Seriously, why?

What we need, as a society, is minimum breeding. The planet is overflowing with useless dumb fucks. Mostly Trump supporters.

The 1% don't get their money from wages.

/thread, literally

A maximum wage wouldn't affect anyone with $100M in the slightest. When you have that much money, your income comes from investments, not wages.

Aww making it political. Are you new here?

>max wage cuts
>why not
>top 1%

Mega beta faggot doesn’t understand how being rich works

Attached: B2AD1474-35AA-4B24-A856-DAD661CC1F89.png (500x522, 132K)

The board of directors which the CEO may be the head of the board decides the CEOs salary. They only care about maximizing profit and out tax system is not high enough for the Ceo and boards behavior to change. We once had had a tax system that progressed until 90 percent and that helped influence the CEOs to invest the money in their business instead of themselves. This actually helped raise the salaries of their average workers and helped created a stronger company. Proper taxes is the proven solution.

There is. Doctors in Canada can only make so much regardless of how many hours they work.

>wanta other to limit what they are valued at
Lol ive only noticed its usually pathetic losers who never amount to much who want a cap on earnings. Im sorry you're worthless and my value keeps rising you pleb

Because I want to have an infinite earning potential.

Just live forever, you'll automatically have infinite earnings.

global average earnings mean that $35,000 USD is top 1%

you want the minimum wage to be $15 and the max to be $17.50?

literally fuck yourself and read a book before you have any more ideas

Or don’t be a loser at life and demand there to be a maximum pay

Found the newfag

Books are full of words. What really matters is my feelings.

Attached: AOC.jpg (770x415, 24K)

Kek

Attached: 1522763284107.jpg (468x451, 25K)

Average is $35k but Median is like $9k

You're confusing measurements.

Average yearly income, per capita, $10K
Average yearly income, per earner (excluding kids, etc.), $18K
bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040

Median yearly income, per household, $10K
Median yearly income, per capita, $3K
news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx

The reason the median diverges so heavily from the average is because the rich countries are so much richer than the poor ones: The 10 richest countries make more than 50 times as much per person as the 10 poorest countries.

Those are all worldwide averages/medians.

Rich people are not keeping poor people from being rich.

Wealth is not a pie.

That's an argument for raising the minimum wage, not implementing a maximum wage.

clearly because their success is oppressing everyone else

I will say they need to stop getting tax breaks and loop holes in tax laws though.

All the people I know that make 175k to 250k a year pay between 50 and 60% straight to taxes. I pay just over 50%
Steal any more of my labor and I'll stop producing. Where will we be when you remove all incentive to produce? I'll be fine because I can take care of myself. All the moochers will be fucked.
Get a job.

How are you being oppressed by someone having more money than you?

Attached: Helicopter Ride.jpg (800x682, 85K)

>I know people that are working two jobs to get by.
they're doing capitalism incorrectly.
You don't work a job and have that be your end goal, no, you acquire the skills needed to start your own business venture.

>what is sarcasm.exe

except the 1% isn't in that tax bracket or those wage areas.

Isn't it so convenient that the richest private bankers dont pay tax? Isn't it so convenient that our taxes pay interest on the currency they create out of thin air?
All coincidence.

99% of Americans do Capatlism wrong, because they go into mcdonalds during high school and never leave.

>their success is oppressing everyone else
>other people going well is oppressive to me

Attached: 1450579247619.jpg (331x334, 12K)

For the same reason there should not be a minimum wage...

Attached: 5_6217640085005795338.gif (597x605, 4K)

Tax the "1%" at 100%
How much of federal deficit spending will that cover? What will the repercussions be of taxing the wealthiest players 100%?

This is the real problem, but there is no more intellect in American society anymore, just a bunch of REEEEtards

success =/= money =/= wage

Go back to school kid.

I really hope you and the other dude are trolling cuz if not holy fuck you're a fucking moron. l2sarcasm

>I will say they need to stop getting tax breaks and loop holes in tax laws though.

Nah not really. Capitalism has survived for so long because of these people. Look how well communism is doing. If you are sad that you are poor, stop being lazy.

If everyone is rich then nobody is rich.

It's not about getting rid of the deficit, it's about not letting the 1% keep 100% of their own cuz that's what helps propel the deficit. that's a lot of tax money that could be going into stuff like... idk... DOE for example, which would lead to better education overall, which would lead to the long term of actually bringing that deficit down because the economy won't be complete trash.

>success =/= money =/= wage
yeah kinda, but money is the closest thing we have to objectively measuring success.

A small percentage of people do capitalism wrong. When the currency supply is artificial and manipulated, capitalism can not exist.
A natural balance found with money, not currency, is how capitalism functions. End fractional reserve banking and capitalism will reemerge and dominate like it has the last 3 times this country has banned private central banks. This is the 4th iteration, I doubt the last.

capatlism has been limping and the country is slowly collapsing from the inside as a result of no checks in place for those 1%

If you make more thank $10000 a year, you are rich by global standards. Congratulations.

Why stop at 100% Tax net incomes over one million dollars at 110% annually, and we can grind generational wealth to dust in a generation.

Rich not paying their taxes, and I mean actually rich people, not sub 1 million incomes, is all tax that could be going into other stuff that could help more people not be rich but help them bring up the working class jobs to a larger section of "the pie".

The rich would actually get richer as a result and far less people would feel less oppressed and depressed. I'm not delusional, you'll never satisfy 100% of the population but the way it is now isn't good either.

except that doesn't work like that since not all country economies are the same.

