Putting a stake thru the heart of corporations

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, June 16, 2006 15:31
VIEWED: 2162
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:16 PM

I wasn't too old when listening to Regan talk that 'trickle down' crap on a State of the Union address, and even then I saw the trick in the trickle.

On the other hand, I am rich today....

Like Han, I invested in corruption (social security) Chrisisall

TAYEATRA

Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:55 PM

My my... there certainly seems to be a vein of socialism running through this thread. Admittedly that may not be a bad thing but it depends on the level of this baseline.

I live in the UK and I think that our health service (NHS) is a much better system than the American health system. The NHS is based on the theory that everyone has a right to health services, regardless of wealth. A large proportion of national funding disappears into the NHS and whilst it has it's problems, the goal is admirable.

However, should there be a limit to welfare benefits available. Child benefit, disability allowance and state pension are all worthy funds, but there should be (IMHO) a limit on job-seekers allowance available. This is where I veer away from socialism simply because I've seen too many instances of people getting something for nothing.

There is a vast difference between some of the corporate wealth highlighted above and a middle class income yet both are taxed on the same scale without accounting for dependents above the age of 16 or mortgages. So, whilst I agree with the basic theory of income-based tax, income is not always related to lifestyle or circumstance.

When it comes to issues of extreme wealth (Bill Gates for example), moral conscience is the deciding factor. You will find that some companies donate large sums of money to charities or initiatives that are not always reported. British Telecoms gave £1/2 million to the tsunami fund without announcing it publicly whereas some celebrities gave the equivalent of a weeks wages and were celebrated in the press. Too often wealth does not come with moral guidelines but if I ever become rich I like to think I would help others less fortunate, although I would never advertise generosity because it's trashy and unnecessary.

*****
Taya
*****
I'm going to S3!!!
(*Insert hysterical celebration dance here*)

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tayeatra:

There is a vast difference between some of the corporate wealth highlighted above and a middle class income yet both are taxed on the same scale without accounting for dependents above the age of 16 or mortgages.

The UK must be quite progressive, 'cause Stateside, as your income goes up, your taxes go down to the point that big corporations get paid to not move to foreign soil.
Also, you can invest millions in a busness purposely set up to fail, and you sell it AND get tax credit on it, making more money than if the busness had succeeded.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

There's a lot of trees over our capitalist system here, yes, very shady.

Cynical Chrisisall (Not to be confused with Christhecynic)

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:46 PM

The challenge is to create a system that combines the best of both worlds. Capitalism is very very good at some things- especially concentrating capital and creating labor-saving technologies. But it sucks at recycling wealth downwards where it can once again be used to purchase goods. Consdier the capitalist's dream-world, where all production is either automated or performed by people paid next to nothing. In those circumstances, who do you sell to?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
the capitalist's dream-world, where all production is either automated or performed by people paid next to nothing. In those circumstances, who do you sell to?

EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY!
Extreme Capitalists are aiming toward self destruction, but they're gonna have fun before that happens...

Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The challenge is to create a system that combines the best of both worlds. Capitalism is very very good at some things- especially concentrating capital and creating labor-saving technologies. But it sucks at recycling wealth downwards where it can once again be used to purchase goods. Consdier the capitalist's dream-world, where all production is either automated or performed by people paid next to nothing. In those circumstances, who do you sell to?

The Robots obviously.

Geeze.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

RUE

Friday, June 16, 2006 2:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In those circumstances, who do you sell to?
Originally posted by citizen:
The Robots obviously.
Geeze.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....

But seriously.
I think I see some flaws in the scenarios. Help me out here.

1) The rich get to keep everything. The faster the handle cranks, the richer they get, so of course they crank as fast as possible. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the motivating force (the rich who have the power) have a vested interest in using up resources and generating waste as fast as possible. The earth and most of humanity loses. Unsustainable.

2) Socialism and capitalism are married. The rich get to keep some, and the non-rich (there are no poor) are maintained at some minimal level. The rich have a vested interest in cranking the handle faster, b/c they get rich fatser, though at a slower rate than above. Eventually machines are doing all the work, the non-rich are subsidized, and, if the balance is maintained - like the cartoon character running on thin air - the system stays one step ahead of collapse. Except it is run on stripping the earth and generating waste at an accelerating rate to keep ahead of failure. Unsustainable.

3) Wealth is completely recycled into the working class. But since there is no concentration, there is (theoretically) no investment and no controlling factor. Large corporations break down into small units, and chaos ensues. Efficiency and coordination are lost, and resources are wasted. Unsustainable.

So what I see is that jiggering the old stuff won't work. What is needed is a whole new path.

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 16, 2006 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

So what I see is that jiggering the old stuff won't work. What is needed is a whole new path.

No privately owned companies; employees own stock, government controls buisness/people control government, near 100% employment, no rich class, all citizens get a 'rich month' where they can partake of excess, so in effect 1/12 of the population is wealthy at all times, just in rotation.

I LIKE it!

Never happen Chrisisall

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2