Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > Politics Board

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 11-10-2017, 12:28 AM   #51
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
 
Hypoxia's Avatar
 
Hypoxia is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Llareggub, just around the corner
Posts: 23,556
Still flunking civics. Let's go point for point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coachdb18 View Post
In the same way that justice is blind in the eyes of the law, so too should be taxation. It is none of the governments concern who makes how much.
That's theology with no constitutional basis. Govt's have long done all they could to know as much as they could about their subjects. If you want privacy, stay invisible... in a cave, to avoid the ubiquitous surveillance Dubya's gang gifted us with.

Quote:
Taxation is STRICTLY for the purpose of funding the NEEDS of the government, and there is absolutely no moral component to that. NONE.
More theology with no constitutional basis. Congress is empowered to raise and spend money as it sees fit. As for the NEEDS of gov't, do those include massive military programs for weapons systems that don't work?

Quote:
Government should never try to legislate morality, any more than it should ever try and tax for morality.
That's quite some alternate reality you've got there. Theft, fraud, perjury, rape, and murder are immoral; therefore gov't should stay neutral, right?

Let's try this: Early biblical translators rendered from Hebrew as 'witch' words for only jugglers, herb doctors, gamblers etc. One prominent biblical injunction should read "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." By a moral code, those dumping toxic wastes should be executed. If gov't doesn't enforce that code, the poisoner is rewarded (they made or saved money by killing people).
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2017, 10:55 AM   #52
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
 
dan_c00000 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnODay View Post
At worst, Foxconn backs out of the deal
You're getting owned massively and it's not even hard anymore. Your wall of text response doesn't make any sense. Consider the following:

What has Wisconsin already spent to lure Foxconn to the state? Did Foxconn lobby Wisconsin and Walker illegally?

Foxconn has promises this before not only in PA (which you keep ignoring because you're getting ruined by it) but in Vietnam, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

What the Politifact article fails to mention is that a Taiwanese billionaire has come in to play fairy god mother. Do you really trust that guy to make good on something Wisconsin got dupped into? If so you're a bigger moron than I thought you were.

Finally, look at the actual minimum number of jobs Foxconn has to actually provide in order to avoid clawbacks. They're hilarious low. They only have to provide 1,300 jobs in the next three years and Wisconsin will be on the hook.

You and you're alt just got fucking destroyed. Let's close this thread because you've gotten wrecked on taxes and Walker's bullshit. You should really call it a day. As always,

  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2017, 11:54 AM   #53
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 38,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
Still flunking civics. Let's go point for point.

That's theology with no constitutional basis. Govt's have long done all they could to know as much as they could about their subjects. If you want privacy, stay invisible... in a cave, to avoid the ubiquitous surveillance Dubya's gang gifted us with.

More theology with no constitutional basis.
Said the English flunkie......

Definition of theology

plural theologies
1 :the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially :the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2 a :a theological theory or system Thomist theology a theology of atonement
b :a distinctive body of theological opinion Catholic theology
3 :a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology


And I'm pretty sure it was Obama who took the chance to kill the PATRIOT act (the one you and the other lefties cried HITLER!! over..) and not only re-upped it but expanded it so he could go drone strike US citizens without due process. Not Bush.

Not that any of that would bother you, because it's only bad when (R)'s do it.

Your partisan (D)iaper needs changing grandma.....best of luck with that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2017, 09:28 PM   #54
DawnODay
Literotica Guru
 
DawnODay's Avatar
 
DawnODay is offline
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: In the East
Posts: 2,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnODay View Post
Oh my, I almost feel sorry for you. You just made yourself look all the more foolish by your ignorance of the facts. (Again, I urge you to get your news from non-partisan sources like I do [see above].)

You wrote: "Walker lied about the number of jobs." The problem with your statement is that the number did not come from Walker, he simply was reporting Foxconn's own estimate. The 13,000 job figure came from Foxconn itself, and they stand by it yet today. Crushed ya!

You wrote: "Wisconsin basically forked out $3 billion dollars before the place is even built." This is completely wrong. It is the biggest lie being told by those who would rather see Walker fail, even if it costs jobs to the urban poor of southeastern Wisconsin.

