Okay. We talk a lot of theory in this forum but not much hard facts or numbers. Not much to really wrap your mind around. Everybody hates the banksters, everyone hates the rich. But what should be done? With real numbers. Lets work on at least a ballpark figure.
Lets use bankster Alec Baldwin as an example.
I could be wrong but I believe that Mr. Baldwin is worth about 50 million dollars. My questions are simple and direct:
1) Is that too much money?
2) If so, then how much should he be allowed to posess?
3) Is there a limit to how much future money he should be allowed to earn? If he exceeds that limit, what should be done?
I'm just trying to understand how this whole social justice thing is going to work.I'm a simple man, so simple answers will help. Example:
Mr.Balwin Is greedy and does not need 50 million dollars. He can get by on 100K/yr. Any additional funds beyond that will be siezed and given to workers, aids patients or the poor.
Thoughs?
Comments
"Mr.Balwin Is greedy and does not need 50 million dollars. He can get by on 100K/yr. Any additional funds beyond that will be siezed and given to workers, aids patients or the poor."
Why not tax Mr. Baldwin as heavily as possible according to some moral national standard of living, let him enjoy some facets of his wealth, and use the money for the common good, leaving him enough to run his bank and be taxed again the next year?
Why not tax Mr. Baldwin as heavily as possible according to some moral national standard of living, let him enjoy some facets of his wealth, and use the money for the common good, leaving him enough to run his bank and be taxed again the next year?
What does that mean? How much money would you leave him? Balwin does not actually run a bank. But he is employed by one.
OK.
My answer is the same, find a common standard for living, by making sure everyone has access to the same human rights:
Here is the best plan I've seen:
http://blackpanther.org/TenPoint.html
Tax the wealthy until you can provide these things to the poor.
Why not tax Mr. Baldwin as heavily as possible according to some moral national standard of living, let him enjoy some facets of his wealth, and use the money for the common good, leaving him enough to run his bank and be taxed again the next year?
What does that mean? How much money would you leave him? Balwin does not actually run a bank. But he is employed by one.
Since he works at best part time for one I wonder if he gets any benefits or do you think they walmarted him?
You miss the point entirely rigel. It's not about how rich somebody is or how much money they have. It's about the millions of people who bust their ass and have little to nothing to show for it. As long as everybody that wants one has a job, a home, an education, a chance to move ahead, affordable healthcare and enough food on the table, then it doesn't matter how much more you have than the other guy.
I couldn't give a shit about millionaires and billionaires as long as it doesn't come at my expense or the nation as a whole's expense.
You miss the point entirely rigel. It's not about how rich somebody is or how much money they have. It's about the millions of people who bust their ass and have little to nothing to show for it.
Some people are just smarter, better educated, more motiviated and better workers. They generally earn more money than your average Joe. Are you suggesting paying people the same amount regardless of contribution? I used to be in the group of "busting my ass and have little to nothing to show for it". I didn't like it so I found another job. My former company lost a pretty productive worker. Their loss. We are not slaves you know. We are free to leave if we don't like the deal. If you don't your situation, then change it.
Why not tax Mr. Baldwin as heavily as possible according to some moral national standard of living, let him enjoy some facets of his wealth, and use the money for the common good, leaving him enough to run his bank and be taxed again the next year?
What does that mean? How much money would you leave him? Balwin does not actually run a bank. But he is employed by one.
Since he works at best part time for one I wonder if he gets any benefits or do you think they walmarted him?
His part time gig probably pays more than most of our full time gigs.I wouldn't worry your little head too much over that one. I'm sure he is very successfull bringing in more money to the banksters.
You miss the point entirely rigel. It's not about how rich somebody is or how much money they have. It's about the millions of people who bust their ass and have little to nothing to show for it.
Some people are just smarter, better educated, more motiviated and better workers. They generally earn more money than your average Joe. Are you suggesting paying people the same amount regardless of contribution? I used to be in the group of "busting my ass and have little to nothing to show for it". I didn't like it so I found another job. My former company lost a pretty productive worker. Their loss. We are not slaves you know. We are free to leave if we don't like the deal. If you don't your situation, then change it.