I think you're misunderstanding how much it takes to run DOE for a year vs what the 1% make in a year.
I'm all for the rich scumbag bankers at the top to be taxed. I'm also for not paying interest on currency they create out of thin air. I'm also for using money instead of currency.

Ha. Yeah I'm sure all those hyper rich will keep all their currency here to be taken. I'm sure that's how they got wealthy to begin with.

The tax they're not paying would largley be helpful. I'd also like to get some statistic thrown in here to show the comparison of that though because the 1% skip out on A LOT of tax.

It's not collapsing. Not even close. They only downside to capitalism is the societal leeches. Like yourself and your NEET kind. If everyone played their part, we be better off. But no, we have to drag your useless ass around and cater for your NEET needs.

You and your kind are the problem. Stop spending all your money on MDMA.

Yea you are right, some country economies don't have any money in them at all and are bartering systems. (Which makes you more wealthy by default)

Glad I got to talk to some of the big brains on Yea Forums today.

Freedom doesn't pray on fate.

>money is the closest thing we have to objectively measuring success
So Keanu Reeve (who gave millions to other) is less succesful than Carlos Slim Helu (who nobody cares if he dies) ? lel
Money doesn't create success.

And a million bucks a year is nothing. Considering the NDAA was 700 billion. How many people do you know that make a million a year? How many of those successful people do you think are going to keep producing whatever it is they produce to make that money?

Fact: everyone in this thread virulently defending the mega rich' right to be mega rich is a TEM.

Old money kulaks got their gains from slavery and exploitation, their penance should be fleeing penniless

> this

theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand

Attached: sandinisa.jpg (256x197, 7K)

There are in some other countries. Japan for instance caps executive compensation by tying it to average employee compensation at the buisness. So the management can make as much as they want, as long as they pay thier employees well too.

fREEEdumb isn't free.

Do you think you have freedom?

How do they get it then? Magic?

Any money paid by a company to an individual is a wage.

so lets just do nothing, that's not what the ultrarich want at all ohhhh noooo

In America? Yes. Think before you speak.

They get it from capital gains, if they even need to get any at all. If your family is worth hundreds of billions of dollars what is the point of a wage?

Investments, and therefore it's taxed under capital gains (usually). It's not considered wages. If you're advocating for something, learn how it works and what the terminology means.

NDAA 2018 was 700 BILLION alone. And that's a drop in the bucket.
You're gonna tax an extra couple trillion a year off a small group of people that dont make close to that?
You're over estimating the impact that taxing those folks would have.
That being said, they should pay their share. 50 to 60%

good idea

Welcome to /U/ (Discord Application on PC or Phone)

Rules on discord? What is this fucking reddit?
Get in here you faggots, the water is fine.

We got it all, filled with
>e-girls >faggots >Shitposts >VC >Hentai >Rates >Niggers >Fascists >Normiefags >Ass >Titties

and it's all NSFW only, post whatever you want, maybe even break the rules
Who fucking cares, we sure dont.

s9nrATH (Discord)

hahaha I bet you have a flag with an eagle in front of it on your truck

why don't people get rich from slaving away at work?
why are people locked up for dumb reasons and forced to work for 2 dollars a day?
why is education so worthless and time consuming?
why don't wars ever stop?
why are people deemed smart for repeating what others say?
why is politics two parties fighting each other?
why are countries in debt? and to what?

That's the most moronic thing I've ever heard. The foundations of "old money" were generally all northern, not southern. There were several family dynasties from the south pretty civil war, but nothing compared to the north

>White
>Male
>Cis
>Thinks he's going to be a billionaire any day now
>Votes against self-interest

>America
>Freedom
pick one lmao

the answer to all these questions is
UNCHECKED CAPITALISM

dubs dubs have spoken

Name a country with more social freedoms than the USA. I'll wait.

How exactly is the USA holding you back?

Please elaborate.

End fractional reserve banking. Gonna be a bumpy few years, but the middle class will bounce back once money replaces currency. Happened the last 3 times we banned our private central bank. The results will be the same in the end, although this time might be a touch bumpier

Yeehaw sure sounds like a temporarily embarrassed millionaire to me
A uniquely American delusion that works great for the ruling class

I'm not talking about just pre-civil war America. I'm talking about late 1800s railroad barons and sweatshop moguls who owned wage slaves stacked in tenements, that WAS all up north, and about aristocratic banking families and royal houses with wealth from the Middle Ages in Europe.

>So Keanu Reeve (who gave millions to other)
The fact that Keanu gave away his money doesn't mean he's unsuccessful, because he still amassed a large amount of money.
>is less succesful than Carlos Slim Helu (who nobody cares if he dies) ?
Objectively, yes.
>Money doesn't create success.
You're right, money doesn't create success, it's success that amasses money.

>>thinks antifa fights fascism

lmao keep larping faggot

what do you class as a 'social freedom'? I've not heard that terminology before

So what, that's the person working 2 jobs problem, not the person who worked for their money making 100m a year.

Not new. Do facts bother you, Trumpfag?

Not new. Stating facts for the Trumpfags of Yea Forums

do that and tax people properly - invest in some social programs like healthcare and drive productivity with green technology investment and infrastructure refresh

would all be a good start

If you're white....EU, the white Commonwealth countries, Russia, Japan, and really any country where you're in their 1% of wealth

If you're a poc then no country is free anyway

Her passion and intellect frighten you. That’s what it really is.

There will always be a level of exploitation when a large state is involved in social welfare spending, private bank bailouts, deficit spending, and foreign entanglements.
Fractional reserve banking is at the very center of this exploitation, and should be banned permanently.
Any government official complicit in the creation of currency should be hanged.

