an incentive to earn more, because even if you pay more taxes, you also get more to yourself by earning more.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,874
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: When you say a segment of people should pay nothing and still reap all the benefits of a system. You skew incentive to work and basically enslave them.
Prove it.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,874
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#23973041 - 01/01/17 01:22 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
also, are we not going to acknowledge that the premise of this thread is an erroneous opinion piece?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: The forefathers didn't intend for people to pay upwards of half their incomes to govt, big business be bailed out on taxpayer dimes or any of this other crony capitalist big government bullshit we have now
yeah, no shit. but you have to manage what the fuck system IS, godfucking damnit. it's not the 17th century anymore. everything changes, but history, mayhaps. i'd suggest even history changes, just...slowly.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: Zanthius]
#23973054 - 01/01/17 01:28 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
akira_akuma said: to extent the current system to a "true capitalism", it'd be reverting to ways that have been "outdated", as it were, for more than a century now. with the extant population and corporate/institutional/bureaucratic foundations we have now, will it be functional? only to attempt it can give us the answers; you can calculate all day, but until you implement
I think it is pretty obvious that laissez-faire capitalism isn't a very good system, since it doesn't take into consideration environmental costs, and health costs. Banks also naturally favor the rich, since they receive interest rate from their investments, and this will progress towards increasing economic inequality. Economic inequality is not good for the rich either, since it creates a much more unsafe environment for the rich.
The main reason for the current economic inequality is the high level of people relative to employment, wasn't it the socialists that wanted tens of millions of illegals to saturate the US labor market?
Also, shipping jobs out of the US also put labor in the US at a major disadvantage.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: Zanthius]
#23973058 - 01/01/17 01:32 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: The forefathers didn't intend for people to pay upwards of half their incomes to govt, big business be bailed out on taxpayer dimes or any of this other crony capitalist big government bullshit we have now
With socialism poor working class people would be paying much less taxes, because it would have a highly progressive tax system, where the poorest do not pay taxes at all, while the rich pay a very high percentage.
Why would a person take huge risks in the capital markets only to pay out 75% of income in taxes?
Do you understand the risks that come from trying to make millions of dollars in a competitive market place?
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: ballsalsa]
#23973061 - 01/01/17 01:33 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: also, are we not going to acknowledge that the premise of this thread is an erroneous opinion piece?
What is the status of Price and his company today?
Is his business model sustainable over the longer term?
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: qman]
#23973064 - 01/01/17 01:34 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: The main reason for the current economic inequality is the high level of people relative to employment, wasn't it the socialists that wanted tens of millions of illegals to saturate the US labor market?
Also, shipping jobs out of the US also put labor in the US at a major disadvantage.
then why are you here?
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,874
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: qman]
#23973067 - 01/01/17 01:35 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah! I would gladly take no risk and live at a subsistence level with no taxes to pay than be a multi-millionaire who has to pay taxes...
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,874
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: qman]
#23973071 - 01/01/17 01:36 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said: also, are we not going to acknowledge that the premise of this thread is an erroneous opinion piece?
What is the status of Price and his company today?
Is his business model sustainable over the longer term?
Why do you want me to repost shit i already posted ITT? Just scroll up the page a few posts
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 16 minutes
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said:
Quote:
qman said: The main reason for the current economic inequality is the high level of people relative to employment, wasn't it the socialists that wanted tens of millions of illegals to saturate the US labor market?
Also, shipping jobs out of the US also put labor in the US at a major disadvantage.
then why are you here?
With chaos comes order, I guess that's why we are all "here".
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: ballsalsa]
#23973078 - 01/01/17 01:39 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: Yeah! I would gladly take no risk and live at a subsistence level with no taxes to pay than be a multi-millionaire who has to pay taxes...
Because the process to become a multimillionaire comes with no risks? And paying 75% in taxes truly inspires one to take those risks in the first place?
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,874
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: qman]
#23973095 - 01/01/17 01:48 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
did i say there were no risks? Its pretty simple, be poor, and pay no(or little) income tax, or make money, and pay the taxes. Whatever the risks, those are the options. The only inspiration necessary is the inspiration to have more money than the next guy, a goal that seems almost universal among humans. Not feeling inspired yet? Fine, you can be one of what the WSJ calls "lucky duckies". People so poor that they don't pay taxes, and can't generate debt because nobody will extend credit to them.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: ballsalsa]
#23973108 - 01/01/17 01:52 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: did i say there were no risks? Its pretty simple, be poor, and pay no(or little) income tax, or make money, and pay the taxes. Whatever the risks, those are the options. The only inspiration necessary is the inspiration to have more money than the next guy, a goal that seems almost universal among humans. Not feeling inspired yet? Fine, you can be one of what the WSJ calls "lucky duckies". People so poor that they don't pay taxes, and can't generate debt because nobody will extend credit to them.
I not disagreeing with what you're saying, my main point of contention is a 75% rate of taxation. Of course tax rates and real rates are two different things entirely.
BTW, no one in the US ever paid 90% of their income in Federal taxes, are you starting to see my point yet? It goes back to the old Risk vs Reward equation.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: qman]
#23973112 - 01/01/17 01:54 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
With chaos comes order, I guess that's why we are all "here". 
and chaos doesn't stop, which frankly, is seemingly a misconception on your part, that you have. entropy increases. it doesn't decrease with more or less order.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,874
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: qman]
#23973122 - 01/01/17 01:58 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
75% may be too much, and yes, i know the difference between marginal and effective tax rates. The real solution isn't to hike income taxes so much as to match capital gains to income taxes. There is absolutely no reason that gamblers should pay less tax on their earnings than productive members of the labor force.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
The lower class pays next or no taxes, the rich and middle class pay them all
The lower class hasn't paid taxes in generations, how's that working out?
The evidence is clear, or just keep pushing hopey changey BS
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
There is absolutely no reason that gamblers should pay less tax on their earnings than productive members of the labor force.

