Class warfare

Cameron wrote:White House defends role in Hunter Biden art sale

Paintings by Hunter Biden are expected to fetch up to $500,000 (£360,000) apiece at auction this autumn.

According to the dealer, smaller pieces are set to sell for $75,000, with the larger ones expected to reach half a million dollars.

What the actual fuck? Who is out there looking to drop $500k on a fucking Hunter Biden original, and why can't they find anything better to do with their money?

Also, if his last name weren't Biden, what are the odds an ex crack addict with no training is making paintings worth $500k? But I'm sure this is all on the up and up.

They're worth $500,000 because the "art dealer" says so?

I'll take the under.

Cameron wrote:

Corruption is hilarious. I always chuckle when our public servants use their legislative power to enrich themselves.

Why Rich Guys Get Richer Off of Debt—While the Rest of Us Can Get Crushed by It

https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1434676869455040516

Wealth tax now, please.

Elon Musk says the mean old government is suppressing his free speech.

It's almost like he's trying to make me hate him as much as I hate Bezos. Why do rich guys always act like such little bitches?

Cameron wrote:Elon Musk says the mean old government is suppressing his free speech.

Why do rich guys always act like such little bitches?

Because the Poors are always crying about taking their money???

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:Elon Musk says the mean old government is suppressing his free speech.

Why do rich guys always act like such little bitches?

Because the Poors are always crying about taking their money???

Well, the "rich" are doing that, so why are they such crybabies about it?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Because the Poors are always crying about taking their money???

Well, the "rich" are doing that, so why are they such crybabies about it?

I don't understand what you mean. You'll have to elaborate.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Well, the "rich" are doing that, so why are they such crybabies about it?

I don't understand what you mean.  You'll have to elaborate.

Okay, however it requires a couple sentences of economic theory background.

When Adam Smith, often considered the originator of economic theory, wrote "Wealth of Nations", he thought that labor should be paid the value of the good or service the labor provided.  This is the "Value Theory of Labor" and he based his economic theory upon it.  Other economists have also based their theories on this, one notable one was Karl Marx.

Not long after Smith's work was published, other people wrote on economics and proposed a different method of determining value, which was "whatever the worker will accept as payment".  This is called the "Market Theory of Labor"

Both Theories have flaws.  

The "Value Theory of Labor", though fine in the ideal, is unworkable since the value isn't easily known.  

The "Market Theory of Labor" creates a power struggle between those buying labor and those whose labor is being bought.  As in any power struggle the more powerful position wins.  

The "Market Theory" proponents said that over time the labor would adjust to match the value created, however, this has not been the case.   If fact, given the power position of the buyers of labor, the price of labor is always in a "race to the bottom", the bottom being the lowest price for labor possible, regardless of the value labor creates or the needs of the laborer to stay alive.  Literal Slavery is the very bottom of this theory of labor.

The "Market Theory of Labor" is what is mostly accepted today, with some adjustments, such as minimum wage laws, which are supported by the "Value Theory of Labor"

Thus the "rich" are not paying for the value that labor creates, they are paying what they must on the labor market and pocketing the difference between the value that labor is creating and what they are paid.

In effect, the "rich" are stealing that value from the poor.

That is the way our market system of labor works, so why don't the "rich" "man-up" and admit it instead of crying about it.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I don't understand what you mean.  You'll have to elaborate.

Okay, however it requires a couple sentences of economic theory background.

When Adam Smith, often considered the originator of economic theory, wrote "Wealth of Nations", he thought that labor should be paid the value of the good or service the labor provided.  This is the "Value Theory of Labor" and he based his economic theory upon it.  Other economists have also based their theories on this, one notable one was Karl Marx.

Not long after Smith's work was published, other people wrote on economics and proposed a different method of determining value, which was "whatever the worker will accept as payment".  This is called the "Market Theory of Labor"

Both Theories have flaws.  

The "Value Theory of Labor", though fine in the ideal, is unworkable since the value isn't easily known.  

The "Market Theory of Labor" creates a power struggle between those buying labor and those whose labor is being bought.  As in any power struggle the more powerful position wins.  