According to the tax code, it’s a fucking pie.

Japan

This is 100% correct

capitalism is a zero sum game
the logical endpoint is one individual owning everything
what's the fucking point in that

You are literally the 1% of entitled, self absorbed moron if you cannot understand how you are able to express yourself in any way you want in the USA.

you are plain dumb

>America has the -exact- same economy as North Korea

Speaking of big brains...

btw, how do you know there aren't countries still on bartering system? have you checked -every- single country?

and yet the brainwashed masses are convinced to vote in the best interest of those rich non-tax payers

Tell him -how- he is wrong then?

This is like saying we need to stop people from winning gold metals in the Olympics because it makes the people who didn't win feel bad....

Nothing is stopping anybody from becoming the %1.

That's why America is great. Is it hard? sure. But you can work hard and be successful.

Nothing stopping any of you from being successful.

We got different ideas of what happens after we switch from currency to money, thankfully in that setting, we are each free to try our own ideas and see which stand on their own feet or fall.
Socialized medicine is an absolute waste of time in my opinion. Why give a government which is proven time and time again to be corrupt and inefficient control over something so important?
The feds dont even want to do what they're supposed to explicitly do in the constitution. Why give them any more authority?
Productivity will be driven in whichever way the market decides. If its profitable, it will flourish. No need to do anything.

I'm a fan of returning to the gold standard. The up and down cycles of the economy are driven by meddling, so fixing money to a relatively stable commodity makes sense.

>the logical endpoint is one individual owning everything
>what's the fucking point in that
the same could be stated about democracy.
Vote with your money and your ballets.

That and the fact she's already more Presidential and a more legitimate leader than the last great white hope, and all this at 29. Imagine the things she's going to do in the next 50+ years.

Zero sum game insinuates no innovation. No gained efficiency.
You missed the whole point.
Capitalism breeds innovation. Period. Where did all the tech come from to rebuild Russia after the Soviet union broke? I'll give you one guess.

Way to answer my question so I could answer yours, dipshit
I still don't really know what you mean, but it seems like you are referring to the "right to free speech', which I understand is taken as some gospel by you Yanks to be obnoxious to each other. And it doesn't actually mean anything anyway. There are many things you can say in America that will get you arrested or censored on all manner of platforms.

You misspelled medals, everything after this is dismissed because you're a fucking retard. Welcome to the internet.

great point there, dipshit

Let me know when America is a Democracy.

I agree with this, 15 dollar minimum wage, 15 dollar maximum wage, everyone gets paid the same, all profits go to government.

Attached: BlkXsKMCUAA9y4Q.jpg (440x599, 47K)

Fuck yeah.

Gold and silver worked wonders for the middle class the last three times we switched back to them from currency in our nation's short, short history.
The booms aren't quite as parabolic as with currency, but the busts aren't either.

kek

there are a lot of things stopping most people from getting anywhere near the 1%, most probably yourself included.
But you've been brainwashed into thinking you too can be a billionaire if you just keep working hard enough at your 3 jobs while the ruling class laugh at you

Actually faggot. I didn't misspell Metal....

I used the wrong medal... Good try though....

/thread

You intended to use the word medal but typed metal, you misspelled it faggot, nice try though.

Socialised medicine works in pretty much every place it has been used
But it sounds like you're more of a libertarian, which I find to be a daft concept

>clearly because their success is oppressing everyone else
How so, exactly?

>I will say they need to stop getting tax breaks and loop holes in tax laws though.
Actually, a lot of that "tax aviodance" myth comes from demonstrable supply side economics. When taxes are high, the rich invest in tax-safe investments so they keep more of their money working for them. Conversely, when taxes are low, the rich invest far more into more taxed areas, because the percentage is low enough that the investment still makes them money.

Rich people may buy stupid bullshit personally, but the vast majority of their wealth comes from investments that pay them back. Wealth begets wealth, etc., and the rich do NOT like their money going to waste (i.e. taxes).

Thus, when taxes are lower, more taxable investments are made (into businesses, company cars, etc. etc. etc.), and thus MORE tax revenue is realized when tax rates are lower.

And this extends to the individual, as well. In fact, money is far better managed by private entities than it is by government entities; this is proven throughout history. When businesses and individuals are allowed to keep more of their paycheck, it creates economic growth. When you forcibly take huge percentages of their paycheck, they're less incentivized to earn, and far less likely to spend in highly-taxed areas.

Further, "the 1%" is a boogeyman... There have always been the ultra-wealthy, ultra-powerful among us... They've always been there, and they always will. Just as we saw with the Soviet Union; they rose up and overthrew their rich figureheads, and then made themselves the rich figureheads... And really, we see that in every government, to include our own...

"myth"

found the jew

the same could not be said of democracy... what is that even supposed to mean? Democracy doesn't imply any one economic system

found the communist

Yeah, it not only keeps the government's hands off the rudder (central control of the economy just doesn't work), but it also puts an end to artificial inflation, which means savings retain their value, which helps the middle class.

Graduate high school.
Dont have kids out of wedlock.
Keep a steady job.
Only three things you have to do to give your kids a better chance at class mobility.
There is immense class mobility in this country. My parents started lower middle class, now in 1%

Nice try greenburg, but Trump called the 1% out when he bragged about his $0 tax forms. If HIS fucking retard oranage ass can figure out, it damn well is being used by the rest.

Yeah, when. Your nation is $21 Trillion in national debt and has a further $200 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, why not add another $40 Trillion in medical for every US Citizen/resident & illegal immigrant.