The three billion dollars are tax breaks, not payments. They only happen if Foxconn is actually up, running, and employing a large number of people.
The $3 billion wouldn’t be a gift.... That’s the maximum amount the state would pay Foxconn, and only if the company spends roughly $18 billion -- about $9 billion for payroll and $9 billion in capital investments.
Read that closely. The 3 billion dollar credits don't come into play until Foxconn: 1. builds a huge plant (Can you imagine the boon to the economy just from building a nine billion dollar factory?); and 2. have paid nine billion dollars in payroll (Nine billion! Do you realize how many jobs it will take to pay that kind of wages and salaries? Like, maybe, 13,000?). In short, the deal is structured that Wisconsin will be receiving more in tax revenues from the Foxconn's total economic development and its necessary ancillary effects than the tax breaks it is giving Foxconn. If Foxconn hasn't produced the kind of economic development that does that, it surely will not have reached the milestones that trigger the tax breaks.

At worst, Foxconn backs out of the deal (as the Left keeps saying it will). In that case, Wisconsin pays nothing and so there is no loss. On the other hand, if the development goes forward, the incentives are structured so that Wisconsin is still in a revenue positive position even as it cuts the amount of taxes Foxconn pays. Either way, it does not have any negative impact on revenue and so cannot "blow a whole" in the budget. Those who claim that it will either do not understand how taxation and state budgeting works, or they do and they are intentionally misleading poor, uninformed readers like you. Either way: Crushed ya!

Really, please, I love a good debate with an informed opponent. You are not that. You get all your information from partisan opinion sources, not from real news sources like NPR or the WSJ. Get yourself informed and you might actually become a challenge to crush.
I put up the post to which you seem to think you replied, because none of the points in the supposed reply actually contradicts, or even undermines, what I wrote in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_c00000 View Post
....

What has Wisconsin already spent to lure Foxconn to the state? Did Foxconn lobby Wisconsin and Walker illegally?
You ask cryptically: "What has Wisconsin already spent to lure Foxconn to the state?" I answer factually: Nothing (except maybe a bit for donuts and such at a few press conferences).

Even if this article from August had any basis in fact (which seems unlikely as no one has pressed for any investigation or prosecution), what does it have to do with anything that "Wisconsin already spent to lure Foxconn to the state"? (Which is essentially nothing, so far.) The article is about lobbying efforts by Foxconn and other contractors, so it would be they, and not the state, that did any spending. (It seems you do not understand what lobbying is or how it works.) The article says nothing about Wisconsin spending anything. Therefore, it does not support your false implication that Wisconsin has already given money to Foxconn (which it hasn't), and thus is irrelevant to these issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_c00000 View Post
Foxconn has promises this before not only in PA (which you keep ignoring because you're getting ruined by it) but in Vietnam, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

What the Politifact article fails to mention is that a Taiwanese billionaire has come in to play fairy god mother. Do you really trust that guy to make good on something Wisconsin got dupped into? If so you're a bigger moron than I thought you were.
Again, even if all this is true, so what? As I point out above, if Foxconn backs out, then Wisconsin is not on the hook for anything. In that case, Wisconsin does not pay one cent of the incentives.

You seem to think you address that point with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_c00000 View Post
Finally, look at the actual minimum number of jobs Foxconn has to actually provide in order to avoid clawbacks. They're hilarious low. They only have to provide 1,300 jobs in the next three years and Wisconsin will be on the hook.
Here you have simply misread the article. If you read the text, then you might better understand the graph. To receive and retain the $1.5 billion connected to job creation, they actually have to have reached 6,500 jobs by 2024, and maintain that level through 2032.

Are you thinking they get the whole $1.5 billion the day they open their doors? It's spread out across 15 years. Of course they don't have to hit the full amount of jobs in the first year. That would be unrealistic. As you point out, for the first six years of the contract, the numbers are lower. But if they have not hit 6,500 by year seven, and do not maintain that for the rest of the contract, then not only do they receive no more tax credits, they have to pay back the earlier ones they did receive.