The "Market Theory" proponents said that over time the labor would adjust to match the value created, however, this has not been the case.   If fact, given the power position of the buyers of labor, the price of labor is always in a "race to the bottom", the bottom being the lowest price for labor possible, regardless of the value labor creates or the needs of the laborer to stay alive.  Literal Slavery is the very bottom of this theory of labor.

The "Market Theory of Labor" is what is mostly accepted today, with some adjustments, such as minimum wage laws, which are supported by the "Value Theory of Labor"

Thus the "rich" are not paying for the value that labor creates, they are paying what they must on the labor market and pocketing the difference between the value that labor is creating and what they are paid.

In effect, the "rich" are stealing that value from the poor.

That is the way our market system of labor works, so why don't the "rich" "man-up" and admit it instead of crying about it.

You want the rich to "man up" and admit they make money from their workers' efforts? Which rich person isn't admitting to that?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:Elon Musk says the mean old government is suppressing his free speech.

Why do rich guys always act like such little bitches?

Because the Poors are always crying about taking their money???

When Elon Musk pays an effective tax rate above 30%, then he has my permission to bitch. Until then, he can shut the fuck up and count his money.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Okay, however it requires a couple sentences of economic theory background.

When Adam Smith, often considered the originator of economic theory, wrote "Wealth of Nations", he thought that labor should be paid the value of the good or service the labor provided.  This is the "Value Theory of Labor" and he based his economic theory upon it.  Other economists have also based their theories on this, one notable one was Karl Marx.

Not long after Smith's work was published, other people wrote on economics and proposed a different method of determining value, which was "whatever the worker will accept as payment".  This is called the "Market Theory of Labor"

Both Theories have flaws.  

The "Value Theory of Labor", though fine in the ideal, is unworkable since the value isn't easily known.  

The "Market Theory of Labor" creates a power struggle between those buying labor and those whose labor is being bought.  As in any power struggle the more powerful position wins.  

The "Market Theory" proponents said that over time the labor would adjust to match the value created, however, this has not been the case.   If fact, given the power position of the buyers of labor, the price of labor is always in a "race to the bottom", the bottom being the lowest price for labor possible, regardless of the value labor creates or the needs of the laborer to stay alive.  Literal Slavery is the very bottom of this theory of labor.

The "Market Theory of Labor" is what is mostly accepted today, with some adjustments, such as minimum wage laws, which are supported by the "Value Theory of Labor"

Thus the "rich" are not paying for the value that labor creates, they are paying what they must on the labor market and pocketing the difference between the value that labor is creating and what they are paid.

In effect, the "rich" are stealing that value from the poor.

That is the way our market system of labor works, so why don't the "rich" "man-up" and admit it instead of crying about it.

You want the rich to "man up" and admit they make money from their workers' efforts? Which rich person isn't admitting to that?

That isn't what I said. When they admit they are stealing money from their workers, which is what I said, and furthermore, what I didn't say but is obvious, that they agree that having the government step in and do it's best to correct that injustice then they will be doing what they should be doing.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Okay, however it requires a couple sentences of economic theory background.

When Adam Smith, often considered the originator of economic theory, wrote "Wealth of Nations", he thought that labor should be paid the value of the good or service the labor provided.  This is the "Value Theory of Labor" and he based his economic theory upon it.  Other economists have also based their theories on this, one notable one was Karl Marx.

Not long after Smith's work was published, other people wrote on economics and proposed a different method of determining value, which was "whatever the worker will accept as payment".  This is called the "Market Theory of Labor"

Both Theories have flaws.  

The "Value Theory of Labor", though fine in the ideal, is unworkable since the value isn't easily known.  

The "Market Theory of Labor" creates a power struggle between those buying labor and those whose labor is being bought.  As in any power struggle the more powerful position wins.  

The "Market Theory" proponents said that over time the labor would adjust to match the value created, however, this has not been the case.   If fact, given the power position of the buyers of labor, the price of labor is always in a "race to the bottom", the bottom being the lowest price for labor possible, regardless of the value labor creates or the needs of the laborer to stay alive.  Literal Slavery is the very bottom of this theory of labor.

The "Market Theory of Labor" is what is mostly accepted today, with some adjustments, such as minimum wage laws, which are supported by the "Value Theory of Labor"

Thus the "rich" are not paying for the value that labor creates, they are paying what they must on the labor market and pocketing the difference between the value that labor is creating and what they are paid.