Attached: Clara-Lindblom.01.jpg (850x1061, 124K)

>ends artificial inflation
>helps the middle class

which is why we don't use it

I don't think you are correct on any of those points. Zero Sum Game makes no implication about innovation.
Where did all the innovation come from that enabled the Russians to beat the US to put a man in space?
It's not an argument that follows.

the fact that illegal immigrants are included is a problem

Most high income people don't earn a "wage", they have salaries, other benefits, etc so it's a silly statement to begin with.

yeah because the ONLY options are unchecked capitalism and communist dictatorship, nothing in the middle ever happened anywhere huh?

We need to put all the monetary experts out of business, it's just a way of making money off the economy, while hurting things for real people

Humans aren't capable of equality and balance, THOUSANDS of years of society should tell you this.

I'm not a libertarian. Why do the middle class and wealthy from those countries come to the US for surgery? Therapies? Treatments?
Governments cant force innovation. Risk taking and being clever does. Why do the procedures performed in those countries cost as little as they do? Because someone in a different country is taking risks and working the cutting edge to make them efficient and profitable. What is the incentive for a government to be profitable or even balanced? There is none.

I'll make as much money as I damn well can and fuck the poor fucks. There's still a ton of opportunity in this country and if you're too stupid to take advantage of it, tough shit.

Why not just make people pay for services they use, but put basic limits on the price range.

they are already limited by the fact that they don't pay enough so now they can't sell their products to you.
ford managed to solve this problem by paying more his employee

No, the laws need fixed lol

Leave the experts and what not in place, the corruption is the enabling of those loop holes and shit that let them pay no taxes. If you give a single human with no other motives a chance to keep his shiny and get the food, he's going to do it. Put motivation and social pressure to do so behind that? we'll work tragedies.

yeah, fuck tons of people do this and still find life a daily struggle
Bully for your parents, but don't assume everyone else gets the same opportunities as them - it's clear that most don't.
Unsuccessful = lazy or 'bad' is a bit of nasty propaganda to keep inequality high

Because the profit motive causes people to become mindless slaves to capital.

>quibbling about semantics
You know what was said, kike.

A private central bank has WAY more control over our economy than the government would ever dream of.
But yeah. That's the gist. Stop paying interest to private hands through taxation, stop currency manipulation, stop inflation

Exactly how do European countries manage it without imploding then?

>Implying it's possible to work hard enough to justifiably and ethically earn a billion dollars

This is exactly what's wrong with everything in America.

Money is not success.

What a trite, defeatist statement

Again, this ignores every innovation that doesn't happen in the US

As a white dude who grew up in a poor white family in West Virginia, it's definitely on me to make or break my life. If I had the motivation, I could have my CCNA and bump myself up quite a bit in the money making arena but I'm lazy and complacent.

Because they are imploding...

>Everybody can start a business
What is it like being this naive?

The US or other non communist nations, that's correct.
When capitalism has been employed in the US, diversification of wealth was far more real than today. What we have now isn't even close to capitalism.

selfish and short-sighted attitude
you may reflect differently if you become seriously ill and lose everything you own to medical debt

Yeah, it kinda is.

and you're proposing utopia which is the dream of a blathering fool. humans CAN'T do what you dreamers want them to do. There will -never- be equality and perfect living conditions for 100% of populations. We're pre-programmed to strive to always be on top, we may get close, but inevitably it will fall through because a group of individuals will ruin it for everyone.

Yep, why not? It would be a start

sure you could, but unlikely that you would end up anywhere near the 1%, just like 99% of everyone

because then the corporations can't inflate prices to pay their investors and CEOs more money, increasingly every so many years.

Honestly. Besides most of the really rich people did so through stock not income

nonsense, in what way are european countries imploding due to the cost of their healthcare?

No, it's an important fundamental difference. Wages and salaries function very differently in terms of security and incentives. Failing to recognize that suggests that the person in OP has limited perspective on what constitutes income and how compensation works.

As myself? No, I definitely won't end up 1%ing my life, or any life times. I don't have the drive and psycopathy required to make those drives. Yes, Psycopathy because many many many 1%ers such as CEOs have been revealed to have at least slightly psychopathic tendencies.

Holy fuck there are people this dumb???

Really? Cause all the guys I know that did those three things are doing pretty well, at least.
I've done nothing special, dont even try that hard, and I make plenty for myself. Got my own house, drive the car I want to drive, eat steak and lobster every night of the week if I want. I'm not rich by any means. As soon as you stop blaming everyone else for your mistakes, you might move in a better direction. No one give enough of a shit about you to hold you down.

explain to him why he's wrong, don't be another shit poster.

I'm confused.. can innovation exist without capitalism in place or not? It sounds like a bit of goalpost moving.
I will counter that limited capitalism with social programs in place is perfectly capable of fostering innovation.
Don't make the naive mistake of assuming that someone who complains of unchecked capitalism and inequality is advocating for some kind of soviet communism - that's a propaganda message

The main problem is the super rich are becoming rich off the backs of the everyday person. pay em what they're owed or fuck off.

Bzzzzzz WRONG!!!

idk, ask the cave man who learned to make fire and the one who came up with the concept of weapons.

Return on investments, either in forms of capital gains or dividends. You don't just put money in a bank and wait.

