• curmudgeon said on Aug 10, 2007....

  They also pay around 57% of all income taxes paid in this country, for the exact same level of government services as the tens of millions of people who pay nothing in taxes.
   
  Where's the equity in that?

• bloc said on Aug 10, 2007....

  Your wrong about a very important point. They use, by far, more government services than the average person. They use the legal system at a much higher rate (corporate legal issues), the companies that make them rich use the basic infrastructure far more than the average person, and they also reap the rewards of our great education system. 
  
  
  A person with a good idea and a good work ethic can do a lot for themselves in american, but the same isn't true if they are born in a 3rd world country. Think about all the engineers that google hires, they couldn't do that in mexico! The subsidized education is great for the engineers themselves, but collectively it is a major factor that lead to the google guys getting super rich.
  
  
  One of the biggest flaws I see in conservative thinking is the idea that it's 99% the individual. The truth is that it takes a great individual and a good collective society. Those individuals benefit a great deal, more than the average person, from the good of the collective society. 

• lfbno7 said on Aug 10, 2007....

  curmudgeon, i don't think anything of it.  your comment couldn't be more irrelevant.  it's not about government services.  these people don't need government services. your comment is as relevant as if you were to say that these people have fewer baseball cards than the rest of us.  who fucking cares.  they have used the system to enrich themselves at our expense.  who gives a shit if they don't use the fucking bus or train.
  
  the single most important thing that americans can do politically is restrict the abilities of these greedy motherfucking misers to hoard hundreds of millions of dollars, which they get by ripping us off every time we fill up the car, every time we buy one of their products that has a built in profit margin for them alone, allowing them to walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars that they don't deserve or need.  fuck them.  where the hell is teddy roosevelt or abraham lincoln when we need them.  roosevelt was the trustbuster, kicking the asses of these rich sons of bitches who never have enough, and lincoln said that our govt is supposed to be for the people, which it is not.
  
  not interested in your answer.  anyone who would write something as stupid as your post lacks the sense of a tree frog.
  

• bloc said on Aug 10, 2007....

  @lfbn
  The thing is that all of these people don't fall into the category that you laid out. The guys from google are miserly or ripping us off. The internet by nature concentrates a lot of wealth and I don't think that's a bad thing in and off itself. Do you know how much google pays programmers (btw, I'm a programmer) and how many they hire!
  
  
  
  

• lfbno7 said on Aug 11, 2007....

  no it doesn't have to be all of them.  once in a while you get a rich guy who isn't a miser.  agreed.  but you have your pharmaceutical industry owning our government, you have your whore politicians betraying the people they are supposed to be serving.  it's nice to see some generosity out of a rich guy now and then.
  
  the richest guy i know of is a real estate mogul, the richest man in new jersey supposedly.  i used to work on his pension plan and he used to call me a lot on the phone.  i hear from his accountant that if he's in a group of guys going to a sandwich place, when it comes time to pay for his tuna sandwich his arms get too short to reach his own wallet and somebody else has to come up with the five dollars.  now that's a disease.   the guy belongs in a dickens novel.
  
  i took a course in computer programming long ago.  guess what language.  cobol.  what a clunky language that is.  you have to plan out your whole program before you start.  no winging it.  you have to set aside the number of places you need for the whole damn program before you start.  then i used basic, which is a lot freer.  i made up a baseball game statistically in basic, which is the only reason i originally bought my first computer, a commodore.
  

• D6fer said on Aug 11, 2007....

  Ifbno7.....man.....I hope your 401k doesn't invest in any of these greedy bastards companies.....how would you sleep?.....while I agree that something needs to be done politically to prevent payoffs....I don't think the answer is to hamstring corporate america......do you really think that you can "stick it to the man"? ....lets say they implement a windfall profits tax on gas companies......they take 10% right off the top....and add it to the 40 to 50 cents that they are already stealing from us at the pump....now you've just made the oil company less profitable....so what are they going to do? Leave prices alone? no....they will raise them.....who is this going to have the greatest effect on? Donald trump?...or the poor shmuck who makes 20 grand a year and can barely afford to put gas in his tank already?.....so now fuel prices are again higher....driving up the cost of shipping....now the cost of milk is going up again.....who is that going to hurt? Oprah?.....or poor shmuck?....I could go on and on.

• D6fer said on Aug 11, 2007....

  They use, by far, more government services than the average person. They use the legal system at a much higher rate (corporate legal issues), the companies that make them rich use the basic infrastructure far more than the average person 
   
  bloc......don't these corporations use these resources on behalf of the millions of people that they employ?