In effect, the "rich" are stealing that value from the poor.

That is the way our market system of labor works, so why don't the "rich" "man-up" and admit it instead of crying about it.

You want the rich to "man up" and admit they make money from their workers' efforts? Which rich person isn't admitting to that?

They're disproportionately enriching themselves at the expense of their employees. Walmart teaches their employees how to get government assistance for example, and they're one of the most profitable companies in the world.

Cameron wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Because the Poors are always crying about taking their money???

When Elon Musk pays an effective tax rate above 30%, then he has my permission to bitch. Until then, he can shut the fuck up and count his money.

We could do a flat tax. No exceptions, no loopholes. But somehow the Poors get all worked up when you suggest that.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

You want the rich to "man up" and admit they make money from their workers' efforts? Which rich person isn't admitting to that?

That isn't what I said. When they admit they are stealing money from their workers, which is what I said, and furthermore, what I didn't say but is obvious, that they agree that having the government step in and do it's best to correct that injustice then they will be doing what they should be doing.

It's not slavery. No one is forcing the workers to work there.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:

When Elon Musk pays an effective tax rate above 30%, then he has my permission to bitch. Until then, he can shut the fuck up and count his money.

We could do a flat tax. No exceptions, no loopholes. But somehow the Poors get all worked up when you suggest that.

Because it's regressive and billionaires should pay a higher rate than their secretaries.

Cameron wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

We could do a flat tax. No exceptions, no loopholes. But somehow the Poors get all worked up when you suggest that.

Because it's regressive and billionaires should pay a higher rate than their secretaries.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say you're for all of these loopholes and complex tax structures, and then expect the wealthy not to take advantage of those loopholes.

Do you know why and how and why billionaires pay less than their secretaries? It's because they technically have no income. What's your proposal to fix that? You just want a straight up wealth tax? If you have a lot of money, the government deserves to take it? That's not exactly in line with American values.

I definitely want a wealth tax. It's in line with my values, so I want it. What could be more American than that?

But hiding income to avoid taxes is in line with American values? You got to have income to have wealth.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Because it's regressive and billionaires should pay a higher rate than their secretaries.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say you're for all of these loopholes and complex tax structures, and then expect the wealthy not to take advantage of those loopholes.

Do you know why and how and why billionaires pay less than their secretaries? It's because they technically have no income. What's your proposal to fix that? You just want a straight up wealth tax? If you have a lot of money, the government deserves to take it? That's not exactly in line with American values.

Stop saying the government is taking their money. It’s the people. Us. We are the “government”. And some of us think it makes sense. There’s a reason the wealthy pay lobbyist. And it ain’t to benefit us. What’s the crime in wanting something for us? Can’t we play the benefit game as well?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:

When Elon Musk pays an effective tax rate above 30%, then he has my permission to bitch. Until then, he can shut the fuck up and count his money.

We could do a flat tax. No exceptions, no loopholes. But somehow the Poors get all worked up when you suggest that.

Because flat taxes place undue burden on those who earn little ...

The US tax code has only 4 tax rates, which make things pretty simple.

Many studies have shown that when all taxes are counted the tax rates are pretty flat across incomes, with only the very wealthy and very poor get lower rates.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

That isn't what I said. When they admit they are stealing money from their workers, which is what I said, and furthermore, what I didn't say but is obvious, that they agree that having the government step in and do it's best to correct that injustice then they will be doing what they should be doing.

It's not slavery. No one is forcing the workers to work there.

And either you are obtuse on this topic or your stupid about it...

Free Markets for labor are a power struggle between those who buy and those who sell.

The buyers have been forcing the prices down for decades all over the globe.

The only real solution is to take the unearned money away from those who didn't earn it, aka the wealthy, and use it for the betterment of those who are creating the value.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

It's not slavery. No one is forcing the workers to work there.

And either you are obtuse on this topic or your stupid about it...

Free Markets for labor are a power struggle between those who buy and those who sell.

The buyers have been forcing the prices down for decades all over the globe.

The only real solution is to take the unearned money away from those who didn't earn it, aka the wealthy, and use it for the betterment of those who are creating the value.

I can't have a serious conversation with you if you claim the wealthy didn't earn their money.