I guess you are in the group of individuals trying to ruin things then.
Anyway, i don't accept your nihilistic viewpoint. It sounds like it comes from a teenager who just read Nietzsche for the first time.
You can recognise the failings of the past and try to do better - or you can just give up and die in a gutter. I know which I prefer

Which is the minority. Cutting edge shit in Europe yeah, cutting edge shit in Asia yeah, but acting like the US hasn't played an instrumental role in the world development since the 1880s seems disingenuous.
I mean, have it your way I guess, every nation is moving towards larger centralized governance and more and more currency debt to private banks. Were all fucked and it's too late to do anything about it. No one will stand up to the masters

It's actually been shown if Trump had done just that, he'd be richer than he is now on interest. So, yes, yes you do.

Yep, we don't need to do that, so let's vote for politicians who platform the opposite of that

It's an ugly, unfair world. Always has been, always will be. Are you going to somehow clean up the inequalities this year?

so we really shouldn't encourage them

Leave the basement floor a while mommy said your tendies agree ready

It's none of your business if someone needs a 100 million or not.

No, I'm talking about monetary policy, not fiscal policy. Stop letting them play with the economy.

No, I actually am quite asocial. I go to work, talk to people in a cordial manner when social interactions are needed and then go home and keep to myself, aside from shit posting on Yea Forums when the mood hits me.

You really don't do much history class, do you?

No, it hasn't. It's been argued that if he put his money in the S&P 500 and waited, he'd be richer now based on capital gains, which is exactly what I said. That comparison is flawed anyways, since it looks at returns on the initial investment and ignores his expenses since (it just compares final net worth to gross investment value).

I encourage anyone to get to a point in their life where they feel content and happy. I don't condone blatant greed because a single human doesn't have any need for tens of billions of dollars in their bank. I won't STOP some one from doing that, but I don't agree that you should live a life that makes you feel that empty inside, you're doing something wrong at that point IMO

Different user, but that's very few. The US is the world leader in medical innovations, and it's not close. When people look at medical costs, they tend to ignore that, and also ignore the other medical benefits the US subsidizes for the rest of the world.

He couldn't tho because the money he has is tied up with real estate and comes from sketchy Russian billionaires. I wouldn't doubt his main investors gave him money to launder through rent and leases.

it is a naive position - there are many reasons why someone can work hard and not succeed. A disability, institutional bias, care of dependants, etc etc.
Just because YOU are doing ok, it doesn't mean everyone is, and it certainly doesn't mean they are all lazy

>What is it like being this naive?
As long as you're aware of the limits of your abilities, then yes, anyone can start a business.
If you're constantly defeatist, like you, then obviously that won't happen.

try again

it wouldnt hurt me if the rich got regular human money

billionaires aren't on payrolls, so they wouldnt be affected by max wage

stocks, banks, same fundemantal difference. You put money in, it gains interest and you cash out, except in stocks you risk losing it all, which makes it legal gambling.

Innovation can exist under communism. A brilliant Soviet rocket scientist is going to make strides in rocketry with or without an all powerful overlord government. It just isn't going to happen on the scale that free markets can provide. That much seems fairly obvious to me.
Federal spending should be limited to those things outlined in the constitution. All other spending is a state issue. Social programs can be implemented at state level.

as in if he had gotten that inital "small" loan of $1 million, he immediately threw it into an investment, instead of going bankrupt a million times and scamming the economy in some way to keep his own profits while fucking everyone else.

not sure what point you are trying to make now. it is clear that capitalism is not a constraint for the presence of innovation. And putting some limits on unrestrained capitalism will not limit innovation.

Are you willfully being this ignorant and stupid? The point to anyone with a 3rd grade reading comprehension is we were innovating before the age of currency.

Institutional bias, like the fact that I had to score higher on my college entrance exams than other gender/races?
Sorry, I dont buy it.

Innovation and technology start off generally to make some sort of task easier for the human mind and body.

The wheel wasnt invented for capital gain, I mean it was later used for it, but its initial creation wasnt.

>asian detected

I'm not discounting the amount of innovation out of the US, I just don't think that unlimited capitalism is the reason why it exists.And there will still be innovation when future US governments place limits on capitalism and introduce social programs.

That is a naive idea. Stocks do not gain "interest" from a valuation or taxable view, and while from an ex ante viewpoint you could argue the uncertainty is gambling, you are holding the value of a real asset in most cases (barring some biotech coinflip or derivatives) rather than holding the value of a chance at payout. I would encourage you to learn more about the topic (from somewhere other than Yea Forums).

not him but
>tfw minorities have to score lower than whites

me and many others will push it in that direction
I don't see why we get a time limit

it's not, and we really haven't contributed much except the atom bomb to the world and walked around flexing our military muscle at anyone who bats an eye at us for the hundred years or so.

We're like 43rd or something in world education, it's pathetic.

We havnt had unlimited capitalism ever. I would never advocate zero federal intervention in the world of business.
All I advocate is the permanent banishment of fractional reserve banking. That's the boogey man in the closet for me. All fingers point to the currency in my opinion.

I have a reasonable grasp on world history - I haven't been in a 'class' for about 20 years which I think illustrates a major difference between us

It's not naive, it is an interest of sorts, maybe not literally dictionary defined but it functions the same. Money go in, money go up, more money come back to wallet.

LOL THE PEOPLE YOU KNOW DONT WORK AS HARD AS THE PEOPLE I KNOW ALSO CAPS AND GO KYS FUCKING NIGGER

Attached: 1557713698991.png (1138x640, 349K)

That you're dumber? You actually have this hallmark disbelief that humans on the whole are actually good intentioned individuals that wouldn't screw some one else without a second thought to get high on the social totem pole by some means? Keep dreaming, i'll stay in reality, history shows that we can't do what you "believe" in.

it would be all fine and dandy, if someone stockpiling money didn't result in less to go around for everyone else. That's my problem with it, not just the fact that they are greedy and empty.

