ProDarwin said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
My bad I should have said income from stocks should be taxed as income. Not capital gains.
My RSU's are taxed as income and at a higher rate than my normal income.
ProDarwin said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
My bad I should have said income from stocks should be taxed as income. Not capital gains.
My RSU's are taxed as income and at a higher rate than my normal income.
bobzilla said:And there we have it. A limit on how much anyone can make. Today, $400m. 5years $20m. 10 years $200k. Once you uncork that genie what you end up with is a true socialistic economy that has been proven over and over to not work.
thats the root of our issues here. We have people that want to take other peoples money because they don't think they are getting enough. We have others saying and showing that you can make what you want to make and succeed. These tow ideals are Fire and Water and cannot be reconciled. You can't expect those that have worked hard to get ahead and build a life to be fine with someone that hasn't coming in and taking "their share".
we are lucky that the do'ers have our numbered the takers up until now. Sadly I feel like it won't be long before the takers ruin it for everyone. Hell I've been close to saying berkeley it let uncle sugar take care of me. Why work so damn hard?
How is that socialism? Like ignore that we're spitballing and not taking the discussion super-seriously; I literally said "Force the excess wealth into other enterprises" so you keep it from being centralized- to me that means putting money in things that aren't just income like charity work or even some forms of stock or ownership (depending on how much mental bandwith I want to spend at this thinking about it). How is using known figures about human happiness mean i'm sponsoring class conciousness amongst the proles?
So.... Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP was 38.5% in 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP
Does anyone think that giving these people MORE money to spend is going to suddenly fix everything?
Our issues with debt in this country have nothing to do with a lack of tax revenue, and everything to do with totally irresponsible spending.
I know there are those who will take exception to these statements, and I will say that you are "entitled" to your opinion, even if it has no basis in truth. Sorry if this post tiptoes into the political minefield. I promise I will not post in this thread again. 
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I would have to say this entire discussion is sponsoring class consciousness amongst the proles. That was the purpose of it from the first post.
We have a lot of those discussions on here. How can the government gun be used to take from the haves and give to the have-nots while lining the pockets of the rulers? They always come down to the same group of people on either side of the conversation. One group wants to steal what belongs to others. The other wants to keep the government out of their pockets.
Toyman! said:In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I would have to say this entire discussion is sponsoring class consciousness amongst the proles. That was the purpose of it from the first post.
We have a lot of those discussions on here. How can the government gun be used to take from the haves and give to the have-nots while lining the pockets of the rulers? They always come down to the same group of people on either side of the conversation. One group wants to steal what belongs to others. The other wants to keep the government out of their pockets.
I realize we are on our way to patio territory, I just feel like this is disingenuous (also using "proles" is the type of things we typically try to avoid). As I pointed out in the UAW thread, the current company I work for has seen double-digit revenue and profit growth for years. Why is it considered "theft" when the people who contributed to that value want a bit of a reward?
And I know the standard retort is "if you don't like your job, find a another one." Which I also think is not quite reasonable.
z31maniac said:And I know the standard retort is "if you don't like your job, find a another one." Which I also think is not quite reasonable.
Why not?
That is exactly what I did. I thought the corporate job I had was terribly managed. I thought they treated their employees like E36 M3. I thought they treated their customers like E36 M3. I packed my tools, stole half of their customers, and left. Then I stole the rest of their customers and a bunch from other companies.
I take care of my employees because I don't want them to leave. They are hard to replace. I don't want to have to train new ones. I don't want to have to go do the work myself while I'm trying to train new employees.
If your company doesn't care enough about you to encourage you to stay, you need to study why. It could be you are easily replaced by someone making the same or less money, or maybe you don't stand out in the crowd. It could be the company culture. It could be time to move on. Maybe they will take better care of the next person.
Edit: I would note, I didn't start the use of proles, that was a direct response to the last sentence in Girthquake's post.
Toyman! said:z31maniac said:And I know the standard retort is "if you don't like your job, find a another one." Which I also think is not quite reasonable.
Why not?
That is exactly what I did. I thought the corporate job I had was terribly managed. I thought they treated their employees like E36 M3. I thought they treated their customers like E36 M3. I packed my tools, stole half of their customers, and left. Then I stole the rest of their customers and a bunch from other companies.
I take care of my employees because I don't want them to leave. They are hard to replace. I don't want to have to train new ones. I don't want to have to go do the work myself while I'm trying to train new employees.
If your company doesn't care enough about you to encourage you to stay, you need to study why. It could be you are easily replaced by someone making the same or less money, or maybe you don't stand out in the crowd. It could be the company culture. It could be time to move on. Maybe they will take better care of the next person.
Edit: I would note, I didn't start the use of proles, that was a direct response to the last sentence in Girthquake's post.