You still completely miss the point. Everyone that wants to play the game should at least be able to live at a basic level. A very basic job and a very basic pay and a very basic education. Everyone should have the healthcare to allow this to unfold. This is simple and basic living. From THAT point you can then decide if you want to reach for the stars or live a life of luxury. From THAT point you can be a gazillionaire if you want to.
The bottom of the pyramid is much too weak to withstand the weight of all the gold and riches at the top. That has to change or the entire pyramid will come crashing down and crashing down very soon.
rigel1 said-
Some people are just smarter, better educated, more motiviated and better workers. They generally earn more money than your average Joe. Are you suggesting paying people the same amount regardless of contribution?
Rigel are you suggesting an objective standard of excellence where every economic participant can have their 'contribution' evaluated in some manner? Do you not see that economic power can be grabbed in a manner which is anti free market and anti democratic? Sadly in such scenarios those who you suggest are heroes become villians Apparently all that matters is, if they did it legal then thet did it fair and in a way that the rest of us should be beholden to them for..
You can call it fair if you like, but didn't you ever wanna win a game playing fair and square instead of paying off the refs
He can actually have as much money as he can get, no limit - provided it was taxed at 70% before it got to him.
His employer should have dramatically less money to actually pay him, because a lot of what they do should not be allowed under the law.
Also, the rules/laws should not be written in Alec's favor and his employer's favor.
By the way Alec Baldwin is an entertainer and not a bankster
Mr Koch Doesn't give a hoot about US jobs and ships the oil and jobs to China where makes a bigger profit ..Keep US jobs in US
These people change the conversation over to issues that concerns the wealthy . Not 55000 factories moved out of the US in the last 10 years. We need Tariffs Tariffs Tariffs .
Mr Koch Doesn't give a hoot about US jobs and ships the oil and jobs to China where makes a bigger profit ..Keep US jobs in US
Exactly. Koch bros can make as much money as they wish, just don't do it at the expense of the country that allows you that freedom. There's no limit to how much someone can make. There should however be limits as to how you make it. There's a difference between making an honest dollar and taking advantage of your country in order to make a dollar.
Why not tax Mr. Baldwin as heavily as possible according to some moral national standard of living, let him enjoy some facets of his wealth, and use the money for the common good, leaving him enough to run his bank and be taxed again the next year?
What does that mean? How much money would you leave him? Balwin does not actually run a bank. But he is employed by one.
Since he works at best part time for one I wonder if he gets any benefits or do you think they walmarted him?
His part time gig probably pays more than most of our full time gigs.I wouldn't worry your little head too much over that one. I'm sure he is very successfull bringing in more money to the banksters.
I don't worry about any actor but apparently you do since you're so interested in what he's doing and how much he makes...What it really boils down to rigel it's none of your effing business what he does.......is it? It has pointed out he's not a bankster...remember that.
No, I think rigel is on to something. We need to set the tax rate on banksters like this Baldwin fellow high, including taxing his capital gains at the same rate as labor gets taxed.
What a ridiculous setup. Why do you guys fall for rigel's trolling? He's attempting to equate a mediocre celebrity (my opinion) with people who earn money through market manipulation without a thought about the social devestation they cause (as with the mortgage fraud that caused the collapse). Alec Baldwin may be an annoying rich celebrity but he isn't behind the manipulation of the wheat market in 2008 that caused food insecurity and even starvation among hundreds of millions of people - that would be Goldman Sachs.
The OWS movement is not about punishing success, its about re-evaluating priorities and calling out people who use their wealth and privilege to manipulate our democracy so as to further their own interests at the expense of the interests of the other 99% of us. And yes - Alec Baldwin should pay a higher tax rate if he doesn't pay at least as much as an ordinary working person. Wealthy people and corporations put a greater burden on our social infrastructure and so they should have to pay a higher rate to compensate for that fact. For instance FedEx and UPS use a far greater share of our transportation infrastructure than a typical citizen and so that ought to be reflected in the rate that they pay since their businesses are benefiting (profiting) from use of the public's property. Conservatives will just say "they'll only pass on the cost to consumers" and they probably will but it is the consumers who use FedEx and UPS, not those who don't, who will then pay for the extra cost it imposes on the transportation infrastructure anyway so it works out as it should. (I don't mean to pick on UPS and FedEx in particular, it's just what came to mind)
By the way Alec Baldwin is an entertainer and not a bankster
You are half right. He works for Capital one.