I believe there should be NO max wage or net worth or something like that but the idea that some one doesn't -need- 100m isn't wrong. I could be handed 1 million right now at 31 years of age, throw it into a high interest savings and live off that interest for the rest of my life.

One of the most sane responses itt

The two points aren't seperated by much.

the US has only existed for a few hundreds years, every innovation prior to that is 'very few'?
Look, I know you are talking in the last 100 years or so, and I don't deny the amount of innovation the US does. I don't think it would stop if healthcare was socialised.

samefag

Different user, but the virtue of capitalism is that it's very efficient at allocating resources, i.e. money. It's creative destruction at work -- companies that fail are erased, and the resources that would be spent on them are shifted to other more productive areas. Centrally planned economies lack that, and as a result a hideous amount of resources get wasted. That's why market economies have been such a huge success.

The weakness of capitalism is that it's purely driven by immediate profit. It's poor at handling externalities (like pollution), social aims, charitable endeavors, long term planning, and so on. That's why governments impose regulations, and fund basic research and safety nets. But in general, it's a good idea to leave as much as possible in the hands of the market economy, because it's far more efficient than the alternatives.

This would be more powerful is they guy was clean cut, wearing and wearing a high end suit

We dont use money. We use currency. Huge difference.
The only difference that matters really.

We're talking about the current state of healthcare, I don't see how who was producing innovations hundreds of years ago has the slightest relevance.

It doesn't function the same. For one, unless you're dealing with a bond there's no defined payout rate (dividend payments can be stable but need to be announced beforehand and often vary with results). For two, the payment amount is not based on the money you have in but on the discrete number of units/shares/notes held. For three, related to (2) you can't simply add to the pile as you receive a payout in cash, unless you're invested in a company with a reinvestment plan (or a brokerage that pools payments and facilitates it). It would be more accurate to say that interest, dividends, and other payment streams are all related mechanisms rather than investment income being the same as interest.

'You shouldn't be able to make more money than me because it will hurt my feelers and I'm afraid of applying myself and working hard.'

Umm use Google and see.

Attached: Screenshot_20190704-022324.png (1601x2048, 491K)

Then explain how you STOP people from succeeding. Prison? Death camps? Beatings and torture? Please enlighten us.

I never understood why some americans are happy with State government but not Federal. It's all government.
But yeah anyway, it would be great if states started implementing social programs

Nations like France & Germany are packed full of humans who are parasites upon their host nation and have driven up national debt of said respective nations via welfare & state sponsored health care.

but it does. Money in, money up, more money in wallet. You can stretch it out with all the jew logic you want but it is effectively the same. You're just playing the lottery with stocks for a faster, immediate jump in that money versus a savings account at a bank that gradually grows over time.

Because that would not solve anything at all. It would only affect the well-off-but-not-quite-rich and rich people (like company owners) would simply find different ways of moving their money out of the company. Like establishing and buying holding companies and moving company profits there as "reinvestment".
Which, btw, is more tax efficient in most countries. Which is why tax havens work so well.

The most sensible solution is establishing reasonable minimum wages and enforce legislation which hinders (legal) tax evasion. Taxes for the rich are generally high enough in most developed countries. It's just that when you have a bunch of money at your disposal, employing methods like holding companies or using tax havens becomes way cheaper than just paying your full income tax.

Also: How to handle money should be taught in schools. There are a BUNCH of people who don't seem to realize that even with their relatively low income, they could easily alter their spending habits and invest long term for a safer future.
There is a reason why lottery winners are usually worse off in a matter of years.

Yeah I know, but how is it in counter to anything I said? That's what I don't get

There is a maximum wage. It's however much people are willing to pay for the services you provide.

Can all of you go be poor and cry someplace else?

I very much doubt that, sounds like a bit of racist propaganda to me.

Government funded schools are doing so well guy. Federal government always know what's best to do, and always results in the best outcome. Sure does outperform all the big innovators. I can tell by the federal debt and deficit spending that they're the pinnacle of efficiency and purity.

I believe OP is asking why the government has not set a maximum amount that one can legally earn.

Once again, I encourage you to learn more off of Yea Forums. Income from stock in the long run is not due to immediate jumps but rather long-term growth and payments in the form of dividends. While investing in what are essentially coinflips (will this experimental biotech actually work) might fit your definition, investing in a company with assets and a track record is not the same and is hence priced differently.

Yes, it is, cuz you said you -need- currency to be motivated to innovate as the human species.

The best secondary (mandated) education in the world is government run. US schools are literal trash on an aggregate level. Perhaps there is something to learn.

sure, I won't argue with that. I still don't think that unlimited capitalism is necessary for further innovation. I would counter that if an innovation's only worth is capital gain, would we really miss it?

and again, keep on jewing my man. It's the same, get over it XD

Different user, but I can explain that. Part of it's checks and balances. By having strong state governments, there's someone to push back against the excesses of the federal government. It's checks and balances. The other main reason is responsiveness. A large, distant central government has a lot of people to care about, it's hard to get an attention. More local governments are better at dealing with the concerns of individuals. Of course even states aren't particularly good at that anymore, they're so big. But it's still more responsive than the federal government.

Why should there be one?

Government becomes functional when you invest in competitive wages for government positions. Instead of, say, spending billions to buy products and projects from the industry because it is somehow legal for them to bribe you for that.

