The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.
Started by Ecurb Noselrub, September 19, 2022, 08:57:50 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 22, 2022, 06:40:05 PMI am more focused on the mega-wealthy, the billionaires. If someone is worth 100 billion, and their wealth increases by 5 percent year (a lot less than the increase they got during the pandemic), a 2-3% tax on their net worth each year should not be a problem. This, in addition to any applicable income tax. At 100 billion, that's 2-3 billion in wealth tax, and their net worth increased by 5. Net gain for them, benefit for the rest of society. Their income is a separate issue, but it would be 40% or so, so they still come out ahead. If they have income of 3 billion, they are taxed 1.2 billion in income tax. Net gain for them, benefit for society. Taxes on the wealthy should be earmarked for things like education, health care, poverty reduction, infrastructure, etc. Things that benefit society as a whole.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PMIn Asmo's grey lump, wrath and dark clouds gather force.Luxembourg trembles.
Quote from: Asmodean on September 22, 2022, 08:04:02 PMBilly, I'll long-form a reply when on a computer.
Quote from: billy rubin on September 22, 2022, 03:12:38 PMasmo, think about what youve written. you describe a CEO whose job isnt making anchor chain, its pushing papers across a desk, holding meetings, and making telephone calls, and processing intangible tokens.
Quoteyou discuss tasks such voting on your share of the capital, deciding who to merge with, choosing which competitor to buy . . . your focus is on skills relating to ownership, not on maneuvering a crucible of molten steel, or forging a red hot link under a stamping mill.
Quotebusiness ownership is the least important part of an anchor company.
Quotethe owner is the individual most easily replaced. you acknowledge this yourself by emphasizing mergers and buyouts, which are just changes of owners.
Quoteif the ownership is derived by buying stock, the owners dont need to know anything at all about anchors-- all they need is credit to buy into the system and harvest the profits of other people's work.
Quotemaking decisions regarding the direction of a company through an economy that emphasizes and rewards ownership of tokens rather than productivity is a limited skill. it certainly is needed to perform in the current system. but does it demonstrate a skill set hundreds of millions of times more important than those of the mill worker actually forging the anchor chain? because thats how it is currently compensated.
Quoteregarding taxes, ive never used the word in this conversation until <<<here. its not part of any plan i have considered, so i dont have any viable solution that uses it.see, im not interested in taking elon musk or jeff bezos hostage, taxing more of their hard-earned profits out of them, then coming back for more, like using them as a cash crop to harvest.i want them to cease to exist.
Quotewhatever system takes what we have now and turns it into one in which more people do better with more health, shelter, and security is what i am in favour of, asmo. the system in my country is broken. i dont want to tweak it. i want to replace it.
Quotesorry this post is so long. ill try to focus.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 19, 2022, 08:57:50 PMThe Queen's death has raised the issue again of whether that monarchy, or any monarchy, has a place in the modern world. It is fairly simple to argue that an accident of birth should not give anyone the privileges of royalty. But how far are we willing to take that argument? It is an accident of birth that I was born a white male to a stable middle-class family in the United States. Without any question, I have privileges that others do not have. Had I been born a poor black female in Haiti or born a female into a Taliban household, clearly my life would have been a lot worse. My privilege is no more justified than the privilege of the Prince of Wales. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos would not have accomplished what they did had they been born in worse circumstances. We generally apply a stricter standard of judgment when critiquing people above our class than we do for ourselves. King Charles has pledged to continue his mother's commitment to serving his nation. Is that sufficient to justify the continuation of the House of Windsor? Not for me to decide, but what justifies my own continued privileged position (albeit not as privileged as royalty) when there are people all around me who are significantly worse off than I am? We may not have as much to justify as the Windsors, but does the accidental inequality from which many of us benefit create an obligation to do more? If so, is some process of involuntary levelling called for? If not, how can we complain about royalty? Just food for thought.
Quote from: Asmodean on September 23, 2022, 03:56:11 PMThe CEO's job is that of the executive.
QuoteAs a mill owner, I suspect I may want to hire someone who is willing to sell his crucible knowledge and practical hands-on skill for money.
QuoteAnd yet without it, the anchor chain company does not exist. It never even started, in fact. Companies don't grow on trees. Every single one with a modicum of success started with someone doing his own thing. Making a buck, as it were. It's his thing, no matter how many people he hires and fires over the years. It's his until he dies, sells it (therein goes public/partly sells it) or goes bust. In either of those cases, it then belongs to whoever bought it - be it a worker's union or a hedge fund.
QuoteQuotethe owner is the individual most easily replaced. you acknowledge this yourself by emphasizing mergers and buyouts, which are just changes of owners.Wow..! I demand a quote where I said anything like the owner being the most easily replaced.
QuoteWho do you think sells the stock in the first place?
QuotePoint is, in a market economy . . .
Quote from: Asmodean on September 22, 2022, 08:04:02 PMYou own a house worth one billion dollars. The housing bubble be a-bubbling, and the value of your house increases by 5% a year. 5% of a billion is five million. Let us assume a ten percent "income" tax. You now owe the government 500000. Yes, you have a billion dollar house. Do you have 500000 without needing to "plunder" said house for it?
Quote from: billy rubin on September 24, 2022, 09:02:20 PMQuoteAnd yet without it, the anchor chain company does not exist. It never even started, in fact. Companies don't grow on trees. Every single one with a modicum of success started with someone doing his own thing. Making a buck, as it were. It's his thing, no matter how many people he hires and fires over the years. It's his until he dies, sells it (therein goes public/partly sells it) or goes bust. In either of those cases, it then belongs to whoever bought it - be it a worker's union or a hedge fund.i would skip the individual ownership stage and go right to worker's ownership. without an owner to protect against, there isnt even a need to have a union.QuotePoint is, in a market economy . . .i would eliminate a market economy.QuoteKill them?i would offer them a job in the warehouse, asmo. but as for killing them, i'm afraid we're headed in that direction.at some point in economic exploitation, the masses of the exploited always end up executing their exploiters. i would like to move beyond that point without killing anybody, but as i see it we are in late-stage capitalism, where the masses are slowly discovering that they are not actually benefitting from the system that they are making possible. if you strip the CEO of a corporation naked, he is indistinguishable from the poorest of his employees. all his advantages accrue from things written on pieces of paper. eliminate the paper, and you can assess his true contribution.. . .at any rate, sooner or later revolutions happen.
Quote from: Anne D. on September 25, 2022, 08:39:41 PMNot sure how we'd get to this "ideal" society where no companies were privately owned and all were somehow collectively run by workers without a whole lot of bloodletting and much more human misery than we have now. It also sounds completely unworkable. I have worked in a large institution where most decisions were made by committee--in reality, that meant no decisions were made. And as Asmo points out (God--that is so painful to type, pigs are flying and hell is freezing over), companies don't grow on trees. What incentive would there be for anyone to create anything new? What governmental structure are you envisioning? It's sounding like Soviet-style "communism," which is just a flavor of autocracy. Institutions don't run themselves, and neither do nations. In the absence of strong democratic processes and traditions to prevent it, a "strong man" always steps in.I agree with you, billy rubin, that the U.S. is in dire straits right now, but I think there are a lot of options for fixing it short of blowing up the entire democratic experiment--which I don't think fixes anything. Let's not throw up our hands just yet.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 25, 2022, 01:04:09 PMBut the reality is that the mega-rich own stock in companies. It is relatively easy for them to sell a few shares to pay taxes. Elon Musk did that recently. One billion dollar houses are not the norm.
Quote from: Tom62 on September 24, 2022, 04:44:08 PM2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.