I dont understand elements of liberal logic..I just dont. ( Not Scuba trolling)

[MUFC]

Conservatives and Liberals are both right wing scum.

If you're not a socialist, a real socialist, you're an idiot.

Close this thread.

[Spartacus777]

Brb, I start a company.
Brb, I have several employees.
Brb, my workload is greater than theirs.
Brb, more responsibility than them.
Brb, the weight of the company is on my shoulders.
Brb, I should make 3 times as much as you so it'll be "somewhat fair".

Lulz, wut?

Fukc outta here with that.

Then don't work for them *******. They are not obligated to give you a job AND pay you whatever you want.

[D0omsdayPrime]

My liberal sentiment is, that the government needs money to finance infrastructure and other public goods, a few examples are roads, schools, safety nets etc. The government receives revenues through taxing people. You can tax the rich, middle class and poor. You get to pick who you want to tax and at what rate to tax them.

You can tax everyone at the same rate which many believe is "fair". There are a few problems i find with this argument, 1) it might not be fair. To start a company, you USE more of the government, ie roads, patents, property rights, tax benefits than a person who works as a cashier. Because you use more, you should pay more (potentially).

Moreover when choosing who and how much you want to tax people, you might want to consider how the taxes will affect that person. Taxing a very poor person at the same rate as a rich person, well have a larger impact on the standard of living of the poor person than the rich person. Although conservatives like to ignore this, it is something that many voters consider important.

Another reason is because poverty is bad for society as it increases crime, therefore poverty should be reduced as much as possible. Also the poor spend a greater amount of their income on consumption. Consumption is the driving force in society (not investment). No matter how much you invest in creating the perfect Ipod, if only the rich can afford to buy it, then you can only sell to 15% of consumers. A strong middle class is critical for a strong economy.

Here is a TED talk on the subject.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf...eature=related

Im not talking about taxes in regards too income but making the actual nominal rate. I believe in progressive rates but putting a cap on money limits is just plain wrong

[Conspiracybrah]

Conservatives and Liberals are both right wing scum.

If you're not a socialist, a real socialist, you're an idiot.

Close this thread.

Define a socialist for me please and I might be able to agree with you.

[res.ume]

Im not talking about taxes in regards too income but making the actual nominal rate. I believe in progressive rates but putting a cap on money limits is just plain wrong

The majority of liberals do not believe that that policy you attributed them.. Liberals have a certain understanding of the world which i presented in my post. So the argument you presented in your post was a straw man. Is that correct?

[D0omsdayPrime]

Conservatives and Liberals are both right wing scum.

If you're not a socialist, a real socialist, you're an idiot.

Close this thread.

How much money should people be able to make brah?

[Alex_M.]

Interesting thread. Rare to see a good debate in the Misc.

My take on it is this: for the most part, CEOs deserve the pay they get. Remember, these are PRIVATE companies we deal with. This is not public money. I am not paying for CEO of World Corp to get his salary of 200m a year. Good for him. In fact, I feel that in order to keep successful multinational corporations successful, it is necessary to pay the leaders large sums of money to retain the best talent. While it may seem stupid as hell to us, these people often have the gift of strategic thinking and direction planning that you can't just learn from doing the same thing for 20 years, unlike the average schmuck.

[Spartacus777]

Define a socialist for me please and I might be able to agree with you.

I don't believe in the morals of a progressive tax rate either.

Brb voting my neighbor should pay more taxes than I do. Democracy, amidoinitrite?

OP, you argue someone doesn't have the right to decide what someone else deserves to make, but you think they have a right to say how much SOMEONE ELSE should be taxed?

[x-trainer ben]

Interesting thread. Rare to see a good debate in the Misc.

My take on it is this: for the most part, CEOs deserve the pay they get. Remember, these are PRIVATE companies we deal with. This is not public money. I am not paying for CEO of World Corp to get his salary of 200m a year. Good for him. In fact, I feel that in order to keep successful multinational corporations successful, it is necessary to pay the leaders large sums of money to retain the best talent. While it may seem stupid as hell to us, these people often have the gift of strategic thinking and direction planning that you can't just learn from doing the same thing for 20 years, unlike the average schmuck.

LOOOL he said "best talent"

[D0omsdayPrime]

The majority of liberals do not believe that that policy you attributed them.. Liberals have a certain understanding of the world which i presented in my post. So the argument you presented in your post was a straw man. Is that correct?

A straw man means using a beat down simplified version of an argument. My brother is liberal. he doesnt think that everyone should make the same like Marxists, but he doesnt mind using socialist policy like the one I mentioned. Liberals have their heart in the right places but good intentions dont mean good results. So i wasnt using the straw man fallacy

[Spartacus777]

Interesting thread. Rare to see a good debate in the Misc.