State governments are "slightly" more accountable to their constituents. The constitution outlines what the feds have authority over. Anything not explicitly listed is a state right. The feds involvement in all these bullshit social issues in a big part of the problem. Federal government shouldn't have anything to do with social issues. Those are for states to deal with.

I get your frustration, but despite my arguing for checks and limits on capitalism, it's disingenuous to imply the US doesn't innovate a lot. You should, you have a fuck-ton of people

It's common, published knowledge.

We voted Trump into office and our alternative was Hillary. We don't have the national IQ to innovate anymore.

I think you're probably in line with me on the banking so I won't argue that.
But I would always argue for moves away from unlimited capitalism rather than towards it.

This

It's a fact that minorities don't need to score as high as whites to get the same end result.

Except right now there’s a curve inversion so long-term investments are actually coming up short of short-term investments.

This happens before every recession.

Save your money until the market tanks out here in a year or a year in a half and invest when it’s low.

Doesn't the same logic apply towards smaller forms of government as well: local governments are more accountable than states, and so on? Why is the state the optimal size for your viewpoint (beyond simple precedent)?

So we need more, higher paid government officials? They've done so well with all the money they've stolen so far, let's give them more.

>The constitution outlines what the feds have authority over. Anything not explicitly listed is a state right.
Slightly incorrect -- anything not listed is reserved for the states OR the people.

Though the 9th and 10th amendments are more ignored than followed these days, so they've been largely nullified.

No one railing against capitalism has ever seen it.

Different user again, but states have teeth in the Constitution. Local municipalities do not.

Not him but:

Yeah, if you are very intelligent and innovative, your will be hard pressed to find more opportunities than in the US. The, say, US universities specifically push their most elite students.
But if you are not the next big shot, you are an afterthought.

Better pay and oversight has produced better administrative results in places like Singapore, though the newer generations of officials are less competent lately.

some people screw each other and some people try to help each other. That is the world.
I'm not sure what part of trying to limit capitalistic growth and apply social programs seems so impossible to you - it already is like that in many parts of the world.

>or the people

you poor, disillusioned simpleton

Affirmative action has been on the books for quite some time, are you this fucking dense?

You poor, dispirited troll.

Because that would cut off incentive to progress past a certain point. If you cut off the max wage at say...10mil in profit a year, you wouldnt have an iphone in your pocket.

>have teeth in the Constitution
>beyond simple precedent
Not what I'm asking. If you were to reconstruct the system today, would the state be the optimal level of government for the issues the previous posted spoke about? He was making an argument based on size, that the state was more efficient than federal, but that logic doesn't suggest an optimum, just that smaller is better, so why not even smaller?

What kind of mental gymnastics are you on user hahahaha you really are a disillusioned fool.

Yep, so let's try and limit the super rich's ability to stockpile more.Tax them properly. Apply an upper limit to possible earnings from whatever source

It's called a reality check, U.S. citizens are so arrogant and self entitled they actually belive their votes matter.

Join this discord... Why the FUCK not???
discordapp.com\invite\mhHPe8D
GO GO GO

-3xw

Taxes don't limit their income, if they're truly rich because they make money, then it won't limit their potential growth, they'll just be paying taxes like the fucking rest of us.

I'm obviously not talking about legislators, dude.
I'm talking about positions like teachers, managerial offices, public health care,...
The reason schools in countries like Norway outperform everyone else is because they actually spend money and competitive wages attract quality personnel.

I--big govt--------------------------------small govt--I
Dems, reps, socialists, communists (socialists), fascists are all on the same end of the spectrum. Authoritarian states are antithetical to personal liberty. Sound money and harsh penalties for marriage of state and business would go a long way in my opinion. The overt way that corporations write legislation is mind blowing to me. Legislators convicted of lobbying, bribing, any connection other than investigatory should be punishable by death.

You don't need to apply an upper limit to earnings to achieve your objective, you just need far more capable tax design to limit loopholes and actually ensure that the biggest earners pay what is expected. The most successful should still earn the most, that isn't mutually exclusive.

This is the sad truth. Big money decides who the top two candidates will be. They only give the illusion of any kind of choice. Hence why primaries and debates are rigged.

Singapore is an emerging economy. Lots of things change in that setting. They'll level out within the next 50 years. I hope the shit show keeps rolling that long and I'll be dead.

Top 1% already pays more than the bottom 90%

taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

All of what you say is correct in economic terms, but one only has to look at the current state of wealth inequality and living standards of the poor to say the balance has to change, maybe not by a lot, but it has to change.

You realize we wouldnt have steel, oil, railways, computers, smartphones, air planes, or cars if we capped earnings like you fucking communists want. YOU WILL STOP INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE TO GROW INDUSTRY. fucking idiots.

Found the 1%er.

Smaller is better. In general, it's a good practice to devolve as much decision making as possible to the lowest possible level. Central control is the dream of people who want to impose their whims on others; decentralized control gives people autonomy and self-determination.

The problem in the US is that any power local governments have is almost entirely at the whim of the state. And combined with the progressive erosion of federalism, and the advent of mass media which makes every local issue national, we're 150 years into the centralization of power.

>first bullet point
>the gross paid 10% in taxes
>i'm taxed a base of 43%
>user fails to see how the math doesn't add.

Yeah, what ever you say jew.

I mean it's only in the last couple of post that it's clear to me you are talking about healthcare only - but I still don't think that socialising healthcare will stop innovation. Drug companies will still be able to research and patent new treatments and charge for them.