You mean he does commercials for them?
You mean he does commercials for them?
Yep. Thats right. He gets paid to attract as much business to them as he possibly can. The better Capital one does the more money he gets. He has a vested interest. They are in it together.
Quite honestly he looks like a bankster
Quite honestly he looks like a bankster
A good actor can do that!
Quite honestly he looks like a bankster
A good actor can do that!
He is an excellent actor. Very charismatic can be extremely funny. Has a bit on an anger control issue, but highly talented. He's filthy rich and in bed with the banks, yet still supports OWS. I'm not sure that I understand the contradiction.
Mr. Baldwin won't see more income if Cap one gets more customers. Commercial actors get paid an agreed amount up front, and then quarterly bonuses the more times it is viewed.
Mr. Baldwin won't see more income if Cap one gets more customers. Commercial actors get paid an agreed amount up front, and then quarterly bonuses the more times it is viewed.
Correct. But he DOES work for them. They believe that having him sell credit card applications will increase their bottom line. If he stops making money for them, they will fire him.
I believe he is an independent actor being paid by them, but is not an employee. do you know something different?
I believe he is an independent actor being paid by them, but is not an employee. do you know something different?
Does that really matter at all? Who the hell cares?. He's is in bed with Capital one. He is being paid by a bank to sell credit card applications. His job is to bring them millions of dollars. So you are saying that he is off the hook because of the way he is paid? Wow!!! Contractor or no contractor. Why does it even matter? You seem to hold your fellow progressive to a very,very low standard.
Wow, this thread really got derailed. Isn't it supposed to be about how much any one person should be allowed to have in terms of wealth and or income? Very few, if any person can do a million dollars worth of labor a year. They can help produce a million dollars a year with their intelligence and leadership but it still takes the labor of many to actually do the producing.
My problem is that this person is more than willing to take some of the fruit from the many, leaving them with a very small basket while accumulating a tremendously huge basket of fruit that they think they "equally" earned. They didn't equally earn it but demand to pay equally in taxes. I say bullpucky!
The labors of the many produce massive amounts of wealth and income for the few. I get that. That is how capitalism works. What I don't get is how the few can feel cheated if they are asked to pay the majority of the taxes that help to maintain the labor force that creates their wealth. They would rather that the laborers take care of each other's needs while maintaining the wealth of the few. When you hear the phrase "The wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes" that doesn't mean an equal share of taxes. It really means they should pay the taxes proportional to what they take from society and it's labor force.
I believe he is an independent actor being paid by them, but is not an employee. do you know something different?
Does that really matter at all? Who the hell cares?. He's is in bed with Capital one. He is being paid by a bank to sell credit card applications. His job is to bring them millions of dollars. So you are saying that he is off the hook because of the way he is paid? Wow!!! Contractor or no contractor. Why does it even matter? You seem to hold your fellow progressive to a very,very low standard.
For someone that doesn't care as you say you do.... you sure do try hard to prove other wise.........Eh?
1....He's a frickin actor..........Fact!
2....He took their money for services rendered.....Fact!
3....Trying to say he's in bed with them for doing commercials is stretching the truth don't ya think?........Eh?
4....I believe your jealous because in your mind he's a lib democrat taking the evil corporations money that you must think belongs to the wingnuts of the world. Believe it or not rigel many of us good progressives like money as well as you wingnuts do......Fact!
5....I made a good living and managed to own 2 boats. They are what I do my trolling out of not a computer on a progressive site as you and your types do nonstop.....Big effin fact there!
The Government should just issue debt free money and the banks should just be there as a storage place. If the government wants to curb inflation they should just raise taxes limited to 1/4, meaning 3 months, to contract the money supply then see how the economy is. Should new businesses want to start up... loans should be made. These businesses should have low interests on these loans that never exceed 3%. After all if the government is in charge of the money supply and the Senate & Reps are beholden to the people then there would never be a bankster induced recession/depression.
Sound too far-fetched... the French Island nation of Guernsey does it all the time. That and the reason Poland isn't suffering much from the European Debt Crisis is cuz they never got on the fractional-reserve banking system.
