BTW, The Beatles were more popular than Jesus, and still are

[night912]

Were they more popular before or after Paul McCartney died?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I think many are more concerned about the rise of so many billionaires rather than the average businessman, and the power they wield, unaccountable as it usually is. Plenty of musicians have their say once they get famous so the Beatles were hardly unique, and the four of them varied quite a bit anyway.

Yeah yeah yeah, as they say.

The problem with that is that the rise of these billionaires is a good thing. Let's think about this some more, shall we? I'm sure you're gonna attach morality to this, so let's leave THAT out and say they are billionaires not because of unscrupulous practices on their part but because the government gives them everything they need to succeed. And they're decent ppl who give back to the community. Which would you rather the world have more of? Say one, every day. A billionaire, a person who never has to worry about the next meal or their family going hungry, who gets to enjoy life. Or we can have another homeless person. You would assign virtue to homelessness, but let me tell you, I lived in my car for the time that I was away from family. I was as close to homeless as you get. I wasn't any more virtuous than I am now. Instead, I had to constantly buy food, which was either canned and thus heavy, or produce and cheese which wouldn't keep, or the junk food. It is difficult for the homeless to secure jobs and to keep them as they are constantly tired, trying to get cleaned up with no shower or bath except via shelters or rest stops, but have to somehow scrape up enough to dig out of that hole. When my parents (who I love now that I understand what a ***** it is to live away from them) die, I will likely be homeless again, I fear. And you would be calling for more taxes to raise the threshold of homelessness (when taxes raise, people charge more for services, including board) from what it is in small towns to something closer to DC's $3000 apartments.

Your problem is that you see life as a zero sum game, that in order for someone to succeed, someone else has to fail. So you tax the rich, expecting to punish them. Instead you wind up punishing everyone, because that money is out of circulation. Money today is fiat currency, meaning it is print-on-demand. This works fine if the government prints it when they have need and citizens get to control how money goes out of circulation by spending it. But taxes are always in favor of a greedy, grasping, hoarding state that takes money and destroys it, and money doesn't issue more until a bank issues a business or housing loan (with interest) that is more than the current total money. These are the people (under the federal reserve system) who now print-on-demand, not your government.

Illegalize loan fiat, destroy the federal reserve (which is NOT a government institution but actually a private usury organization), have the government print backed money or solid coin again, lower or eliminate (in favor of things like luxury food taxes) income and property tax, allow some people to become billionaires with incentives to donate their money. Not only are people encouraged to succeed therefore lowering the chance of failure (abject poverty, homelessness, rootlessness), but those who fail have an easier time scraping themselves back up since as debt goes down, as prices lower, as there is money enough (remember, money is no long print-on-demand by banks), even the poor can manage to have at least crappy housing. Plus with billionaires rewarded for generosity, the poor are helped as wrll. But you'd prefer everyone fail to being wrong about more poor people being a good thing, wouldn't you?

This is exactly what happens when business taxes are lowered. Now granted, not everyone makes a go of it. Some (like me) suck at business. But they are still a damned sight better without a noose known as high taxes and licensing fees hanging around their neck.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Btw, let's talk about the recycling initiative that liberals came up with, and how (because they didn't want to take responsibility of actually doing WORK when their harebrained idea involved cleaning and repurposing plastic) this plastic got outsourced to China. And how, you won't find anyone admit to this, but clearly some wound up falling of the boat every trip, because now we have a Great Pacific Garbage Patch. China has since stopped collecting our trash, so they'll probably ship it to Canada or Mexico. Anything to avoid actual work.

China produces about a third of plastic waste polluting the world’s oceans, says report

(Wait no, Chinese news actually admitted that most of it comes from this recycling thing)

This is John Lennon mentality. Talk a good game about saving the world, but actually cause problems.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah yeah yeah, as they say.

The problem with that is that the rise of these billionaires is a good thing. Let's think about this some more, shall we? I'm sure you're gonna attach morality to this, so let's leave THAT out and say they are billionaires not because of unscrupulous practices on their part but because the government gives them everything they need to succeed. And they're decent ppl who give back to the community. Which would you rather the world have more of? Say one, every day. A billionaire, a person who never has to worry about the next meal or their family going hungry, who gets to enjoy life. Or we can have another homeless person. You would assign virtue to homelessness, but let me tell you, I lived in my car for the time that I was away from family. I was as close to homeless as you get. I wasn't any more virtuous than I am now. Instead, I had to constantly buy food, which was either canned and thus heavy, or produce and cheese which wouldn't keep, or the junk food. It is difficult for the homeless to secure jobs and to keep them as they are constantly tired, trying to get cleaned up with no shower or bath except via shelters or rest stops, but have to somehow scrape up enough to dig out of that hole. When my parents (who I love now that I understand what a ***** it is to live away from them) die, I will likely be homeless again, I fear. And you would be calling for more taxes to raise the threshold of homelessness (when taxes raise, people charge more for services, including board) from what it is in small towns to something closer to DC's $3000 apartments.

Your problem is that you see life as a zero sum game, that in order for someone to succeed, someone else has to fail. So you tax the rich, expecting to punish them. Instead you wind up punishing everyone, because that money is out of circulation. Money today is fiat currency, meaning it is print-on-demand. This works fine if the government prints it when they have need and citizens get to control how money goes out of circulation by spending it. But taxes are always in favor of a greedy, grasping, hoarding state that takes money and destroys it, and money doesn't issue more until a bank issues a business or housing loan (with interest) that is more than the current total money. These are the people (under the federal reserve system) who now print-on-demand, not your government.

Illegalize loan fiat, destroy the federal reserve (which is NOT a government institution but actually a private usury organization), have the government print backed money or solid coin again, lower or eliminate (in favor of things like luxury food taxes) income and property tax, allow some people to become billionaires with incentives to donate their money. Not only are people encouraged to succeed therefore lowering the chance of failure (abject poverty, homelessness, rootlessness), but those who fail have an easier time scraping themselves back up since as debt goes down, as prices lower, as there is money enough (remember, money is no long print-on-demand by banks), even the poor can manage to have at least crappy housing. Plus with billionaires rewarded for generosity, the poor are helped as wrll. But you'd prefer everyone fail to being wrong about more poor people being a good thing, wouldn't you?

This is exactly what happens when business taxes are lowered. Now granted, not everyone makes a go of it. Some (like me) suck at business. But they are still a damned sight better without a noose known as high taxes and licensing fees hanging around their neck.

No, my problem is that I see a lot of people living in poverty and a few with billions made by workers who don't see so much of this. And I can't understand how anyone with a religious belief could even not see this. Selective understanding?

Anyway, to add to this - If you are perceptive enough you might have figured I'm not particularly interested in discussing economics in this thread or any other. Economics was one of the most boring subjects I've ever had to study, and along with politics and religion, only attracts my interest in the effects it has on me and on others. Perhaps you do know there is no consensus, even amongst experts, as to whether one particular economic theory is necessarily better or how things ought to be, but if you want to debate such then try to do it with someone more inclined to take an interest. What has occurred over the last several decades may or may not be beneficial for us or just for some, but there are many who see more problems created than benefits to such disparities in wealth and incomes - which I'm sure you know has been growing in both the USA and the UK for decades.

 

[Revoltingest]

Jesus never did anything to compare with.....