My take on it is this: for the most part, CEOs deserve the pay they get. Remember, these are PRIVATE companies we deal with. This is not public money. I am not paying for CEO of World Corp to get his salary of 200m a year. Good for him. In fact, I feel that in order to keep successful multinational corporations successful, it is necessary to pay the leaders large sums of money to retain the best talent. While it may seem stupid as hell to us, these people often have the gift of strategic thinking and direction planning that you can't just learn from doing the same thing for 20 years, unlike the average schmuck.

Waitwut? You mean these people actually earn their money by doing something very few people can actually do, and even fewer can do well?

Brb, I think my CEO should give me % of his income because I sweep his floor.

[Conspiracybrah]

I don't believe in the morals of a progressive tax rate either.

Brb voting my neighbor should pay more taxes than I do. Democracy, amidoinitrite?

OP, you argue someone doesn't have the right to decide what someone else deserves to make, but you think they have a right to say how much SOMEONE ELSE should be taxed?

Progressive tax is just another way of wealth redistribution, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. Another example is forced health care. I have a personal distaste for both.

[GNoulez]

My liberal sentiment is, that the government needs money to finance infrastructure and other public goods, a few examples are roads, schools, safety nets etc. The government receives revenues through taxing people. You can tax the rich, middle class and poor. You get to pick who you want to tax and at what rate to tax them.

You can tax everyone at the same rate which many believe is "fair". There are a few problems i find with this argument, 1) it might not be fair. To start a company, you USE more of the government, ie roads, patents, property rights, tax benefits than a person who works as a cashier. Because you use more, you should pay more (potentially).

2) It hurts the poor more than the rich. When choosing who and how much you want to tax people, you might want to consider how the taxes will affect that person. Taxing a very poor person at the same rate as a rich person, well have a larger impact on the standard of living of the poor person than the rich person. Although conservatives like to ignore this, it is something that many voters consider important.

3) It's bad for the society. Poverty is bad for society as it increases crime, therefore poverty should be reduced as much as possible.

4) It's bad for the economy. The poor spend a greater amount of their income on consumption. Consumption is the driving force in society (not investment). No matter how much you invest in creating the perfect Ipod, if only the rich can afford to buy it, then you can only sell to 15% of consumers. A strong middle class is critical for a strong economy.

Here is a TED talk on the subject of why taxing the rich is better for the economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf...eature=related

Could you please elaborate on how imposing the same tax rate (let's say 40% of income) hurts the poor more than it hurts the rich? I've always been curious towards this argument. If the tax someone would pay is a nominal fee then yes, the poor would be hurt more than the rich. But since it's a percentage, isn't everyone 'hurt' equally in comparison to their total income? Everyone pays 40% of their income to the government, whether you earn $1.5 mil a year or $10k a year.

[MUFC]

Marxists don't believe everyone should make the same amount of money.

The key component of socialism is that the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers, and not by corporations.

[Spartacus777]

LOOOL he said "best talent"

I too know many OWS protestors who are capable of running a Fortune 500 company.

[D0omsdayPrime]

LOOOL he said "best talent"

The fact of the matter is the leader bears the responsibility and is paid for that. Do I think there should be a limit o the money she makes.
Only if she wants to give more of her money or be paid less. But please dont have mister government telling her that she must give her profit to employees

[rrbb]

your bro is right.

CEO of whole foods only makes 19x what the lowest paid workers makes..

seems more justified than 200x IMO. does seem arbitrarily picked tho... but yeah, your bro is correct.

[kyokushin1]

My brother and I had a lengthy debate over the disparity of pay that a CEO makes compared to the average worker. He suggests that there should be imposed a limit as to how how many times higher a ceo makes more than the employee. I tell him that if the ceo wants to give more of his money then good for him. if not, well, its his money. And yet he contends that CEOs dont work '200' times harder than an employee. Had to facepalm when i heard that. He claims that they dont deserve that money and it should be given away to employees to 'help the society'
Im am far from pro-business but I dont understand the arrogance of saying you can decreeing how much money a person can make. He seemed perfectly fine with wealth redistribution and claims their money 'is not theirs'.

How the fuuck is that scenario an example of "liberal" logic? What about it makes it "liberal"? Just sounds plain retarded. I know a lot of avid left-wingers and none of them would agree that your proposed scenario is reasonable.