Again, this is all structured this way so that Wisconsin is still in a revenue positive position even as it cuts the amount of taxes Foxconn pays. At no point will the amount of tax credits available to Foxconn exceed the revenue necessarily generated by it meeting the quotas that qualify it for those credits. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume, rather than intentionally misrepresenting these articles, you just are not that familiar with finance.

Let's put it in simple terms. One of three things can happen: 1) Foxconn backs out of the deal, in which case Wisconsin is not on the hook for any of the incentives; 2) Foxconn develops the $10 billion factory, but does not meet the employment quotas, in which case Wisconsin will have received more in revenues from the economic activities of building the factory than the $1.65 billion capital investment credit it will pay Foxconn over time, and it will owe nothing for the employment incentives; 3) Foxconn develops the $10 billion factory, and does meet the employment quotas, in which case Wisconsin will have received more in revenues from the economic activities of building the factory than the $1.65 billion capital investment credit it will pay Foxconn over time, and will have received more in revenues from the economic activities in the staffing of the factory than the $1.5 billion employment incentives it will pay Foxconn over time. In none of these scenarios is there any negative revenue impact to Wisconsin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_c00000 View Post
You and you're alt just got fucking destroyed. Let's close this thread because you've gotten wrecked on taxes and Walker's bullshit.
I'm not sure to what all this refers. Walker has lowered taxes every year he has been governor and yet always ended up with a surplus. He hasn't wrecked us at all. My Alt-Right thread has nothing to do with Wisconsin and is completely separate from any of this. It often seems you are just throwing everything you can think of against the wall to see what will stick. In this case, nothing you wrote or cited actually contradicted my original points. I'm not sure why, then, we should end the thread, unless it's because you conceed you have no actual reply to the facts about the finances of the Foxconn deal as explained above.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2017, 11:54 PM   #55
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 16,382
Keep plugging away Dawn the left is genetically predisposed to failure when it comes to applied economics. They're policy approach is always the use of force to achieve goals instead of reason and the tried and true. When they come up against failure the solution is always more force.

Utopian socialism is bound to collide with individual human action, that is the need for each man to apply his own reason to make economic calculations best suited to satisfy his individual ends. The one size fits all calculations of socialism sacrifices individual human action on the alter of the collective. It locks the individual into a universal conformity and intellectual regimentation that destroys the personal initiative and creativity so vital to growth and prosperity.

Free markets will always prevail against the regurgitated modern renditions of fossil Marxism, because they always turn out to be the same failed recipes for force, force against the very nature of man and the tried and true of his history.
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 01:15 AM   #56
Paendragon
AmPic and SRP Moderator
 
Paendragon's Avatar
 
Paendragon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 22,245
Until you start taking about long term capital gains tax, and the payroll tax cap, then the argument is pointless. My cousin is wealthy. Not by inheritance, he made his money. Now owns several businesses, one of which is mostly just a passion of his, not a money maker.

Anyway, here's my point. He doesn't collect a paycheck, really. His income (a good chunk of it) comes from investments and dividends. Long-term capital gains for someone in the top tax bracket fall to around 20%. Plus, lets not forget payroll taxes are capped out too.

His effective tax rate came out to about 21%.
__________________
On Kik if you have any questions:
ThePendragon

Words I wrote

Okay, and some pictures.

  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 05:49 AM   #57
oggbashan
Ancient writer
 
oggbashan's Avatar
 
oggbashan is offline
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Facing the sea.
Posts: 40,036
In recent decades the UK parliament has been arguing about taxing the rich.

This is from a 2017 opinion piece in the UK's Financial Times:


However we define the rich, we know one thing: they pay an awful lot of tax. The richest 1 per cent of income taxpayers pay over a quarter of all income tax; the top 10 per cent pay 60 per cent of the total.


What is NOW accepted political wisdom in the UK is that if you RAISE the tax percentage on 'the rich' the country actually gets LESS receipts in paid taxes. The 'rich' decide that it is better to pay creative accountants to reduce the tax liability than to pay the new, higher rate of tax.