• lfbno7 said on Aug 11, 2007....

  i don't want to hamstring corporate america.  i would want to limit the amount of money that any one person can earn to a million dollars a year, and i would want to limit the amount of assets that any one person can own to 20 million.  i could live on that.  could you?
  
  it pisses me off that an oil exec retires and takes 100 million with him.  he stole that from me and you, the needlessly greedy son of a bitch.  nobody needs or deserves that much money, least of all some greedy polluting prick oil exec.
  
  how does anyone defend the right of some selfish prick to keep 100 million for himself?  let those profits go to the workers, or to lower prices.  fuck that greedy bastard.  i'd like to break a chair over his fucking head.  his workers are struggling to make ends meet, to put their kids through college, and i mean struggling, i know.  and this fucking idiot thinks he wants a few new fucking jets, the latest models.
  
  anyone who needs 100 million to be motivated to be productive in america can go fuck himself.  we don't need the jerk.  let him fucking go on welfare, and we keep the 100 million.  we'll do fine without his contribution.
  

• travelr712 said on Aug 11, 2007....

  it's not just the high salaries that get to me. it's the top exec's who totally screw up in their jobs, get voted out, and then take a 35 million dollar severance package with them while the workers at that company loose their pensions and healthcare. or, like the company i work for, the former ceo and cfo were involved in a stock back dating scam that netted them 55 million dollars. when it was found out, they were fired by the board, sure, but they don't have to pay back any of the money they stole, and in the mean time, there was a year long wage freeze for everyone else. that's the top .01% taking money directly out of the pockets of the rest of the 99.9%. and they get away with it!

• lfbno7 said on Aug 11, 2007....

  yeah, there ya go.  and it's a crime for some down and outer to steal five dollars from you, but these creeps steal thousands from you, more than you'd ever have in your wallet, and get away with it.  nobody "deserves" a 35 million dollar severance package.  i don't care how many brain surgeries you do, you don't deserve 35 million dollars.  and these guys aren't saving any lives.  they just positioned themselves to take all the cream of the world and leave us busting our asses to try and fail to make ends meet.  the worst thing about america is the way it allows robber barons to hoard all the wealth.  we need teddy roosevelt back in a hurry because there hasn't been a man in the white house since, who would address this issue.

• travelr712 said on Aug 11, 2007....

  true enough lfb, the last 50 years at least of political regimes in office have been in the pockets of one special interest group or another. the problem with getting a decent human being concerned with the general public welfare in office is that in order to be elected, you need to spend hundreds of millions of other people's dollars to gain the exposure and perception needed. the rich don't invest in a man that they believe holds the best ideals for the nation, the rich invest in the man they think can win, because they know that if he/she wins, they have an inside track to the processes that determine the laws and statutes that will be favorable to their businesses and investments, and unfavorable to their competition. politics has never had anything to do with the welfare of the public, or what is morally right. it has always had to do with how one person or another can manipulate the system to their best advantage.

• muckpar said on Aug 11, 2007....

  free enterprise and capitalism determines the distribution of wealth, the government does to a lesser degree.  The rich should be taxed more, Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be rolled back to pre 01 levels    I wonder why it is people with average incomes give more proportionately to charity than the wealthy? 

• kelly said on Aug 11, 2007....

  "bloc......don't these corporations use these resources on behalf of the millions of people that they employ?"
  
  
  No, they use it on behalf of the few owners and board members in order to increase their wealth or protect their investments.

• bloc said on Aug 12, 2007....

  "bloc......don't these corporations use these resources on behalf of the millions of people that they employ?"
  
  To a certain degree yes, but they benefit more than the people they employ. This is  my point. We're all in this together to some degree and the ones at the top benefit the most and they also benefit directly when the government helps a poor kid like me get an education. I see no problem with them paying a few percentage points higher in taxes. In fact I think that is the best thing for all of us.
  
  
  
  

• desertsienna2 said on Aug 14, 2007....

  The governments of Canada and the U.S. need to address the plight of low-income single parents, the mentally ill, the disabled, people with serious health problems and the homeless.  There is no need to guarantee economic equality.  There is a need to deal with drug addiction, illiteracy, teenage pregnancy, underfunding of welfare and lack of job opportunity.

  To argue that these problems are created by capitalism is erroneous.  Marx wasn't interested in what caused poverty, only in the pursuit of absolute economic equality.  Apparently, success equals exploitation.  Marxism is an artificially-created economic theory that has no basis in a functional reality.  It imposes structures that do not exist in natural society.  Look at Africans.  They are by nature market runners, traders, bargainers, salespeople and negotiaters.  It is a primal form of capitalism without large markets and corporations.  Bill Clinton was a great President who was also very capitalist.  Bush is a lousy President who is also very capitalist and very poor at running the economy.  Clinton respected the New Deal and capitalism as well.  Bush respects intimacy in bed with oil companies and the military-industrial complex.  When he's done, the religious right sends him a check to cover the cost of his hotel room.

