'Murica! (182 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
What a lying skank. 
Probably because they have to exclude a lot of people to keep it solvent. Which automatically makes it a ponzi scheme.
- - - Updated - - -
How can anybody say Hillary won the debate? She didn't say anything whatsoever.
To me, Sanders and Webb easily won the debate... even though the former didn't say how he would pay for anything. Typical Democrat garbage.
- - - Updated - - -
How can anybody say Hillary won the debate? She didn't say anything whatsoever.
To me, Sanders and Webb easily won the debate... even though the former didn't say how he would pay for anything. Typical Democrat garbage.
...and far more important than the question of whether they morally deserve their wealth, which is essentially subjective, is the question of what measures & degree of equality/inequality brings the most benefits to society.
- - - Updated - - -
All of that only applies to the top 1% of income. The top 1% of wealth is a completely different story, that's why taxes on wealth & capital gains are far more important than taxes on income generated through work.
And even on the topic of the highest income earners, his main argument is that a portion of those people don't stay there permanently, that doesn't make the rest a non-issue, as much as he doesn't even address the huge spike in inequality over th past few decades.
- - - Updated - - -
I mean not that anyone should base their decision off such surveys, but
Sanders 98%
Clinton 92%
...
Carson 1%
Highest Republican for me is rather unsurprisingly Paul btw, 41% (due to "foreign policy & science issues").
- - - Updated - - -
All of that only applies to the top 1% of income. The top 1% of wealth is a completely different story, that's why taxes on wealth & capital gains are far more important than taxes on income generated through work.
And even on the topic of the highest income earners, his main argument is that a portion of those people don't stay there permanently, that doesn't make the rest a non-issue, as much as he doesn't even address the huge spike in inequality over th past few decades.
- - - Updated - - -
I mean not that anyone should base their decision off such surveys, but
Sanders 98%
Clinton 92%
...
Carson 1%
Highest Republican for me is rather unsurprisingly Paul btw, 41% (due to "foreign policy & science issues").
I mean not that anyone should base their decision off such surveys, but
Sanders 98%
Clinton 92%
...
Carson 1%
Highest Republican for me is rather unsurprisingly Paul btw, 41% (due to "foreign policy & science issues").
Sanders 98%
Clinton 92%
...
Carson 1%
Highest Republican for me is rather unsurprisingly Paul btw, 41% (due to "foreign policy & science issues").
Obviously but still interesting. Here's mine http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1416771958
- - - Updated - - -
Btw we agree 83%
Well yes and no. Imo you always need to make sure that people are effectively able to make their own fortune. If you take that away completely just for society's benefits, what's the point in making an effort at all?
You need to strike a balance. For example I'm in favour of a basic income for all, but you should allow people to make substantially more money when they get a job. The current system in Belgium does the opposite for low income employees. A lot of the times you end up being worse off for having worked at all.
But I suppose that debate is not about the 1% anymore, rather than the 20-30% of people who do work, but earn just enough to make a living. We've been making these people miserable for the last 20 years. And not just in Belgium.
You need to strike a balance. For example I'm in favour of a basic income for all, but you should allow people to make substantially more money when they get a job. The current system in Belgium does the opposite for low income employees. A lot of the times you end up being worse off for having worked at all.
But I suppose that debate is not about the 1% anymore, rather than the 20-30% of people who do work, but earn just enough to make a living. We've been making these people miserable for the last 20 years. And not just in Belgium.
Something I noticed about virtually all US debates the past few years is that the candidate declared victor by the media is completely arbitrary. I mean usually every viewer virtually all the time rates the candidate the best they favoured beforehands anyways. Case in point, this thread during every debate. So, the only somewhat objective measure would not be able to stem from any journalist, but would be polls - for last night's debate, Sanders won all of them (that I've seen and found through google). Yet, CNN and most media outlets proclaim Clinton as the winner, and that judgement gets spread troughout all channels and also forms or in this case, manipulates public opinion. It's a completely broken system.
- - - Updated - - -
Of course, if there's no point in making an effort anymore, the system does not work to society's benefit either. Interestingly enough of course, the situation you described holds true for a ton of working poor right now, and if you haven't inherited anything, chances are slim as fuck that you'll be able to get anywhere near the top 1% as capital returns > income through work.
Concerning your last paragraph, of course, but this isue is unseperably connected with the unproportional wealth of the richest. I mean a very good indicator in this respect is the share of labour income in the total income of an economy. Since the 1980es, this has dropped substantially everywhere in Europe and the US, and gone to the share of capital gains & profits. And since capital and as a result the associated income is, and has always been, extremely concentrated in a small segment of society, this naturally leads to a dangerous rise ininequaliy, and a growing share of working poor.
- - - Updated - - -
Of course, if there's no point in making an effort anymore, the system does not work to society's benefit either. Interestingly enough of course, the situation you described holds true for a ton of working poor right now, and if you haven't inherited anything, chances are slim as fuck that you'll be able to get anywhere near the top 1% as capital returns > income through work.
Concerning your last paragraph, of course, but this isue is unseperably connected with the unproportional wealth of the richest. I mean a very good indicator in this respect is the share of labour income in the total income of an economy. Since the 1980es, this has dropped substantially everywhere in Europe and the US, and gone to the share of capital gains & profits. And since capital and as a result the associated income is, and has always been, extremely concentrated in a small segment of society, this naturally leads to a dangerous rise ininequaliy, and a growing share of working poor.
Once again, you miss the point. Of course some of them have been involved with criminal activity, including those involved with Wall Street, whom I have been very critical of for a long time.
Please stick with topics other than finance and economics. You simply have no clue what you're talking about.
Yes, which is silly. But I'm no fan of Sanders and I can say that he won last night.
Please stick with topics other than finance and economics. You simply have no clue what you're talking about.
Yes, which is silly. But I'm no fan of Sanders and I can say that he won last night.
You
I'm a lawyer. I have been a lawyer for three years now. We do financial, insurance and criminal law. But tell me, what do you do?
I am far from a free-rider.
I'm a lawyer. I have been a lawyer for three years now. We do financial, insurance and criminal law. But tell me, what do you do?
I am far from a free-rider.
And yeah, lawyers work with these kind of things so it's foolish to assume they know nothing. One day a lawyer will save Andy's ass from the DOJ and SEC when he violates an FCPA provision.