IF the government LOWERS the tax rates on the rich - the rich pay MORE actual tax because it is no longer worth the effort to join tax avoidance schemes.
__________________


My Halloween Contest entries:

https://www.literotica.com/s/ghost-heels
https://www.literotica.com/s/laying-the-ghosts-of-war


Oggbashan's long list of stories
Jeanne D'Artois' few


electricblue66:
It's like [oggbashan] is writing for the third puffin over there by the sixth rock, when everyone else is an emperor penguin in the Antarctic, where there's tens of thousands of the bastards.

  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 08:10 AM   #58
PrincepsCyberius
Insert Witty Moniker Here
 
PrincepsCyberius's Avatar
 
PrincepsCyberius is offline
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: America's Dairyland
Posts: 3,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by tabt View Post
Personally, I'm not that agrieved by the fact that the 0.01% have so much and others don't. 'Equality' is pure utopia.
It's the power imbalance that concerns me.
Money gives them the potential ability to interfere with our lives via Politics, MassMedia and Economy.

And what motivates some of the millionaires or trillionaires to want to have even more money anyway, if not the Power Motive?
Given that they already have more than their descendants could spend in 10.000 livetimes.

You can't trust everybody not to abuse such enormous power.
You make a very good point, although I do not think it's universal. In some cases it is about power. Think of the Clintons and the way they have used the tens of millions in their foundation not for its stated purpose, but rather to line their own pockets and push Hillary's and Chelsea's careers.

In other cases, I think it's more about keeping score. I don't see Bill Gates as looking for personal power, but you know his ego is such that he revels in the wins he makes financially. It's a self-esteem thing, I think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tabt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by oggbashan View Post
In recent decades the UK parliament has been arguing about taxing the rich.

This is from a 2017 opinion piece in the UK's Financial Times:


However we define the rich, we know one thing: they pay an awful lot of tax. The richest 1 per cent of income taxpayers pay over a quarter of all income tax; the top 10 per cent pay 60 per cent of the total.


What is NOW accepted political wisdom in the UK is that if you RAISE the tax percentage on 'the rich' the country actually gets LESS receipts in paid taxes. The 'rich' decide that it is better to pay creative accountants to reduce the tax liability than to pay the new, higher rate of tax.

IF the government LOWERS the tax rates on the rich - the rich pay MORE actual tax because it is no longer worth the effort to join tax avoidance schemes.
Interesting facts.
Or maybe they might decide to invest in or become residents of countries with lower taxes or better tax avoidance schemes? Which would be another lose for their country.
The experience in the USA has been that meaningful tax cuts lead to increased government revenues. This happened in both the 1960s and the 1980s after tax overhauls that significantly reduced the top marginal rates. With the wealthy having more to spend and invest, there is greater economic activity. Because almost all taxation in the USA, at the federal, state, and local levels, is triggered by some sort of financial transaction (paying a wage, making a purchase, transferring real estate, selling a capital asset, etc.), the more economic activity you have, the more revenue goes into governmental coffers. Thus, high taxes, which suppress economic activity, lead paradoxically to lower revenues, and vice versa.

Like the UK, in the USA the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes. It varies from year to year, but the top 1% pay around 40% of the income taxes, and the top 50% (i.e., everyone above median income, so the "wealthy" half of the population) pay almost all federal income taxes. The other 50% pay essentially no income taxes or even, due to certain tax credits, receive more back in tax "refunds" than they actually paid in!

This last fact is one of the main arguments for proponents of a "flat tax." With 50% of the population not contributing to federal revenues, they have no "skin in the game" when it comes to federal spending, waste, or deficits. I'm not sure having them pay the tiny amount they would pay under most viable flat tax schemes would make much difference in that regard, but it certainly would be much fairer if more of the USA's working population paid into the federal treasury.

A flat tax remains progressive and fair. Think of a 20% flat tax with a $10,000.00 personal exemption. If a person is making $20,000.00 per year, he or she would pay $2,000.00 in tax. A person making $200,000.00 per year would pay $38,000.00 in tax. Thus the person making only ten times as much in income pays nineteen times as much as tax (this is because the more you make, the less tax savings you get from the exemption). That is very progressive and far more equitable than the current system.
__________________



"In this world, you must be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant."