Because I think if we are honest, it's not always easy to just "change jobs."
I can't just move and get another $100k job tomorrow. Sell my house, etc. I realize people can do that, but it's not as easy as just "well do this." Trust me I would like to change my employment status, but I also can't afford to go from making $100k to $40k to change careers.
I think that gets lost in a lot of discussions regarding this kind of thing. And I hope I'm being respectful in this regard.
In reply to z31maniac :
I never said it was easy. At 35 years old with 4 kids I went from close to $60k a year plus full benefits down to $18k and no benefits. It truly sucked. Zero fun, zero hobbies, beans and rice, and eating at the parents kind of not fun. It took almost 3 years to get back to where I was when I quit. I literally worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to do that. It was another year before I could afford health insurance.
It was by far the hardest and most terrifying decision my wife and I have ever made. That said, at 56 I can look back and say it is one of the absolute best and smartest decisions we have ever made.
That's great and all until the company starts doing things to prevent you from competing against them, or is so large and expensive in terms of capital that no single person, or even group of "average" workers could ever start a competing business.
Take an auto company. The average line worker doesn't really have the ability to compete with Ford. Rivian, Tesla, Lucid, etc are able to do it by promising to some extent that they will priotirize their profit potential over their labor treatment. That's not to say they aren't offering better pay or benefits to their labor, but they aren't doing so because a former line worker is now the owner.
This is why a lot of northern Euro countries have Unions for every industry, because even if the boat gets bigger, and there are more boats, there will always be captains and crew, and the crew needs to be kept happy. You can't rely on a single good captain to make up for a ocean full of bad ones. There is only so much space on his boat.
You can look for reasons on why you can or can't do things. Whichever you decide is what you will find.
Plenty of people are making changes to better themselves, every single day. Others continue to make excuses on why they can't. It's comical
In reply to pheller :
Bull.
The company I left had a revenue of $15.6 Billion last year.
I get a smile on my face every year because I knock a little over a million off of that number.
You said you packed up your tools.
How does a UAW line workers on a hundred million dollar line with equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars ever just "go out on there own?"
Sure, they can switch careers.
You're applying your experience to the entire economy and workforce.
In reply to pheller :
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Three years before I packed up my tools, I changed careers. I looked at what I was doing, and where it was leading, and decided I'd better try something different unless I wanted to be doing the same thing for the same pay in 20 years. So I quit my job in retail and went back to work in construction because I felt that would be the best place for me to get ahead in the world.
Expecting the world to change for you is a good way to be stuck in the exact same rut when you die. Some people are satisfied with that. Some people aren't and complain about it. Some people do something about it. You get to decide which type of person you are. While there is inherently nothing wrong with any of the choices, I decided to control my own destiny.
In reply to Toyman! :
Things like losing health insurance, is a complete non-starter, not an option. My fiance has an auto-immune disorder, without great health insurance like I have now, her medication would be $6k/month.
I know I'm veering us off topic, sometimes money isn't the only factor.
In reply to z31maniac :
You are correct. If I had been in your place I would have done things differently.
Toyman! said:In reply to z31maniac :
You are correct. If I had been in your place I would have done things differently.
Myself included, I think we need to be a more understanding of individual situations. I'll leave my off-topic stuff at that.
I hope everyone has a great weekend!
I think all of the above posts are directly relevant to the conversation. There is a lot of picking on those that have made it, without much thought about what it took to get there. People are just judging the end result of those that succeeded and deciding that it's not "fair," and that we need to use the power of the government to make it "fair." They aren't taking into account the many that failed. They aren't taking into a account the risk and sacrifices made. Let's say Toyman wanted to grow his business even more and really take on his previous employer, a multi billion dollar company. He might not be able to do that on his own, but he could do it with the backing of investors. Isn't that the very story of the little guy taking on the system that many of you would champion? If he was successful, that would make him the new bad guy? And we would need to tax his investors because they beat the odds their risk paid off? I find it ironic that the very system that allows for the opportunity for anyone with a good idea and some hard work to succeed is the one under attack to help "the little guy."
I used "proles" with a grin, but also because he called capping wealth socialism. One of the thoughts around this I've had, is that I rarely hear of or see a single person starting an entire business venture because of said need for investors- there's always others to handle finances or somethign else. So what's the actual societal reason to have a billionaire?
Toyman! said:z31maniac said:And I know the standard retort is "if you don't like your job, find a another one." Which I also think is not quite reasonable.
Why not?
That is exactly what I did. I thought the corporate job I had was terribly managed.
Because there's too many factors to list off of what can interfere and make that difficult- it's not saying "Do it yourself" that's the problem, it's that saying it in that form gives it the sense that it's somehow easy.