  It is in the blood of Asians and Jews to be successful and smart at business.  Granted, it will piss someone off that I said Jews were really successful, well-educated and smart at business, but they worked for it.  It's quite obvious in this neighborhood with the nice houses, swimming pools, extensive landscaped gardens, BMW minivans, SUVs, nice brand-new jeeps, four cars parked outside a three-car garage up a private driveway on a hill.  And they like houses up on hills with walls which I will also get in trouble for mentioning...

  The notion that because some people are well-off and successful they must make it off the backs of others is erroneous.  I don't make a lot of money for a number of reasons--lack of good references, a different personality unsuitable for hospitality, too many years in hospitality, quitting jobs, bad bosses, not saving money, not enough education, no investment strategy, recessions, bad government policy, personal issues, etc.

• D6fer said on Aug 14, 2007....

  Speaking from limited experience in the corporate world ....I can tell you that it is a pressure cooker.....it takes skill, experience, education, and guts....it's not for everyone.....why is it no one above complained about the gross salaries that we pay profesional athletes or entertainers....all of which employ so few......it never ceases to amaze me the hate up mentality that is so prevalent these days......why don't some of you pure souls out there get off your dead ass and show us how it's done? Go get yourself an education....some experience.....and a position as a C.E.O. then you can give away every penny you make to the people you employ.
   
  i don't want to hamstring corporate america.  i would want to limit the amount of money that any one person can earn to a million dollars a year, and i would want to limit the amount of assets that any one person can own to 20 million.
   
  Smells like comunism to me!

• bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....

  I don't want to limit the amount anyone can earn, but I think it's a good thing if they, including myself, pay 33% of taxes instead of 28%. 
  
  
  The idea of limiting income seems odd if you think about hte details. I am a programmer that works on a few websites. We're hoping to sell one of them in the next year or two and if we do how would your limit work? Would the owner only be allowed to sell it it for 20 mil? I would get a percentage so you would limit that amount to 1 mil?
  
  
  This is the first time I've seen d6 call something communism or socialism where I agree with him :)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• D6fer said on Aug 14, 2007....

  whaaaa? bloc? you agreeing with me?....stop the presses! I think the world may be ending! ;p

• bloc said on Aug 14, 2007....

  I'll agree with ideas if I agree with them. I know that sounds obvious, but there are too many people that will take whichever side "their team" is on. I'm not one of them :)

• desertsienna2 said on Aug 16, 2007....

  Political correctness, identity politics, playing the victim role to the 'oppressor', etc. People are not interested in figuring out ways to empower themselves. They do not want to pull themselves up and out of their situations. It is easier to claim there is a social hierarchy that discriminates than to admit some people are smarter, more literater, more educated, harder-working and have more ambition. It can be an issue of suitability and personality.

• bloc said on Aug 16, 2007....

  " People are not interested in figuring out ways to empower themselves."
  
  I don't know if they aren't interested as much as they don't realize their own psychosis.

• buckrogers said on Aug 16, 2007....

  Probably the most egregious crime in corporate America was the retirement pay of former CEO, William Mc Intyre, drawing 1.6 trillion from United Health Care.  When company excutives can openly steal from a broken system, there's something definitly wrong in the way corporate managers are allowed to do business.  The equity market is unraveling, as we speak, from the abuses made in the credit markets.

  Capitalism is gives credability to one's ability to beg, borrow, and steal in life.  The game of mergers and acquisitions is simply a way of cannibalizing a company's assests to the benefit of managers and corporate attorneys and realign the so-called market forces (competition) to raise prices to consumers.  Modern day capitalism is not what Adam Smith envisioned in his "Wealth of Nations."

   

       

• bloc said on Aug 16, 2007....

  @buck
  I agree, but that picture you paint doesn't apply to all corporations or all of the american market. Google is a pretty good example of a company that works hard and produces quality products. As a result the founders are super wealthy, but I can't look at those guys and think anything negative. I can't think that they don't deserve the rewards they've received.
  
  
  Having said that I worked at MCI/Worldcom when they went bankrupt and I was eventually laid off because of it. I know both ends of this beast.
  
  
  
  

Comment on "Equity?"

Currently tagged	economics politics greed capitalism The Myth of Equity (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment