Ron Paul? What are your thoughts?

leftysergeant said:
Thinking that corporations should be leashed like a pit bull does not make me a socialist.

Capitalism is okay as long as the capitalists know what their role is supposed to be. They are supposed to redistribute the wealth, not amass it to themselves at the expense of society as a whole, and certainly not to use that wealth as a weapon to rob working people of the fruits of their labor, or to exclude others from access to the resources that God put on this earth for the common use.
Click to expand...

What, in your view, is an acceptable percentage of a business's net profits for the owner to take? Keep in mind that he or she has often pledged everything they have as collateral to raise starting capital. What is risk worth?
 
respect said:
What, in your view, is an acceptable percentage of a business's net profits for the owner to take?
Click to expand...

Whatever is left after the workers have been paid a deecent day's provisisons for every day they worked and the vendors and all the utilities, including government, have been paid.

Keep in mind that he or she has often pledged everything they have as collateral to raise starting capital. What is risk worth?
Click to expand...

So, if they fail, we are supposed to suck up their costs? Their risk is not worth a dime to me. It's their own fault if they go broke because their business models suck, right?

If the business model includes not paying the workers, vendors and utility providers, screw them senseless. They don't deserve to win.
 
leftysergeant said:
Whatever is left after the workers have been paid a deecent day's provisisons for every day they worked and the vendors and all the utilities, including government (its 95%), have been paid.
...
Click to expand...

the bolded part above...that's the kicker that you want, but have left out.
 
leftysergeant said:
Whatever is left after the workers have been paid a deecent day's provisisons for every day they worked and the vendors and all the utilities, including government, have been paid.



So, if they fail, we are supposed to suck up their costs? Their risk is not worth a dime to me. It's their own fault if they go broke because their business models suck, right?

If the business model includes not paying the workers, vendors and utility providers, screw them senseless. They don't deserve to win.
Click to expand...

Wow, besides that nobody knows what "deecent" means, nobody would have a job under your plan.
 
leftysergeant said:
Stop that. It makes you look stupid.
Click to expand...

You would at least agree that there comes a point at which the government can tax people and corporations to such an extent, that it becomes detrimental to the overall goal, right?

If tax rates are so high that they drive away corporations and people, you will lose revenue in the end.
 
deepatrax said:
You would at least agree that there comes a point at which the government can tax people and corporations to such an extent, that it becomes detrimental to the overall goal, right?
Click to expand...

No.

If tax rates are so high that they drive away corporations and people, you will lose revenue in the end.
Click to expand...

Only the useless parasites will leave.
 
leftysergeant said:
If they go away, we can still build an entrepreneurial class that wants to do something with the resources and infrastructure that we have here. Think some time. It's good for you.
Click to expand...

Get an education some time, it's even better.
 
leftysergeant said:
Try learning some history. No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much compared to the rich.

Other way around has brought down most empires.
Click to expand...

Right, in history, the poor have never conquered the rich.

And you expect to be taken seriously?

Are you sure you aren't just trolling liberals like skeptic ginger?
 
leftysergeant said:
Occassionally, they kill and eat them. Can't say that I blame them.
Click to expand...

Just to get this straight, you want to eat financially successful people, or at least think it is okay if others do, but you think that Milton Friedman, one of the greatest champions of individual liberty who has ever lived is a bad man?

And you wonder why I hold such a low view of you.
 
respect said:
What, in your view, is an acceptable percentage of a business's net profits for the owner to take?
Click to expand...


Er, doesn't the term "net profits" refer to the amount of profits left over after taxes (along with all other relevant deductions) have been factored in? If so, then you ought to be asking what the acceptable percentage of gross profits are to be deducted.

My answer to that latter question would be something higher than 0% and something less than 100%. The exact number or numbers would be determined based on empirical data from other countries as to what number or numbers produced the best economic growth while still providing sufficient revenue to fund government activities and obligations (in addition to revenue derived from sources other than corporate income taxes).
 
Corsair 115 said:
Er, doesn't the term "net profits" refer to the amount of profits left over after taxes (along with all other relevant deductions) have been factored in? If so, then you ought to be asking what the acceptable percentage of gross profits are to be deducted.
Click to expand...

Needless to say, both apply to the question, but we were going to go one at a time.

Corsair 115 said:
My answer to that latter question would be something higher than 0% and something less than 100%. The exact number or numbers would be determined based on empirical data from other countries as to what number or numbers produced the best economic growth while still providing sufficient revenue to fund government activities and obligations (in addition to revenue derived from sources other than corporate income taxes).
Click to expand...

Between 0 ans 100 percent is pretty clear. Are you suggesting tax rates should be in line with other countries or undercut them?
 
respect said:
Just to get this straight, you want to eat financially successful people, or at least think it is okay if others do, but you think that Milton Friedman, one of the greatest champions of individual liberty who has ever lived is a bad man?
Click to expand...

Only nations originally given to ritual cannibalism had ever, to my knowledge killed and eaten their elite as society fell apart. I think i read somewhere of the Mayans occassionaly doing so, perhaps the Mixtec or other Meso-American tribes among who cannibalism was part of the human sacrfice ritual.

Most advanced cultures are, of course, satisfied just to lop off the heads of the rich when they become too oppressive, as the French did.

Then there were the Bolshviks, who were given to shooting people in the back of the head before expropriating their land to turn it over to the peasant and worker collectives.

I do not endorse this sort of thing until it reaches the point at which the rich, by their control of most of the wealth through their manipulation of capital, start placing the basic resources for survival beyond the reach of the working classes who have only the choice to become peons or to starve to death.

We are not there, yet, but that is where Friedmanism would take us if we cannot stop it in time.

And you wonder why I hold such a low view of you.
Click to expand...

Given your attitude toward the working class, it would bother me more if you liked me.
 
leftysergeant said:
Only nations originally given to ritual cannibalism had ever, to my knowledge killed and eaten their elite as society fell apart. I think i read somewhere of the Mayans occassionaly doing so, perhaps the Mixtec or other Meso-American tribes among who cannibalism was part of the human sacrfice ritual.

Most advanced cultures are, of course, satisfied just to lop off the heads of the rich when they become too oppressive, as the French did.

Then there were the Bolshviks, who were given to shooting people in the back of the head before expropriating their land to turn it over to the peasant and worker collectives.

I do not endorse this sort of thing until it reaches the point at which the rich, by their control of most of the wealth through their manipulation of capital, start placing the basic resources for survival beyond the reach of the working classes who have only the choice to become peons or to starve to death.

We are not there, yet, but that is where Friedmanism would take us if we cannot stop it in time.
Click to expand...

You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. An economic system based on your views would lead to everyone being in poverty. Who would you advocate killing then?



leftysergeant said:
Given your attitude toward the working class, it would bother me more if you liked me.
Click to expand...

What attitude? I have no problem with people who work and earn their own way. I do have a problem with those who can't be bothered to make an effort to earn what they want and instead cry about how it just isn't fair that the government won't take money from those who earn it and give it to them.
 
respect said:
What attitude? I have no problem with people who work and earn their own way. I do have a problem with those who can't be bothered to make an effort to earn what they want and instead cry about how it just isn't fair that the government won't take money from those who earn it and give it to them.
Click to expand...
You haven't been paying attention. I have been complaining about exactly that. The government takes our money, supposedly to cover our share of the upkeep on the commons, and then pays part of the share that the corporatist slime should be paying out of our pockets.

Rich people do not deserve an additional break when people are starving.

They can start creating some living-wage jobs or pay their utility bills like the rest of us or go away and find some other market to exploit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom