POLITICAL THREAD

[fuzz77]

But now we just need to make sure all companies are owned publically. We can't settle for having people risk everything they own to build businesses they own themselves. The public matters, not the profit of the individuals who built the business.
.

Dude, how much did Robert Iger, CEO of Disney or Stephen Hemsley, CEO of United Healthcare, James Morgan, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, the CEOs of Ford, GM, Blue Cross..and I could list 100's more...how much did they risk to build the companies that are paying them $10's of millions?
I've got no problem with people like Bill Gates who actually built a company making everything they can get...but those guys are a small, small piece of the pie.

 

[TransyCat09]

Why do you care about anyone making any amount of money that isn't taken from you, personally?

Those companies have decided that those people are worth that amount. If they aren't, then they will hurt the company. If Disney was stealing money from you to pay those wages I'd get it, but they aren't

 

[WettCat]

Dude, how much did Jeff Gordon, Allen Iverson, Roger Federer, Lebron James, Peyton Manning ..and I could list 100's more...how much did they risk to build the teams that are paying them $10's of millions?
I've got no problem with people like Bill Gates who actually built a company making everything they can get...but those guys are a small, small piece of the pie.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Dude, how much did Robert Iger, CEO of Disney or Stephen Hemsley, CEO of United Healthcare, James Morgan, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, the CEOs of Ford, GM, Blue Cross..and I could list 100's more...how much did they risk to build the companies that are paying them $10's of millions?
I've got no problem with people like Bill Gates who actually built a company making everything they can get...but those guys are a small, small piece of the pie.

How much do you think those CEO's deserve? Better yet, why would you be in a better position to determine who much their services are worth? The only people in position to decide the worth of their services are those paying and those accepting.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Those companies have decided

No. More accurately, the owners of those companies have democratically appointed a group of people who make the decisions on how much those people will be compensated.

Which is why Sean's point makes even less goddamn sense. I still don't know if Fuzz was trying to help solidify my point or undercut it. I tend to think he thought he was undercutting it since he cut down the sarcastic part of my post. But he did the complete opposite.

 

[argubs2]

Fuzz doesn't think those people deserve those salaries....regardless of the work it took them to get to that place or the fact that shareholders have no problem whatsoever paying them these salaries because of the value they provide to the organizations.

He also is a firm believer that any amount of money you make over $5 million should be taken from your family and given to the federal government when you die.

 

[fuzz77]

Why do you care about anyone making any amount of money that isn't taken from you, personally?

Those companies have decided that those people are worth that amount. If they aren't, then they will hurt the company. If Disney was stealing money from you to pay those wages I'd get it, but they aren't

If I do business with any of those companies then it does take from me as their compensation is being paid from the revenues of my business. But further, I believe that it affects their decision making process because they are isolated from the effects of their decisions.

 

[P19978]

He also is a firm believer that any amount of money you make over $5 million should be taken from your family and given to the federal government when you die.

It always makes me chuckle when people want to give MORE money to the most corrupt and inefficient organization in our country.

At least the Mafia has rules.

 

[WettCat]

 

[Bill Cosby]

Someone find out who's forcing Fuzz to do business with these companies that are "taking" from him.

Well you know, aside from the federal government that is now able to force him to go buy something on the open market he doesn't want to buy thanks to Obamacare and 5 idiotic justices.

 

[qwesley]

And watch how Europe reacts in the next few years with all those middle eastern refugees are on Euorpean social services.... Will be grabbing popcorn for that one.

Watching the probable pendulum swing to the point of extremism in Germany over the next couple of decades will be interesting.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Under what definition, would someone who illegally sneaks into a country in violation of criminal statutes not be a criminal?

One can commit an illegal act without committing a crime. For example, it is illegal to speed but we don't treat speeders as criminals. Instead, we issue a civil fine. Not that the distinction should matter here, just pointing it out.

No one here is worried about immigrants who aren't criminals. It's the one's who (by any definition of the word) are criminals.

See above.

To me, a democratic socialist government is where the masses have voted for a Robin Hood government. Usually that government is vulnerable to a hard line communist government in the near future.

