Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:36 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:15 pm
MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:11 pm Comrade ousdahl is working it hard today. If he put as much effort into his career as he did his propaganda, he might be one of those successful folks he pretends to hate.
So when I start my own bidness, I sincerely hope you’ll be my first employee.

I demand a minimum of $15/hr. You greedy bassturd. And free healthcare.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:41 pm**

$!5 an hour ain't happening in every state. It would kill the entire economy right now. It should be left up to the states to determine this. Raising it to $15 would just put even more non-whites out of work.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:08 pm**

Well I was gonna be the kinda job creator who offers a living wage, but if mich will work for only $15 an hour, deal!

But I’m afraid I do have to be all capitalist about your latter request. If you want your healthcare to be free, then my suggestion to you is, don’t get sick.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:29 pm**

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:29 pm We're clearly not on the same page. Not even sure we're referring to the same problem here.

probably my fault

i was targeting taxes, while (i think) you and ousie were focused on philanthropy

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:45 pm**

Actually, I’ll argue that being a “billionaire” in itself is fundamentally immoral, and that that’s not even a radical stance, either.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:50 pm**

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:53 am
Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:26 am It's still true.
no, it’s really not

1) my presumption is the the comment was more tongue-in-cheek than anything

2) misplaced logic =\= mental deficiency

It was tongue in cheek. But, also, more to the point is that i dont think nature is the place we wanna look for fairness, equality and distribution of wealth. Nature's a pretty tough place where the weak/less hard working dont make it.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:01 pm**

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:50 pm
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:53 am
Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:26 am It's still true.
no, it’s really not

1) my presumption is the the comment was more tongue-in-cheek than anything

2) misplaced logic =\= mental deficiency
It was tongue in cheek. But, also, more to the point is that i dont think nature is the place we wanna look for fairness, equality and distribution of wealth. Nature's a pretty tough place where the weak/less hard working dont make it.

i agree

otherwise i’d have already fought or bought my way to being vaccinated

humans “can” be moral and ethical...other animals not so much

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:12 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:45 pm Actually, I’ll argue that being a “billionaire” in itself is fundamentally immoral, and that that’s not even a radical stance, either.

Of course you would.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:20 pm**

Would you prefer to argue otherwise?

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:37 pm**

jmo, but being a billionaire in and of itself isn’t immoral

now, ultimately it depends upon exactly how said person got to that status

someone could easily inherit billions, and come by their wealth through nothing they did personally

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:43 pm**

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:37 pm jmo, but being a billionaire in and of itself isn’t immoral

now, ultimately it depends upon exactly how said person got to that status

someone could easily inherit billions, and come by their wealth through nothing they did personally

Agreed.

Or they could earn it by, making a better vaccuum and then selling billions of them globally, like the Dyson guy. I don't think starting an honest business that becomes massively successful is immoral. Dysons are good vacuums and that company employs tens of thousand of employees.

It also matters what you do when you have that kind of money. The Waltons inherited a fortune and haven't done anything with it besides sitting on stock. They had so much opportunity to do so much with that money...and they've done nothing. I take that back, the daughter killed a guy with her car once.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:47 pm**

I guess where I’m coming from is, 1. in so many instances of a billionaire becoming a billionaire, I’d rather see the wealth distributed more evenly among all the stakeholders who contributed to the success, and 2. after distributing among stakeholders, for enough progressive taxes (and elimination of all the kooky write-offs and loopholes) to ensure a that fair share is paid, and that reasonable enough resources are in place for those who need it the most.

How radical, I know!

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:50 pm**

who decides, though, how much wealth is too much?

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:51 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:47 pm I guess where I’m coming from is, 1. in so many instances of a billionaire becoming a billionaire, I’d rather see the wealth distributed more evenly among all the stakeholders who contributed to the success, and 2. after distributing among stakeholders, for enough progressive taxes (and elimination of all the kooky write-offs and loopholes) to ensure a that fair share is paid, and that reasonable enough resources are in place for those who need it the most.

How radical, I know!

Yes, I want the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes. I also want to get rid of the loopholes.

But that doesn't stop billionaires from existing. If someone has $10 billion and you pass Warren's wealth tax at the highest level she's proposed, that person has $9.4 billion.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:17 pm**

I like it when phd and I agree.

What’s your thoughts about distributing wealth among stakeholders?

how often does someone earn 10 figures as a one-person operation?

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:21 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:45 pm Actually, I’ll argue that being a “billionaire” in itself is fundamentally immoral, and that that’s not even a radical stance, either.

My god

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:23 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:20 pm Would you prefer to argue otherwise?

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:25 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:17 pm I like it when phd and I agree.

What’s your thoughts about distributing wealth among stakeholders?

how often does someone earn 10 figures as a one-person operation?

I think it's the right thing to do, if you own a company and it's becoming profitable that you pay your employees more. I think that would be one of the real joys of owning a company.

No one gets paid a 10 figure salary. And I think that's part of what you're struggling with. Bezos doesn't get paid a billion dollar salary....and that's also why he doesn't pay any more in taxes than a dentist or an accountant. His wealth is in shares he owns in the company.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:34 pm**

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:21 pm
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:45 pm Actually, I’ll argue that being a “billionaire” in itself is fundamentally immoral, and that that’s not even a radical stance, either.
My god

Do we need to define immoral?

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:35 pm**

Yeah, that’s a good detail to point out.

But I still think it’s rotten when a feature of becoming a billionaire - the Bezos/Walton model, for instance - is keeping wages for employees low.

Kansas Crimson

Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes

Re: Strikes