If Guernsey and Poland can do it then we as Americans can do it too.
The American Dream Film-Full Length
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM
The Money Masters.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA
Enjoy these films and pass them along.
The more you know the less power the banksters have !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe he is an independent actor being paid by them, but is not an employee. do you know something different?
Does that really matter at all? Who the hell cares?. He's is in bed with Capital one. He is being paid by a bank to sell credit card applications. His job is to bring them millions of dollars. So you are saying that he is off the hook because of the way he is paid? Wow!!! Contractor or no contractor. Why does it even matter? You seem to hold your fellow progressive to a very,very low standard.
4....I believe your jealous because in your mind he's a lib democrat taking the evil corporations money that you must think belongs to the wingnuts of the world. Believe it or not rigel many of us good progressives like money as well as you wingnuts do......Fact!
5....I made a good living and managed to own 2 boats. They are what I do my trolling out of not a computer on a progressive site as you and your types do nonstop.....Big effin fact there!
4.... You could not be more wrong. You eaither have worse ADD than me or you simply have not been paying attention. I am not a wuss. I do not call people names such as "wing nut" while hiding behind the safety of the internet. The internet in not my mama's skirt. I don't have time for jealousy, but I do enjoy pointing out hypocrisy.
5.... From where I sit, it appears that trolling is expressing any diversity of thought. Another name that people use when they want to shut down another opinion. I've had many nasty,ruthless, unprovoked insults hurled at me from "sensitive" liberals. Usually because they have no answer to my profound logic. Calling me a troll is nearly a complement!
Some people are just smarter, better educated, more motiviated and better workers.
And some people are just winners in the lucky birth lottery while others are skilled thieves.
It is foolish to pretend that everyone who has lots of money deserve it - but it is even more foolish to think that people who don't live the good life deserve the punishing lives they often lead.
Around 1760, Voltaire wrote a book on this general concept called Candide. It is short and an easy read - you might want to spend an afternoon reading it some time.
We should all get fifty million, shuffle the deck, and start the world over.
Some people are just smarter, better educated, more motiviated and better workers.
And some people are just winners in the lucky birth lottery while others are skilled thieves.
It is foolish to pretend that everyone who has lots of money deserve it -
Charge the thieves and leave the lottery winners alone. Life ain't fair. In fact there is no such thing as "fair." We need to stop worrying about what other people have. It's really nobodies business.
Who decides if someone deserves their money? Again we need to butt out, lead our own lives and stop being jealous of others.
Rather than argue the fine points of this, how about we start with 1 billion? or 500 million? 100 million? see how that goes for starters, then go from there.
Whatever is needed to give every h.s. graduate a $50k/year job is also a good place to start.
I hate how agencies etc... do studies etc... and wait a decade to implement anything vs getting things moving and adjusting as needed.
Rigel1- Since you specialize in tired conservative memes , whatever happened to "If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide,"
In addition to being part of the rare watchable network show, the excellent 30 Rock, Mr. Baldwin has a social conscience. He supports being taxed to pay for democracy in America, like Mr. Buffet. Unlike the greedy, these people do not argue that their wealth is theirs to keep. I have no problem with their success. I would have no problem with the others were they not such greedy, selfish and uncaring aholes. This is not envy of succeess, it is the recognition of callous disregard for others by snots.
In fact there is no such thing as "fair." We need to stop worrying about what other people have.
While fairness should not be ignored entirely, it probably should not dominate economic thinking. It is better to think in terms of what makes the economic system perform at its best . . . but with some consideration of not causing so much unfairness that there is an insurrection. In that context, lavishly rewarding theft and simple chance of birth is probably not the best way to promote a healthy economy.
Sorry but i do not see much distinction between fair and efficient. If an economy is rewarding those who are not producing anything of value then that is neither fair nor efficient
How efficient is slavery compared to a democratic, spread the wealth, broad participation in power economy? Depends upon who is setting the metrics of efficiency and determining the bottom line, doesn't it? Democracy, like nature, may not be the most austere and 'efficient' model around, but it takes care of more people and has a better chance of caring for "the means of production," like the earth, air and water as well as the humanity of those who participate.