Now let's look at what has caused that to happen, a progressive tax system
It doesn't work.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#23973138 - 01/01/17 02:03 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: 75% may be too much, and yes, i know the difference between marginal and effective tax rates. The real solution isn't to hike income taxes so much as to match capital gains to income taxes. There is absolutely no reason that gamblers should pay less tax on their earnings than productive members of the labor force.
That's a fair debate for sure, considering that the ultra rich now have the bulk of the capital gains today.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
you seem to think that you can just take something that's keeping everyone lives from falling apart at a moments notice, deracinate it, and then plant something new that'll just make everything instantly better for everyone.

never have i suggested that the lower class shouldn't pay taxes...no one should pay exorbitant taxes over someone else. but the rich don't pay hardly any, and that is also an exorbitant tax burden on everyone else whom can't afford it, whereas the rich CAN. see how that works yet? i suggest making them pay their fair share...getting corporate money out of politics seems like a good idea...and then when things are fair game, you can employ a flat tax rate, to encourage businesses to grow, and spending...right now spending is encouraged through retarded means because people under this current system can't get their priorities straight...i have no faith in people doing any different under this new system...i can only hope the change will shock them into realizing what sacrifices they'll have to make for their current lifestyles in order to persist.
Quote:
Now let's look at what has caused that to happen, a progressive tax system
It doesn't work.
a tax system which was introduced because the flat tax "didn't work, either. it's a matter of rolling with the punches. if you were in the days of the federally employed flat tax, you'd be boffing old Mary Jane Rottencrotch in the back of apartment with hardly nothing to your name but a maybe a phone.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien


Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: qman] 1
#23973161 - 01/01/17 02:13 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: Why would a person take huge risks in the capital markets only to pay out 75% of income in taxes?
Do you understand the risks that come from trying to make millions of dollars in a competitive market place?
So? If you take risks and fail, you earn less, but you also pay less taxes. In order for you to be obligated to pay 75% marginal tax you need to earn more than 5 million USD. That is a lot of money for most people.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: Zanthius]
#23973170 - 01/01/17 02:16 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
you seem to think that you can just take something that's keeping everyone lives from falling apart at a moments notice, deracinate it, and then plant something new that'll just make everything instantly better for everyone
Have you not been paying attention the last eight years? This is what the whole obama agenda has LITERALLY been about
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 16 minutes
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: Zanthius]
#23973184 - 01/01/17 02:22 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
qman said: Why would a person take huge risks in the capital markets only to pay out 75% of income in taxes?
Do you understand the risks that come from trying to make millions of dollars in a competitive market place?
So? If you take risks and fail, you earn less, but you also pay less taxes. In order for you to be obligated to pay 75% taxes you need to earn more than 5 million USD. That is a lot of money for most people.
That's a very simplistic view on the investing and business world, do you know what it's like to lose 6 figures when a investment goes bad? I do.
Losing capital is more complicated than "you also pay less taxes". It could mean you lost money and no longer have any capital to start over, it can also mean you're cut off from capital, it can also mean you owe debts from the poor investment.
With that being said, entrepreneurship has been dying in the developed economies of the world, the capitalists are dominating capital and are not dealing with as many real world risks that a small business has to deal with, this is what happens when crony capitalism takes over the economy.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien


Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: qman]
#23973189 - 01/01/17 02:25 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: Losing capital is more complicated than "you also pay less taxes". It could mean you lost money and no longer have any capital to start over, it can also mean you're cut off from capital, it can also mean you owe debts from the poor investment.
Okay, maybe investor, businessmen and entrepreneurs would take a little less risks, and play a bit more safe, but is that really such a bad thing? Wasn't too much risk-taking one of the causes of the 2008 financial crisis? Germany has a very good economy and infrastructure, and Germans are very good at playing safe. So maybe playing safe isn't necessarily so bad?
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Socialism fails again [Re: qman]
#23973193 - 01/01/17 02:27 PM (7 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
business is such a failure of human endeavor...as a field or practice.
but i can communicate with the internet...so that's cool.
|
|