Has that happened a lot in history? A communist takeover of a Robin Hood government? There was the USSR and ... ? Maybe Cuba?

 

[qwesley]

It always makes me chuckle when people want to give MORE money to the most corrupt and inefficient organization in our country.

At least the Mafia has rules.

Started to say something last night when "trickle down" was mentioned.

The DC area is booming with cash that does not trickle out.

 

[Willy4UK]

Watching the probable pendulum swing to the point of extremism in Germany over the next couple of decades will be interesting.

Agreed

 

[Big_Blue79]

Why do you care about anyone making any amount of money that isn't taken from you, personally?

Those companies have decided that those people are worth that amount. If they aren't, then they will hurt the company. If Disney was stealing money from you to pay those wages I'd get it, but they aren't

Just pointing out that there is pretty interesting case law regarding CEO pay (and shareholder challenges to such) that was brought against Disney for executive pay a little while back. If you're into CEO pay stuff, pretty interesting stuff. If not, it's boring. Carry on.

 

[Bill Cosby]

One can commit an illegal act without committing a crime. For example, it is illegal to speed but we don't treat speeders as criminals. Instead, we issue a civil fine. Not that the distinction should matter here, just pointing it out.

Got it. Thanks. Next time I might say something like "in violation of criminal statues" so no one gets confused.


Unless it's not actually a crime to sneak into the United States. Then I stand corrected.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Fuzz doesn't think those people deserve those salaries....regardless of the work it took them to get to that place or the fact that shareholders have no problem whatsoever paying them these salaries because of the value they provide to the organizations.

He also is a firm believer that any amount of money you make over $5 million should be taken from your family and given to the federal government when you die.

Not so much shareholders as boards. Some great scholarship on both sides of the issue re: who does and should control corporations. Corporations (read boards) are on the side of protecting themselves from the shareholders. Shareholders (largely institutional investors) are on the "we own the company we should decide without structural/procedural impairments" side. So it's not as simple as shareholders decide. It's board's decide, and they're often insulated to some degree from shareholders.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Got it. Thanks. Next time I might say something like "in violation of criminal statues" so no one gets confused.


Unless it's not actually a crime to sneak into the United States. Then I stand corrected.

From a quick Google search, it looks like improper entry is a crime (misdemeanor), while unlawful presence is not. So maybe overstaying a visa is not a crime? Or maybe it's harder to prosecute for improper entry so even those that enter illegally are only charged with unlawful presence? Idk. Subtle difference that shouldn't matter to the broader debate on immigration, but probably has huge consequences for the people charged under one or the other.

 

[Willy4UK]

Not so much shareholders as boards. Some great scholarship on both sides of the issue re: who does and should control corporations. Corporations (read boards) are on the side of protecting themselves from the shareholders. Shareholders (largely institutional investors) are on the "we own the company we should decide without structural/procedural impairments" side. So it's not as simple as shareholders decide. It's board's decide, and they're often insulated to some degree from shareholders.

Maybe Asparagus pee torture would get those scoundrels out.

 

[argubs2]

Thanks 79, it was certainly an egregious error on my part to not provide five or six paragraphs explaining myself

 

[Big_Blue79]

Thanks 79, it was certainly an egregious error on my part to not provide five or six paragraphs explaining myself

Pull the stick out of your ass. It's a legit issue that not everyone is aware of. Boards and shareholders are not congruent, and it presents problems. My 1 paragraph stated that.

 

[fuzz77]

It always makes me chuckle when people want to give MORE money to the most corrupt and inefficient organization in our country.

At least the Mafia has rules.

If you had bothered to read what I had written with respects to inheritance taxes I'm pretty sure that I said that the aim and intent was to have the person with the money, use that money while they are living rather than hoarding it. I'm pretty sure that the people with whom this would effect...the 0.2% who currently pay inheritance taxes would plan the disposition of their wealth so that it didn't end up being consumed by a tax.

 

[Willy4UK]

Fuzz, you know whose money I want? I want your buddy's money. The guy who can afford $50K bicycles.