If the guy who's whimsy is shooting himself in space pays less of a tax rate then I do... the system is broken and I don't give a fuck if "it's UN'MERICAN" to tax wealth... he needs to pay his share. "e pluribus unum" includes the guys that can afford to pay someone to game the system or just to purchase the politicians to make their own system. Shit's broke. It needs to be fixed.

I believe the only reason the French Revolution hasn't happened in the US yet is because the dumbasses haven't realized R is voting against their best interest. If they ever get out of their own fucking way stuff will change.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

And either you are obtuse on this topic or your stupid about it...

Free Markets for labor are a power struggle between those who buy and those who sell.

The buyers have been forcing the prices down for decades all over the globe.

The only real solution is to take the unearned money away from those who didn't earn it, aka the wealthy, and use it for the betterment of those who are creating the value.

I can't have a serious conversation with you if you claim the wealthy didn't earn their money.

Really?

After I gave you a brief lesson on that is how the current system works?

Why not?

AvgMSUJoe wrote:If the guy who's whimsy is shooting himself in space pays less of a tax rate then I do... the system is broken and I don't give a fuck if "it's UN'MERICAN" to tax wealth... he needs to pay his share. "e pluribus unum" includes the guys that can afford to pay someone to game the system or just to purchase the politicians to make their own system. Shit's broke. It needs to be fixed.

I believe the only reason the French Revolution hasn't happened in the US yet is because the dumbasses haven't realized R is voting against their best interest. If they ever get out of their own fucking way stuff will change.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:If the guy who's whimsy is shooting himself in space pays less of a tax rate then I do... the system is broken and I don't give a fuck if "it's UN'MERICAN" to tax wealth... he needs to pay his share. "e pluribus unum" includes the guys that can afford to pay someone to game the system or just to purchase the politicians to make their own system. Shit's broke. It needs to be fixed.

I believe the only reason the French Revolution hasn't happened in the US yet is because the dumbasses haven't realized R is voting against their best interest. If they ever get out of their own fucking way stuff will change.

Your post is an emotional tantrum, not a fact based argument.

It's an income tax. The wealthy pay their share of taxes based upon their income. The fact that they may have less income than their secretaries means they pay less taxes.

Pounding your fists on the table and being jealous that they have more money than you is NOT a valid reason to implement a wealth tax.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I can't have a serious conversation with you if you claim the wealthy didn't earn their money.

Really?

After I gave you a brief lesson on that is how the current system works?

Why not?

What is your definition of "earning?"

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Really?

After I gave you a brief lesson on that is how the current system works?

Why not?

What is your definition of "earning?"

Good point, being paid for the value that you create.  Adam Smith, and most economists', definition. They justify the Market Value of Labor by claiming that in the long run it approximates the Value Theory of Labor, which is a meaningless claim. As Keynes said, "In the long run we all will be dead", meaning the timeframe for that adjustment is too long to have any meaning.

It is the only pure definition.

To use the definition of the Free Market Cost of Labor is to turn the economy from a system with justice to the individual into a power struggle between people with unequal power.

Though I readily admit it not possible to use the Value Theory of Labor directly, given the brainwashing that has been done by the wealthy over the years, which is why I am happy with using the current system by taxing the unearned wealth afterwards and returning it to those who earned it.

Effectively I am willing to have a power struggle where a greater power, the government, uses that power to create an approximation of a just economic system for the individual, aka Freedom.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

What is your definition of "earning?"

Good point, being paid for the value that you create.  Adam Smith, and most economists', definition. They justify the Market Value of Labor by claiming that in the long run it approximates the Value Theory of Labor, which is a meaningless claim. As Keynes said, "In the long run we all will be dead", meaning the timeframe for that adjustment is too long to have any meaning.

It is the only pure definition.

To use the definition of the Free Market Cost of Labor is to turn the economy from a system with justice to the individual into a power struggle between people with unequal power.

Though I readily admit it not possible to use the Value Theory of Labor directly, given the brainwashing that has been done by the wealthy over the years, which is why I am happy with using the current system by taxing the unearned wealth afterwards and returning it to those who earned it.

Effectively I am willing to have a power struggle where a greater power, the government, uses that power to create an approximation of a just economic system for the individual, aka Freedom.

And how do you measure "value?"

And I guess, since we're making an effort to reach some kind of understanding here, if you could also just indulge me and define "wealth," that would also be helpful.