--- "Elwood P. Dowd" in Harvey by Mary Chase.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 11:33 AM   #59
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
 
Hypoxia's Avatar
 
Hypoxia is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Llareggub, just around the corner
Posts: 23,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincepsCyberius View Post
You make a very good point, although I do not think it's universal. In some cases it is about power. Think of the Clintons and the way they have used the tens of millions in their foundation not for its stated purpose, but rather to line their own pockets and push Hillary's and Chelsea's careers.
Do you have evidence that any Clintons illegally withdrew money from the foundation for their personal use?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 11:39 AM   #60
pickelrick
Really Experienced
 
pickelrick is offline
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
Do you have evidence that any Clintons illegally withdrew money from the foundation for their personal use?
Yes and its a known fact also, don't be Clinton clone cult member!
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 11:42 AM   #61
pickelrick
Really Experienced
 
pickelrick is offline
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnODay View Post


Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?

- Alvin Lee, I'd Love to Change the World, (1971).

In other words:

The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.


I had a recent PM exchange here that I thought apropos to share in light of the current D.C. debate on tax reform. Because I have not consulted with my correspondent before sharing, I have redacted his name.



Comments?
No More Taxes ever, smaller government and the end of all social programs.

If the separation of church and state was used by the ACLU to get God out of our schools why is Muslim study's allowed , come on parents start suing the schools and kick old Moe-Ham and Ed outta your schools.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 12:14 PM   #62
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 61,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by pickelrick View Post
Yes and its a known fact also, don't be Clinton clone cult member!
Oh? Did they pay off fines and legal fees the way Trump did from his charity foundation?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 12:40 PM   #63
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
 
sr71plt's Avatar
 
sr71plt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mid-Atlantic, USA
Posts: 51,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by pickelrick View Post
If the separation of church and state was used by the ACLU to get God out of our schools why is Muslim study's allowed , come on parents start suing the schools and kick old Moe-Ham and Ed outta your schools.
Area studies and religious ceremonies aren't the same thing. Typical that your kind wouldn't want people to study Muslim culture in order to understand it better. I think folks should be able to study the culture of Christian fundamentalism in school too, so they would better understand the threat and danger of that.

That said, name the public schools in the United States where you find Muslim religious ceremonies being enforced in the curriculum (which is the counterpart of what you obviously want enforced for Christianity in the public schools).
__________________
______________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 02:57 PM   #64
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 31,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr71plt View Post
Area studies and religious ceremonies aren't the same thing. Typical that your kind wouldn't want people to study Muslim culture in order to understand it better. I think folks should be able to study the culture of Christian fundamentalism in school too, so they would better understand the threat and danger of that.

That said, name the public schools in the United States where you find Muslim religious ceremonies being enforced in the curriculum (which is the counterpart of what you obviously want enforced for Christianity in the public schools).
Here's an example: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ith-foot-bath/
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 03:06 PM   #65
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 31,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr71plt View Post
Area studies and religious ceremonies aren't the same thing. Typical that your kind wouldn't want people to study Muslim culture in order to understand it better. I think folks should be able to study the culture of Christian fundamentalism in school too, so they would better understand the threat and danger of that.

That said, name the public schools in the United States where you find Muslim religious ceremonies being enforced in the curriculum (which is the counterpart of what you obviously want enforced for Christianity in the public schools).
Here's one: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ith-foot-bath/

There are quite a few links like this one. Muslims are not being forced to wash their feet, but public funds are being spent to facilitate this religious rite.
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 03:22 PM   #66
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 38,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
public funds are being spent to facilitate this religious rite.
SR will be along shortly to tell you why that's not only ok but PROGRESS!!!

And try to avoid addressing why it's only bad when public funds are spent to facilitate Christian shit but not others.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 03:29 PM   #67
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 31,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post
SR will be along shortly to tell you why that's not only ok but PROGRESS!!!