There's also the issues of what field or work you do, and what startup capital you have. Now as a nurse I have lots of options, but before as a paramedic I attempted to start my own ambulance company that effectively would have been a worker's co-op; but I rapidly found I wanted it more than others. To do so would have required 2 functional ambulances, a doctor to agree to become a medical director for a company (directly placing their license on the line, since that's what we're working off of for our protocols) a ventilator, licensure from the FDA (or DEA?) to carry controlled substances... the list goes on.
bobzilla said:And there we have it. A limit on how much anyone can make. Today, $400m. 5years $20m. 10 years $200k. Once you uncork that genie what you end up with is a true socialistic economy that has been proven over and over to not work.
thats the root of our issues here. We have people that want to take other peoples money because they don't think they are getting enough. We have others saying and showing that you can make what you want to make and succeed. These tow ideals are Fire and Water and cannot be reconciled. You can't expect those that have worked hard to get ahead and build a life to be fine with someone that hasn't coming in and taking "their share".
we are lucky that the do'ers have our numbered the takers up until now. Sadly I feel like it won't be long before the takers ruin it for everyone. Hell I've been close to saying berkeley it let uncle sugar take care of me. Why work so damn hard?
You know we don't see eye to eye on this, but I respect you as a person. Socialism actually functions quite well in many countries. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand have all adopted Social Democracy tenets and they are thriving. Bolivia has used Democratic Socialism to become the strongest South American country with the highest GDP and very little poverty.
As far as "why work so damn hard?" Exactly. Here in the states we glorify killing ourselves to make a dollar, as if the struggle to put food on our plates makes us better. It doesn't. There are dozens of countries far more successful than we are who have 28-hour work weeks, an entire year of maternity/paternity leave, free healthcare. They are just as free to make billions of dollars like we are, but they are proportionally taxed so that they can have nice things, like roads, non-carbon infrastructure, parks, longer lifespans, healthier lives, and support for those who can't support themselves.
Telling people to grab their bootstraps only works if everyone has bootstraps to begin with. My neighbor is a quadraplegic who lives on ramen noodles and donations because congress decided that she should just grab some bootstraps. She would LOVE to have a job, but imagine how limited her options are.
I don't want to take anyone's money, but I'm tired of the government giving a free pass to people who do nothing and collect $1B a day while my neighbor chokes down another saltine while her electricity gets shut off.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
You know we don't see eye to eye on this, but I respect you as a person. Socialism actually functions quite well in many countries. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand have all adopted Social Democracy tenets and they are thriving. Bolivia has used Democratic Socialism to become the strongest South American country with the highest GDP and very little poverty.
This is very, very misleading. I'll give you wiggle points for adding in "adopted social democracy tenants," because I'm pretty sure you understand that doesn't make them socialist. The same countries also adopt conservative and capitalistic tenants. But the whole "socialist countries are prosperous" idea has been repeatedly been proven false. Here is a good article shooting down the whole premise of the Nordic countries thriving under socialism..
Nordic Countries not so socialist
Cliff notes-
Nordic countries were vert prosperous pre 1970's when they greatly expended social programs.
Growth was stunted greatly under higher taxes and the move towards socialism.
They have since walked back policies, reduced taxes, and have enjoyed higher economic growth. Their policies are not Democratic Socialist, but rather Centrist. They support both Capitalism and many Socialist leaning programs, and have strong immigration policies and requirements for government assistance. Their strong economic engine allows them to run more social programs, which are also tightly controlled.
As far as "why work so damn hard?" Exactly. Here in the states we glorify killing ourselves to make a dollar, as if the struggle to put food on our plates makes us better. It doesn't. There are dozens of countries far more successful than we are who have 28-hour work weeks, an entire year of maternity/paternity leave, free healthcare. They are just as free to make billions of dollars like we are, but they are proportionally taxed so that they can have nice things, like roads, non-carbon infrastructure, parks, longer lifespans, healthier lives, and support for those who can't support themselves.
So they take more from the more productive people and give it to the less productive people. Show me how that makes the country better off for all. I'm sure it makes it better for the less productive people, but what about the rest of them? Don't they matter?
Telling people to grab their bootstraps only works if everyone has bootstraps to begin with. My neighbor is a quadraplegic who lives on ramen noodles and donations because congress decided that she should just grab some bootstraps. She would LOVE to have a job, but imagine how limited her options are.
Can't we have a discussion without dragging in wildly outlying situations as if they were normal? I don't know a single person- not the most hardcore, small government person that thinks the disabled should just fend for themselves. In case it's not clear, 99.999999 percent of people that subscribe to the bootstrap philosophy are taking about people of sound mind and body. And the few that are against government assistance believe that the community should be responsible, and would likely ask you WTF you are doing letting your quadriplegic neighbor eat saltines and ramen in the dark.