I would never argue that a state government is an "efficient" means of administration, but when the social issues are dealth with at state level, the effects of the policies are more localized and felt. If a state is taxed to pay for a social issue, the state administration is going to be forced to listen to its constituents. Harder to hide in a far away place when you live in the same neighborhood.
Not that any of that matters. No one gives a fuck anymore, including myself.

The problem isn't that there are rich people, it's that the mega rich (and corps) can limitlessly buy government officials now. It used to be called bribery and was illegal. Now it's called lobbying.

Or none of those companies would have monopolies because running a megacorp wouldn't be worth the effort?

That wasn't a reality check, it was your autism requiring you to turn every discussion into a discussion about the two or three issues you can keep in your mind. We weren't taking about votes, we were talking about Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I hate jews as much as the next sensible person. But you have to be careful about how heavily you tax people. We make a fuck ton in taxes as it is. The problem is fucking spending. So much is wasted on bullshit.

"It's okay that a larger portion of my smaller pay check is taxed, so long as their exorbitant wages make them a demographic the government wants to appease the most."

You don't STOP people from succeeding
You STOP people from hoarding money by taxing them and limiting earnings
Nice strawman tho

Defending House of Morgan.
Wew kid.

OK, can I have a non-racist's opinion please?

No, it was a reality check, jew

and the working class pays a vast majority of it.

You won't get through to leftist/Marxist types, they seem to think that someone who runs a massive company and pays $200 million in tax isn't paying his "fair share" if the percentage is less than theirs.
But don't forget that these leftist/Marxist types are often useless & they are aware of this, they want their free shit and won't take responsibility for their actions/situation.
Leftists blame other people for their junk degree and student debt.

Attached: Screenshot_20190704-022634.png (1188x2048, 1.33M)

I didn't, I was arguing against that

We use currency, not money. The fact that you dont know the difference shows how valuable your opinion is.

cont.

By the own citation provided, they only pay 10 fucking percent of their shit, how do you defend that by saying "oh you can't tax them too hard" when the working class gets taxed anywhere between 38% to 52% of their income?

So in other words you want to encourage people to do less? Tax 100% above what, 100k? Create a nation of people unwilling and unable to strive for a better life? Sounds like a great plan, comrade!

>reduce CEO net pay drastically
>this will somehow cause the CEO to spontaneously spend his now greatly reduced income back into the business

Attached: 700.jpg (200x313, 10K)

because we still have some freedoms left.

I'm not saying you can' tax them any more, but too many idiots are calling for 90-100% taxes at certain limits, which would stifle the economy.

>Calling people humans who act as parasites upon their host nation, when they are actually acting as such and the numbers exist to prove it.

Attached: Screenshot_20190704-022851.png (1269x2048, 1.53M)

There are Japanese air line CEOs who take pay cuts to make sure their employees don't suffer from a dip in profits. You know where that doesn't happen? In the U.S.

free market, think about, there DEF is a max wage... see if your employer will pay you more

I am not calling for that much, I feel they should be subjected to the same tax-setting parameters that the rest of the working class is subject to.

>Socialised medicine works

Attached: NHS.jpg (335x236, 95K)

I mean, you're not completely wrong.

Okay, what are the living standards of the poor? Because every time there's a discussion, someone chimes in about how it's cruel that all these people are starving.

Except that's completely false. Nobody starves in the US, except through rare criminal actions. The problem with the poor isn't the availability of calories, or most of the commonly raised issued. It's things like opportunity, economic dead zones, transportation, even the availability of healthy foods like fresh produce (though really more a culture change issue than an availability issue). And that's the problem with nearly all discussions about the rich and the poor, they miss the real issues because they're focused on the wrong things.

The wealth disparity is another issue that's riddled with ignorance. Look at the first post in the thread, proposing a max wage. Which doesn't solve anything, because the really rich don't make their money from wages, they make their money from investments.

You know where that is irrelevant? And more than likely a marketing trick?
How hard is it for a CEO to paint a picture of generosity and pull money sideways through a company? Not that hard you gullible fuck

Oh well that settles this issue then. Where can I go and turn in all of my savings?

I won't disagree - I simply said you can't tax them too much because then they will just move their corps to places like Panama or other tax havens, as many have already done.

It would be fair if company owners would actually reinvest their profits, like elephants have been chanting for decades. Which doesn't happen.
Also the issue isn't really fairness. The issue is that a functional economy distributes its generated wealth proportionally. Which it doesn't. Hence the ever-worsening GINI.

>human decency is a marketing trick
>human decency is irrelevant in U.S.
fucking jews

They do that already though

didn't know you were a 1%er

Different user, but the national debt in those countries is caused by an extensive social welfare system. They've been spending more than they take in, in taxes.

Though while their debt vs. GNP is comparable or even higher than the US, the US has a worst fiscal gap, which is the real measure of debt. (The official debt ignores promised future expenditures.)

It's a complicated mess. I'm not sure anyone has a magic answer.

Agreed.

shut up and keep shit posting, I'm bored just like the rest of you.

FUCK THE 1%

Amazon almost entirely reinvests its profits, that's why it pays almost no taxes

I'll fuck a hot 1%er, you can have the fuglies

you can have them, talk about a ball of mental illness XD

I'll take a down to earth 5-6/10 any day, assuming i ever get in it for the long term... hell, nah for any term, bitches be cray

Great anecdote, user. Especially because it is the company most well known for its horrendous wages and working conditions.

Every empirical study conducted on trickle down theory has concluded that additional profits from tax cuts are pocketed, rather than reinvested.
This has been evident pretty much immediately after its inception.

But yeah. The rich guys telling you that giving them tax cuts is in your interest totally have your back, user.