[res.ume]

A straw man means using a beat down simplified version of an argument. My brother is liberal. he doesnt think that everyone should make the same like Marxists, but he doesnt mind using socialist policy like the one I mentioned. Liberals have their heart in the right places but good intentions dont mean good results. So i wasnt using the straw man fallacy

The thread title is: "I dont understand elements of liberal logic..I just dont.". Then i illuminated you on the elements of liberal logic, and you reply "i just meant 1 policy that my brother, a liberal believes".

So there seems to be a disconnect between the thread title (the conclusion) which seems to include all liberals, and the content (the argument) which is 1 specific policy that 1 specific liberal believes, one that is easy to refute. Seems like a straw man to me.

[Alex_M.]

LOOOL he said "best talent"

Disagree? Elaborate, please.

Oh and for the record, while I am in general a conservative thinker, and indeed, strongly so, I have to say that a progressive tax system makes sense.

[Canadian_Lifter]

People like that make me rage - earning cap bullsh!t
They've probably never been so dedicated to work so hard at something anytime in their lives



Some people just don't understand that there needs to be an incentive to put in all the work that CEO's and other people with hard azz jobs do...

[Spartacus777]

Marxists don't believe everyone should make the same amount of money.

The key component of socialism is that the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers, and not by corporations.

Corporations are entities of people working freely together for mutual benefit, by utilizing labor specialization to produce products and services others are willing to trade their products for, usually through a widely accepted currency medium.

What is bad about this.

[Conspiracybrah]

Marxists don't believe everyone should make the same amount of money.

The key component of socialism is that the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers, and not by corporations.

I disagree 100% with that and I am not an idiot (your words), the means of production should be controlled through natural forces aka the free market systems, this is the fairest system for everyone and it is also the best system for the economics all over the world.

[D0omsdayPrime]

Marxists don't believe everyone should make the same amount of money.

The key component of socialism is that the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers, and not by corporations.

Socialism and Marxism are diffrent nuances. In marxism there is contended to be awar between the worker and the manager, ( like socialism) In marxism though there is a greater push for equality. And true not the same amount of money but the disparity is not so wide. In other words a doctor wouldnt make that much more than a janitor.

[muruku]

I too know many OWS protestors who are capable of running a Fortune 500 company.

[kyokushin1]

Then don't work for them *******. They are not obligated to give you a job AND pay you whatever you want.

strong missing the point of his post you dumb fuuck

[Iluveketchup178]

ITT young kids who don't know sht about real life and think they are going to be the next Bill Gates. Of course a CEO is going to be working hard, but so is the labor worker at the end of the food chain. Try to do the same task over and over 10hours a day for 40 years and see what happen, your body will be shattered. There mere fact that you think there is a correlation based on how hard you work and how much money you make is laughable. Mine workers in China are the poorest, while they are doing the hardest job one can think about. On the other hand, smart engineers like my dad make banks working 40hours/week and not stressing over it.

You don't "deserve" the salary you get, you earn it. Plain and simple. If the CEO get so much money it's because he can, the society has made it possible and because we accept it (directly and indirectly). Even if he fail at his job, he will get a golden parachute and still make more than everyone on this forum. If you want a society where a few TOP CEO are billionaires (not you) get all the money while the rest like you and I get poorer and poorer (this is what is happening right now) it is your choice.

I prefer a society like it used to be in the USA, where the TOP CEO make a lot of money but not 1000 times the average hourly worker, when that same worker can't make ends meet. The average CEO of a major corporation made 42 times the average hourly worker's pay in 1980... And even less before. That's still a lot more money, but more reasonable and then the guy at end of the food chain still get enough money to live a good life and that's great because he also contribute a lot the company and the society by doing the grunt job.

It's all a matter of personal preference, it seems that many people like to get fuked in the ass.

[D0omsdayPrime]

The thread title is: "I dont understand elements of liberal logic..I just dont.". Then i illuminated you on the elements of liberal logic, and you reply "i just meant 1 policy that my brother, a liberal believes".

So there seems to be a disconnect between the thread title (the conclusion) which seems to include all liberals, and the content (the argument) which is 1 specific policy that 1 specific liberal believes, one that is easy to refute. Seems like a straw man to me.

Right, lets dissect this. I said elements. And while brother is the example in this case, there are other people who are liberal who have articulated this certain viewpoint I never said liberals are dogmatic marxists who want to hurt the wealthy but this is a progressive logic that i have noticed in many left wingers. Enough that warrants me saying element of liberal logic. There are too many left wingers who believe this and thats why its not a straw man

[Spartacus777]

strong missing the point of his post you dumb fuuck

There was a point other than nonsensical rhetoric? Elaborate please.

[muruku]

Then don't work for them *******. They are not obligated to give you a job AND pay you whatever you want.

lol, he started the company brah.