I don't want to take anyone's money, but I'm tired of the government giving a free pass to people who do nothing and collect $1B a day while my neighbor chokes down another saltine while her electricity gets shut off.
But you do. You are screaming from the rooftops "why doesn't someone else help my neighbor." You want to take MORE from others to help your neighbor instead. Anyone collecting $1 billion a day is already contributing way, way, way, more, both in dollars and as a percentage, than the average person. And this is all assuming that there is no money to help your neighbor, which I call B.S. on. They are not likely taking advantage of the numerous government programs and billions of dollars that are already out there for them. What good will confiscating more dollars do if you aren't using the dollars available now?
I'll tell you what. Send me the info around your neighbor, and I'll look into it. I'm confident that I can find out what needs to be done to get the help that is already available. I had an Aunt that recently passed away with severe disabilities. She lived in PA for the last 30 years with all needs taken care of without a dime out of her pocket.
ProDarwin said:IMO stock transactions should be taxed as income tax
I do wish that capitol gains tax rates were the same as normal income. I get that it's supposed to encourage investment in companies, but that only actually reaches the company when it sells them, not trades- which is what +90% of stock exchanges are. As it is, trading is glorified gambling, and does not benefit the larger production economy.
Also, one should remember that your taxes mostly ends up in the hands of fellow consumers. And the more money circulates as consumption, the more robust the economy. I know people hate government agencies, so sometimes we need to be reminded that they are also fellow consumers of goods.
In reply to alfadriver :
*snip*
As it is, trading is glorified gambling, and does not benefit the larger production economy.
Isn't that the truth.
Back to my original statement, sales tax on stock transactions. Yay, or nay?
I do not know what time frame the numbers below encompass, take a look for yourself.
Let's go to:
Total Share Volume 4,275,288,671
Cut this part out because we don't need it.
Data As Of: 09/22/2023 05:16:26 PM
And if they were charged .01 per share traded soon it becomes real money. And the traders would not even miss it.
To be clear, I do not know if this is cumulative for 2023, September or just 9/22/2023. *
Regardless of the dates, that is just the numbers for NASDAQ.
And as another point, I myself have made no statement one way ot the other how this would be spent if it ever happened. Because it isn't real. It is a what if. It's Oz or perhaps its Orwell's 1984. Maybe both.
Whistle blown, continue.
*Went back and read the NASDAQ page again. That is a daily statistic.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Curtis I love you, but I think this comment needs a little more explanation:
Curtis73 said:
There are dozens of countries far more successful than we are who have 28-hour work weeks, an entire year of maternity/paternity leave, free healthcare.
I just looked that up. The only countries I can find that have 28 hour workweeks are places like Mozambique and Rwanda. NOT dozens of countries. They don't seem to fit the profile of what you are suggesting. Please explain.
And the US is no where near the top of the list of the countries with the longest work weeks. It doesn't show up on a list of the top 10, or the top 20. It's about in the middle.
Why would we give an untrustworthy government even more money to piss away on buying votes? A government that is less fiscally responsible than my 8-year-old granddaughter. Why give them more?
I would rather see 90% of federal taxes removed from the feds and given to the states. At least then there would be some local control over what happens to the funds. A politician is much more controllable when you are standing across the desk from them staring them in the eyes.
In reply to alfadriver :
I do wish that capitol gains tax rates were the same as normal income. I get that it's supposed to encourage investment in companies, but that only actually reaches the company when it sells them, not trades- which is what +90% of stock exchanges are. As it is, trading is glorified gambling, and does not benefit the larger production economy.
If there were not a market to trade stocks, it would be much harder to sell them in the first place. How is one to get a return on their investment, stock buybacks and dividends? The amount of investment would plummet. The taxes collected from the sale of stocks would plummet. Businesses would not have the money needed to grow, and tax revenues would plummet. Employment would plummet. Lots of plummeting going on here. It is gambling, but not the kind reliant on the roll of dice or a sports score. You are betting on the success of the business. Business itself is a gamble, nothing is guaranteed. The increased value of the stock being traded also benefits the company, because it raised the value of the stock they retain- increasing the value of their business.
"Data from the BLS shows that approximately 20% of new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45% during the first five years, and 65% during the first 10 years. Only 25% of new businesses make it to 15 years or more."
Long term, betting on a coin flip is a safer bet.
Also, one should remember that your taxes mostly ends up in the hands of fellow consumers. And the more money circulates as consumption, the more robust the economy. I know people hate government agencies, so sometimes we need to be reminded that they are also fellow consumers of goods.
So we should pay more taxes with the hopes that some of it makes it's way back to us? That makes zero sense, we already had 100% of that money in the first place. That is like saying a business owner should throw money out the window on their drive to work, because some people will use the money to buy from their business.
You'll need to log in to post.