I'll buy so much lobster and crab meat from his money. Will buy Chilean seas bass too. Whole Foods. Just need your buddy's money to do it. You'll help, right? He makes a lot. He won't need it.

 

[argubs2]

The thought of not being able to pass my wealth and belongings to my children / wife when I die because it's "not fair" actually makes me physically ill.

 

[Willy4UK]

The thought of not being able to pass my wealth and belongings to my children / wife when I die because it's "not fair" actually makes me physically ill.

Your money deserves to go to Middle eastern refugees when you die. Shame on you, Argubs.

 

[-LEK-]

The thought of not being able to pass my wealth and belongings to my children / wife when I die because it's "not fair" actually makes me physically ill.

im not caught up on the thread, but is someone seriously arguing this?

 

[argubs2]

Fuzz has argued that a 100% death tax should be imposed on any wealth over $5 million dollars when a person dies. So, if I'm worth $20mil, Fuzz thinks $15 mil of that should be given to the federal government and $5 mil (or what's left after that $5mil gets taxed) goes to my family when I die.

He then later said that this would compel individuals to spend this $15 million dollars in the moments before their accurately predicted deathday, thus circulating it back into the economy and solving the poverty crisis in this country.

 

[-LEK-]

Fuzz has argued that a 100% death tax should be imposed on any wealth over $5 million dollars when a person dies. So, if I'm worth $20mil, Fuzz thinks $15 mil of that should be given to the federal government and $5 mil (or what's left after that $5mil gets taxed) goes to my family when I die.

He then later said that this would compel individuals to spend this $15 million dollars in the moments before their accurately predicted deathday, thus circulating it back into the economy and solving the poverty crisis in this country.

Check. That is terrible.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

If I do business with any of those companies then it does take from me as their compensation is being paid from the revenues of my business. But further, I believe that it affects their decision making process because they are isolated from the effects of their decisions.

Are you forced to do business with them? In fact, if its so offensive, stop doing business with them. If more agree, theyll stop too. Then there will be a free market solution, rather than a trophy culture solution.

Just pointing out that there is pretty interesting case law regarding CEO pay (and shareholder challenges to such) that was brought against Disney for executive pay a little while back. If you're into CEO pay stuff, pretty interesting stuff. If not, it's boring. Carry on.

If im not mistaken, those were shareholder derivative suits; where the shareholders sue saying the company isnt being run in a way to maximize profits/dividends. Just to clarify, its not as if the average consumer was suing saying it wasnt fair.

Not so much shareholders as boards. Some great scholarship on both sides of the issue re: who does and should control corporations. Corporations (read boards) are on the side of protecting themselves from the shareholders. Shareholders (largely institutional investors) are on the "we own the company we should decide without structural/procedural impairments" side. So it's not as simple as shareholders decide. It's board's decide, and they're often insulated to some degree from shareholders.

Shareholders vote on important issues like whos on the board, etc. The board usually hires the officers. The officers run the company. They all owe a duty to the shareholders to run the company in the most profitable way possible.

So shareholders dont run the company per se. They decide who runs it. But an individual owns enough shares, or proxies, then they have a very large say so (ie: can completely dictate whos on the board, etc) to the point where its a de facto decision maker.

From a quick Google search, it looks like improper entry is a crime (misdemeanor), while unlawful presence is not. So maybe overstaying a visa is not a crime? Or maybe it's harder to prosecute for improper entry so even those that enter illegally are only charged with unlawful presence? Idk. Subtle difference that shouldn't matter to the broader debate on immigration, but probably has huge consequences for the people charged under one or the other.

I dont think its a crime, to the extent a punishment is handed down. Its just expulsion from the country. Or is supposed to be.

 

[fuzz77]

No. More accurately, the owners of those companies have democratically appointed a group of people who make the decisions on how much those people will be compensated.

Which is why Sean's point makes even less goddamn sense. I still don't know if Fuzz was trying to help solidify my point or undercut it. I tend to think he thought he was undercutting it since he cut down the sarcastic part of my post. But he did the complete opposite.