And try to avoid addressing why it's only bad when public funds are spent to facilitate Christian shit but not others.
Here is an example of that, which may be even more egregious: https://ffrf.org/legal/other-legal-s...ith-holy-water
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 03:58 PM   #68
colddiesel
Literotica Guru
 
colddiesel's Avatar
 
colddiesel is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: in my shed
Posts: 2,157
10 years ago Oxfam calculated that the richest 65 people in the world owned half the worlds assets - as much as the 3.6 billion poorest people. Recently recalculated they now say that the 9 richest people are equivalent to the 3.6 billion poorest.

The issue is, when is the revolution going to happen and will it be a revolt from the right or the left? The problem is the perception of injustice as much as the injustice itself.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 04:03 PM   #69
coachdb18
Loves Spam
 
coachdb18 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 9,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by colddiesel View Post
10 years ago Oxfam calculated that the richest 65 people in the world owned half the worlds assets - as much as the 3.6 billion poorest people. Recently recalculated they now say that the 9 richest people are equivalent to the 3.6 billion poorest.

The issue is, when is the revolution going to happen and will it be a revolt from the right or the left? The problem is the perception of injustice as much as the injustice itself.
Is personal envy really enough to justify 'revolution'?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 05:16 PM   #70
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 16,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by colddiesel View Post
10 years ago Oxfam calculated that the richest 65 people in the world owned half the worlds assets - as much as the 3.6 billion poorest people. Recently recalculated they now say that the 9 richest people are equivalent to the 3.6 billion poorest.

The issue is, when is the revolution going to happen and will it be a revolt from the right or the left? The problem is the perception of injustice as much as the injustice itself.
So tell the 3.6 to get their asses in gear and either evolve or get educated and motivated.
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 05:38 PM   #71
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
 
Hypoxia's Avatar
 
Hypoxia is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Llareggub, just around the corner
Posts: 23,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by coachdb18 View Post
Is personal envy really enough to justify 'revolution'?
Read up on the French Revolution and answer that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 07:08 PM   #72
JawnKarTurr
Literotica Guru
 
JawnKarTurr is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: East Coast of the United States with a great view.
Posts: 1,234
[quote=Carnal_Flower;88244440]I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.

Trump's Tax Plan Has Echoes Of The Kansas Tax Cut Experiment

Sorry, but this is not sound reasoning:



Why yes, the "very wealthy" are just DYING to "invest that capital." They lie awake at night, in their mansions, crying themselves to sleep. If ONLY I could get a HUGE tax cut, I'd build that coal mine tomorrow!

That is MYTHICAL trickle down economics.

The "very wealthy" are "very wealthy" right now. What's stopping them from re-investing now, today?



What is wealthy for the democrats these days? Anyone earning more than $30,000 a year?
__________________
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” - C.S. Lewis
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 07:30 PM   #73
coachdb18
Loves Spam
 
coachdb18 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 9,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
Read up on the French Revolution and answer that.
Why do idiot Democrats always assume others have to 'read up on' whatever their next great topic du jour is? The mantra of the left to 'educate us' is comical, and they should really give it a rest. After all, the Democrats ARE the party of the lower class, lesser educated masses who want a revolution because they're too lethargic and underachieving to actually work for what they want, replacing envy for a work ethic.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 08:33 PM   #74
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
 
Hypoxia's Avatar
 
Hypoxia is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Llareggub, just around the corner
Posts: 23,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by coachdb18 View Post
[blah blah blah]
You asked if envy justified revolution. I pointed to an example. The poor rather envied the rich and disliked being robbed, raped, exploited, etc. They revolted because their strong work ethic was not rewarded. And now, people can work hard with little gain to show, while non-workers coast on their inheritances and dividends. Are workers justified to revolt?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2017, 09:50 PM   #75
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
 
Boxlicker101's Avatar
 
Boxlicker101 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: With my face buried in her pussy
Posts: 31,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
You asked if envy justified revolution. I pointed to an example. The poor rather envied the rich and disliked being robbed, raped, exploited, etc. They revolted because their strong work ethic was not rewarded. And now, people can work hard with little gain to show, while non-workers coast on their inheritances and dividends. Are workers justified to revolt?
I would be willing to bet there are more people living on the dole than there are living off inheritances or dividends.
__________________
100% smut or stroke, and proud of it.

The Rest of My Smut

Dirty old man.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 PM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.