If you want to pre-address any questions around liquid versus illiquid assets that would count as part of any definition of "wealth," that's an extra credit point for you.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Good point, being paid for the value that you create.  Adam Smith, and most economists', definition. They justify the Market Value of Labor by claiming that in the long run it approximates the Value Theory of Labor, which is a meaningless claim. As Keynes said, "In the long run we all will be dead", meaning the timeframe for that adjustment is too long to have any meaning.

It is the only pure definition.

To use the definition of the Free Market Cost of Labor is to turn the economy from a system with justice to the individual into a power struggle between people with unequal power.

Though I readily admit it not possible to use the Value Theory of Labor directly, given the brainwashing that has been done by the wealthy over the years, which is why I am happy with using the current system by taxing the unearned wealth afterwards and returning it to those who earned it.

Effectively I am willing to have a power struggle where a greater power, the government, uses that power to create an approximation of a just economic system for the individual, aka Freedom.

And how do you measure "value?"

Well, the economists say all hours are equal, so that is one way.

However, with the Market Value of Labor being so entrenched, causing time measurement to be hard, and the time distortion for ideal economic value transfers to not actually work in the real world the answer is the increase in wealth beyond the cost to produce it is what economists call "rent" (rent is payment beyond the value created) but we all call profit is the aggregate of the value the workers created but were not paid for.

Therefore, all the profits are how the value is measured.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:And I guess, since we're making an effort to reach some kind of understanding here, if you could also just indulge me and define "wealth," that would also be helpful.

If you want to pre-address any questions around liquid versus illiquid assets that would count as part of any definition of "wealth," that's an extra credit point for you.

That is a loaded word...

Here is the Webster definition which I believe applies.

"All property that has a money value or an exchangeable value"

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

And how do you measure "value?"

Well, the economists say all hours are equal, so that is one way.

However, with the Market Value of Labor being so entrenched, causing time measurement to be hard, and the time distortion for ideal economic value transfers to not actually work in the real world the answer is the increase in wealth beyond the cost to produce it is what economists call "rent" (rent is payment beyond the value created) but we all call profit is the aggregate of the value the workers created but were not paid for.

Therefore, all the profits are how the value is measured.

So using an economist's definition, an hour of my worthless ass digging a random hole in the desert has the same value as an hour of President Biden negotiating with Putin to keep the world from entering war. That seems like a pretty dumb definition.

But using your definition of profits = value is something that we could probably work with, but it, too, seems fraught with problems.

If I work 5 years for a startup, and the company eventually fails and earns no profit, do I not deserve to earn a salary? Is my value worthless?

Or what if the startup is wildly successful. A company of 20 people create a brilliant product that results in millions of dollars in profits. How is that value split amongst the workers? The economists would claim all hours are equal. But what if I just sat in my office, researched my fantasy football team, and posted on the Swill? I logged hours, but do I deserve an equal amount of profit?

And let's throw in to question the initial assumption that my startup "earned" people money. Setup a business? Open a store? You’re just exploiting other’s needs or wants. You’re not earning shit. If you mean by patenting a product or invention, that basically means selling your intellectual property. How can you earn money just by charging people who use your idea?

Let's go really left field. Maybe a bank robber earned his riches by planning it carefully and taking penitentiary risks. You’re not gonna touch his money cause he earned it?

No, I'm afraid these definitions you seek are wholly objective and emotional. They are the words tossed around by people who scheme to take wealth from others.

I'm relatively sure that our tax system already defines earned vs unearned income. As I recall, it also gives a preferential rate to unearned income, which seems backwards to me, but I could have that wrong.

Cameron wrote:I'm relatively sure that our tax system already defines earned vs unearned income. As I recall, it also gives a preferential rate to unearned income, which seems backwards to me, but I could have that wrong.

Unearned income is income not acquired through work. Examples of unearned income, also known as passive income, include interest from savings accounts, bond interest, alimony, and dividends from stocks.

So an individual who takes a risk by investing their post-tax income into stocks or bonds, in your opinion, deserves to be taxed again at a higher rate than the initial income tax?

Congratulations. Your economy just crashed and we're all living in a post-apocalyptic barter system. Your idea is the financial version of dying of dysentery. Please play again.