Bernie Sanders Home Run Rant Last Night in The Presenditial Debate!

Here is the thing about the wealth gap.

Everyone understands that a sharecropper will never make the same kind of money as a farmer that owns the land. You can do alright, you might even do well. But acre to acre comparisons, the sharecropper generally loses.

Being a laborer for a company is no different than being a sharecropper. People don’t understand that yet, but how else can you explain it?

a reply to: Puppylove

Well written

a reply to: underwerks

Well written. If they didn't knock Bernie out in 2016 I would have voted for him.

a reply to: Ahabstar

People do understand that. Absolutely no one is arguing everyone should make the same pay. What people are arguing against is some people being paid too much and others paid too little.

No one is against a wealth gap. People understand the need for incentives. The argument is over what wealth gap is reasonable, and what the base pay and standard of living that comes with it is acceptable for the minimum and maximum.

People want a range from highest to lowest with reasonable expectations on both ends. At least that's what I want. Is why I prefer a wealth cap and minimum where the standard of living of the wealthiest is a set multiple of the lowest. If the upper class want more, they can raise the standard at the bottom by a set fraction of that gain.

If every elite wants to be able to afford say 100 brand new cars, then for example the minimum must be able to afford one brand new car. If an elite wants a 100 acre estate than the minimum must be able to afford one acre. Just an example at a base one hundred times.

I refuse to believe any person has done so much they deserve a million times someone else who works full time. It's absurd.

a reply to: Puppylove

Should an extra without any lines in a movie make 1/100th of the lead?
A third stringer that will never see more than five plays a year 1/100th of the quarterback? Hint: They already make more.
How about a neurologist versus a janitor?

Or is this just for general jobs? I meant you can be so poor that you have nothing but a pile of creek rocks to sit on. But if you polished those rocks they will sell for something to someone. Small enough ones will sell to hobbyists that make models and faerie gardens just fine.

When Hurricane Ike knocked out the power for a week a few years back I could have made a killing reselling kerosene lamps because college kids thought they were magic because they couldn’t figure how it worked without setting itself and everything else on fire.

People lack imagination and motivation, and that is how the wealthy become wealthy, by capitalizing upon it along with other flaws to exploit.

CNN getting horrible marks for its Debate Coverage and Moderating last night.

www.foxnews.com...

There was not a single American Flag within camera range?

originally posted by: carewemust
CNN getting horrible marks for its Debate Coverage and Moderating last night.

www.foxnews.com...

There was not a single American Flag within camera range?

You don't think Fox is still touchy over the fact that the Dems cut them out of the debate coverage do ya?

Poor Fox.

a reply to: carewemust

I find hard to believe there wasn’t one stomped on and slightly burned on the floor somewhere given those in attendance.

a reply to: Ahabstar

You totally misconstrued what I said. I'm talking about society as a whole not individual jobs.

As for an extra. I've known extras. Drove a friend to a job as an extra. Made minimum wage and worked over twelve hours a day each day he worked. Drove him one and a half hours both ways while the big names had a trailer on set.

Also let's say the full time extra who goes from set to set makes we'll say 25,000 a year, then going with that 100 times that would be 2,500,000 a year. Are you honestly telling me with a straight face that if the both worked the same hours that the star deserves one hundred times the extra per year?

I don't thinl being an actor not even the best is worthy of the highest pay in this example of one hundred being the assumed max wealth cap.

This wasn't a government function but a media event of a political party. Personally I think they showed respect for the flag rather than disgracing it as Trump has before by hugging and kissing it.

Opinions though ...

a reply to: Puppylove

So maximum wage should be 100 times the minimum or lowest paid wage at the firm? My interpretation was the lowest gets 1/100th of the top. But okay.

So what happens to the excess money made once labor and expenses are covered? Confiscated by the government as a “Success Tax” and added to the general fund?

originally posted by: Puppylove

Also let's say the full time extra who goes from set to set makes we'll say 25,000 a year, then going with that 100 times that would be 2,500,000 a year. Are you honestly telling me with a straight face that if the both worked the same hours that the star deserves one hundred times the extra per year?

I don't thinl being an actor not even the best is worthy of the highest pay in this example of one hundred being the assumed max wealth cap.

"Deserves"

Movies cost a lot to make. Is anyone going to buy a $15 ticket to watch Billy Xtra stand behind a plant? No, the stars make what they make because they put butts in the seats and sell tickets, popcorn, DVDs and Blu Rays. The extras are interchangeable. The stars are only interchangeable with each other.

Generally, you deserve what someone's willing to pay you.

The super rich will do what it takes to protect their wealth. Make the rules confiscatory and they'll find a way around them. Easing up on the tax liability repatriates some money. You know those yacht, mansion, luxury car buyers employ a lot of people with that spending. Parking it in a tax haven, not so much.

I have no illusions about the idiots in Congress being able to outwit the super wealthy even if they were so inclined. Which they are not. The electorate? Oh, absolutely they can be outwitted. That's a candy from a baby deal.

a reply to: yeahright

These corporations do their business and make their profits in the United States.

The cities, counties, States and Federal governments all maintain the infrastructure that allows for the business to proceed productively.

Why shouldn't the companies pay the various levels of government back for providing the means to make those profits?

a reply to: yeahright

Entertainment is not really 100% demand driven. If it were, Tim Tebow would still be in the NFL and Michael Keaton would have at least 15 more titles to his name.

Some of it is politics. We get what "they" present to us as a product.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I have no problem with corporations being taxed. The issue there is corporations won't pay the tax, their customers will. Corporations move the tax burden downstream and add it to the cost of the item. But I'm referring more to individuals than corporations.

We need massive tax overhaul in this country, along with some common sense spending from Congress. Any 'solution' looking to solve anything by solely grabbing what the rich have is doomed to effect no meaningful change. It's not a solution, it's retribution.

a reply to: yeahright

That's the problem with tax it can be passed down. A cap cannot. No matter how much a corporation raises prices, a cap will simply mean the same product costs more for them as well if they raise the price. A cap is necessary to keep things honest.

As for where the money goes when they make more than the cap, it gets added to a pool and distributed evenly to everybody, including themselves, thus increasing the cap across the board.

The road to success with a cap is improving the efficiency of society rather than trying to exploit it.

Oh and a cap would also come with max savings. Say a multiple of the overall cap. In our 100 x example well use 10 x that. Which will incentivise a reason to keep contributing in order to maintain that absurd standard of living.

a reply to: yeahright

Then we let market forces take care of the situation. Basic competition would produce someone who figures out how to provide those goods and services at a better price.

What we are talking about here however is not even corporate profits but the fact that 1% owns 38.50% of this country's wealth and is heading for 70%.

Money is power and the US is not a plutocracy.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's results oriented. In sports, that means wins. In movie entertainment, it's box office. A lot of it is copycat. In the NFL specifically, no one wants someone that no one else wants. Ergo, Tebow playing minor league baseball. And a lot of it is owner ego. See: Just about any free agent Dan Snyder's signed to the Redskins.

a reply to: yeahright

Why exactly should I care about the entertainment industry being shaken up exactly? It's a corrupt industry as it is.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree. Get the dirty money out of politics should be Step 1. Or at least right near the top. Congresspeople being multimillionaires after a couple of terms is absolutely criminal.

I'm holding out some (faint) hope the decimation of the national media will result in some replacement that is down the middle enough to hold both sides accountable. Because that's definitely not happening now.