Democratically appointed group? Would you consider it democratic if we each got x number of votes based upon our net worth or how much property we owed? If Warren Buffet has 50.01% of a company's stock and 100,000 people own the other 49.99% then there is only one vote that counts. Is that democratic?

 

[fuzz77]

Fuzz has argued that a 100% death tax should be imposed on any wealth over $5 million dollars when a person dies. So, if I'm worth $20mil, Fuzz thinks $15 mil of that should be given to the federal government and $5 mil (or what's left after that $5mil gets taxed) goes to my family when I die.

He then later said that this would compel individuals to spend this $15 million dollars in the moments before their accurately predicted deathday, thus circulating it back into the economy and solving the poverty crisis in this country.

Your reading comprehension isn't so good.
I challenge you to find where I said what you say that I said in complete context.

 

[-LEK-]

So I guess we have gone full circle back to Atlas Shrugged. Crazy.

 

[argubs2]

Do me a favor....you go back and find them. I just cleaned my desk and I don't have a barf bag on hand to go through your post history right now.

Explain how my interpretation is wrong, please.

 

[DSmith21]

Details of Bernie's past are being pushed to the media. Someone wants us to know that Bernie was basically a bum until he landed his first job as a mayor in Vermont at about age 40. I am guessing that the Clinton machine is trying to go for the kill.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/...fe-bernie-sanders-was-lets-just-say-it-a-bum/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927

 

[TransyCat09]

You know what people would spend $5+ million on if they had to dump assets before they died? Luxury goods.

You know who doesn't make luxury goods? 99.9999999% of Americans. I'm sure some random millionaire buying a fleet of lambos before he dies will invigorate the economy.

You know who knows how to spend their own money better than you would, Fuzz? Every single person on Earth. You, nor anyone else, can spend someone's money better than they can. I know you fall into that "Top Men" theory of government/administration that I mentioned earlier, so it's probably a lost cause.

It's also true that people work really hard so they can give their children money. People don't just hoard wealth. If the children are stupid they will spend it all and you have basically achieved the scenario you wanted with the inheritance tax without the massive bureaucracy. If they are smart then they invest it well or start more businesses and have created more good than frivolously wasting it on luxury goods that benefit no one.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Democratically appointed group? Would you consider it democratic if we each got x number of votes based upon our net worth or how much property we owed? If Warren Buffet has 50.01% of a company's stock and 100,000 people own the other 49.99% then there is only one vote that counts. Is that democratic?

They are fine with private tyranny. It's just state tyranny they have a problem with.

 

[TransyCat09]

Hmm. I wonder what the significant difference is between a "tyrannical" private entity and a tyrannical state? Can't quite put my finger on it, must be no difference at all. Wow, been wrong all these years.

 

[argubs2]

I'm not sure personally owned physical (non-cash) assets were covered in fuzz's tax plan.

Do you have to liquidate the cars / houses / baseball card collections / guitar collections / fine art / coin collections / jewelry / family heirlooms / historic items? Does the IRS just come and take those to make it easy?

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Hmm. I wonder what the significant difference is between a "tyrannical" private entity and a tyrannical state? Can't quite put my finger on it, must be no difference at all. Wow, been wrong all these years.

What is the difference? Both abuse their power and it's the people on the bottom and in the middle who suffer from it. There is no difference.

 

[TransyCat09]

What is the difference? Both abuse their power and it's the people on the bottom and in the middle who suffer from it. There is no difference.

Tyrannical states murder people with no repercussions. The only private entities that have done that had state support. Name one private entity who could commit genocide, for instance, and get away with it WITHOUT state support.

I know you will bring up coal companies of the turn of the century or companies in China today, but I'll go ahead and tell you they had tacit or explicit support from the state. So if you reply with those or something of that kind I will assume you are mendacious or stupid or both.

It's also true that tyrannical states are, without fail, harder to escape than these tyrannical private entities. Leaving Eastern Kentucky for, umm, central Kentucky would have been enough to escape the coal companies. Try peacing out of North Korea sometime and see how that works