It seems that you've misunderstood everything that I've said, so I'm not sure where to begin, seeing as I was talking about tax policy and offshoring and you seem to be talking about time travel.
Taxes, and the case of the helpful billionare
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The model you want society to follow adheres to what we did in the middle ages
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Do you have any proof for a single claim you just made? Or is this all conspiracy nonsense? I'm leaning towards the latter
-->
@Theweakeredge
What do you want 'proof' for? That offshoring is a thing? That tax dodges are employed by wealthy people? That it's literally the law that a corporation must maximize profits for their shareholders? That the class called 'capital' comprises said shareholders overwhelmingly? That a CEO is employed to maximize the profits flowing to shareholders? That, in the West at least, 'capital' as a class is international (considering capital controls employed in, say, China, the situation is a bit different there)? These are all fairly standard facts that should be known to anyone with a modicum of understanding. But, as Aristotle put it, 'not to know of what things one should
demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education.' If you want to debate politics, history, or economics, asking for 'proof' of easily demonstrable facts (literally read an entry level text book on any of these subjects) doesn't make you look more intelligent. Lazily invoking a thought-terminating cliché like 'conspiracy theory' does you even less credit.
The historical conditions of the Middle Ages cannot be replicated, and judging by where we ended up they obviously made significant mistakes. I don't prescribe to the idea of 'progress', that holds that we're advancing inexorably towards some sort of utopia. That doesn't meant that I think it's possible to 'turn back the clock'. We simply have to be practical, and realize that our current trajectory is insanely unsustainable.
-->
@FLRW
Truman left office with a debt of $265.9B [adding $7.3B], and Obama left office with a debt of $20.25T [adding a debt of $8.6T]
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
That CEOS aren't the ones benefiting directly that they are "vampires" at the top. In your critique you completely ignore that I was talking about directly taxing the rich, of course they can hide their wealth, that's called tax fraud - its a crime - my point is that that is an obvious point and people will be prosecuted for if it is found out. But the apparent wealth that CEO's do in fact possess being taxed is not something you have really commented on.
The average top CEO compensation was $14.5 million in 2019. In 2019, the ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation was 320-to-1 under the realized measure of CEO pay; that is up from 293-to-1 in 2018 and a big increase from 21-to-1 in 1965 and 61-to-1 in 1989.
-->
@FLRW
The question is, can a CEO justify his 320-1 advantage, or whatever it may be, given the very real responsibility for the continued success of the company that is on the CEO's shoulders, so they have to be able to justify their income. That you or I may disagree with his assessment is mostly conjecture on our part, because we don't know the details of a given company. But most typical workers have no knowledge of what their contribution is actually worth, because it may have no comparison to what they are paid. It, id, often, a guess by employer and employee. They can; it is knowable information, and I taught my employees how to calculate their worth to the company. How many mangers do that? Not many. I found it easier to counsel with employees when they know how to calculate their contribution to the gross and net bottom line, so the education was worthwhile.
8 days later
-->
@949havoc
In the end, CEO's are slaves to the stockholders and earns a slave's wages. They are just a better paid slave.
-->
@TheUnderdog
If a republican is a conservative democrat, what does it mean to be conservative if you want to raise taxes on anyone and what does it mean to be a democrat if you want lower taxes? Being a conservative democrat is a contradiction, as is being a liberal republican.
Liberal republicans are essentially libertarians. I think you mean liberal-fascist.
-->
@Reece101
Liberal republicans are essentially libertarians.
How do we know the "liberal" part of "Liberal republicans" aren't referring to economic issues, making them more like rust belt voters.
Political parties shouldn't exist and everyone should be an independent.
-->
@TheUnderdog
How do we know the "liberal" part of "Liberal republicans" aren't referring to economic issues, making them more like rust belt voters.
The ‘liberal” part can mean many things. Point is “liberal republican” isn’t the best example of a contradiction.
Political parties shouldn't exist and everyone should be an independent.
It comes down to practicality/organisation/stability. Political parties exist regardless of if they’re officially recognised.