Should big digressions be split to a new topic?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said:

    But that doesn't make me any less irritated by the megasalaries payed at the top level compared to the bottom level, or even the middle level.

    What, specifically, makes you upset about the difference?

    Do you understand the reason employers hire people? Do you think it makes sense to hire them at higher rates than what they can produce for the firm?


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    I could be a pedantic dickweed and complain about a company with 5 CEOs, but I'll point out that those employees aren't worth an extra $20K per year

    Mine has more than 5. But it has a lot more employees than 500. And yes, the employees aren't worth 20k a year more. That's why I DONT WANT A 15/hr MINIMUM WAGE for the last time. How many times do I have to say it before you all read and understand it?



  • @darkmatter said:

    Yes, and clearly the US doesn't import cheap goods either? HA.

    Oh yeah, and it has nothing to do with taxing shit out "evil" corporations here either for being evil and just so damned unfair.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    What, specifically, makes you upset about the difference?

    Do you understand the reason employers hire people? Do you think it makes sense to hire them at higher rates than what they can produce for the firm?

    I am not so sure they're "producing" all that much. Decision-making maybe. But look how many of these CEOs are making shit decisions and killing companies... and then getting a huge severance and still jumping to another company to do the exact same thing to them. Are they all worth megamillions? Really?


  • :belt_onion:

    @DrakeSmith said:

    Oh yeah, and it has nothing to do with taxing shit out "evil" corporations here either for being evil and just so damned unfair

    What a joke. At least now I can mark one of you off as pointless to discuss this with. You've already bought into all of it.



  • @darkmatter said:

    Are they all worth megamillions? Really?

    Ask Ballmer. Or Elop.


  • :belt_onion:

    @tufty said:

    Ask Ballmer. Or Elop.

    During the 3 years Elop was Nokia CEO, Nokia revenues fell 40%, Nokia profits fell 95%, Nokia market share collapsed in smartphones from 34% to 3.4%, Nokia's credit rating went from A to junk, Nokia's share price dropped 60% in value and Nokia's market capitalization lost 13 billion dollars in value. During his tenure at Nokia, Elop was regularly featured on the 'worst CEO' lists such as those at Daily Finance, CNBC and Wealth Wire.

    And then Elop jumps to MS for megamillions.....

    Are you arguing against me or for me Tufty?



  • Same could be said of you depending on what side your looking from. It's too much fun to quit now though!

    I agree with Ann Coulter.
    Rush Limbaugh knows what he is talking about.
    Glenn Beck makes sense.
    Obama is a terrible president, and it has nothing to do with skin color or alleged religious choices.



  • I think he was giving you examples of why they are not worth megamillions to the company... but especially in Elop's case, one must consider the Grand Plan. It is not for nothing that Microsoft was routinely compared to the Borg during the 1990s...


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @tufty said:

    Maybe this. It's an 80-page report, plenty of room for you to find something vaguely ambiguous to focus on

    I couldn't find anything (quickly) about taxes paid, but the summary mentions that the top 1% of US income earners get somewhere around 47% of income. I couldn't find anything about taxes. Here's another study:

    According to new IRS data, the 1.35 million taxpayers that represent the highest-earning one percent of the Americans who filed federal income tax returns in 2010 earned 18.9% of the total gross income and paid 37.4% of all federal income taxes paid in that year. In contrast, the 128.3 million taxpayers in the bottom 95% of all U.S. taxpayers in 2010 earned 66.2% of gross income and that group paid 40.9% of all taxes paid.

    Of course, that doesn't take all taxes into account, and neither emphasizes that the top 1% has a very volatile membership. And these are just focusing on the top 1%. Stay in the top 10% or so, and I think my argument looks pretty good.

    In all, I'd have to say, inconclusive, since your article doesn't seem to give us an idea about the distribution of tax burdens. In the US, lower income people pay more in payroll and sales taxes. But we don't have a VAT, which is especially regressive.

    @tufty said:

    You might want to try Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-first Century", too.

    Nah, I can get plenty of terrible arguments relying on made up data and unsupported assertions right here.


  • :belt_onion:

    @DrakeSmith said:

    I agree with Ann Coulter. Rush Limbaugh knows what he is talking about. Glenn Beck makes sense.

    Glenn.... Beck...
    Was this a joke post intentionally I am guessing? Surely... right?

    And again, since you apparently haven't read most of my posts... I am not for either side. They both want crap that screws me over, and I feel screws over a lot of America.

    The right's unbendable view that the rich should get more special breaks than they already get for being rich, along with the ultra-religious nutcases that think the government should run on a Christian agenda, because that's what the majority is anyway so screw the rest of Americans. Also, the unwillingness to get into the 21st century with medical plans... we already pay way more per capita on medicine than lots of countries, which is why we're so much higher quality... but we do it through insurance companies that are competing to pay... oh yes, mega-millions to CEOS. Why? Why can we not pull this in and have the money I pay in to medical insurance pay for the medical bills and not pay some CEO's salary?

    And the left's desire to take everyone's cash and spread it around evenly as if that somehow magically fixes everything instantly. Sure we need to make the gap smaller, but just taking the money away from the top and giving it to the bottom won't fix it. Never has before. Also the desire to ban everything. Which is puzzling since they also want to legalize everything. How do that not contradict itself?!

    And plenty more things about both sides that I dislike. Unfortunately... I have no solutions to the problems I hate. If I did, I could join the political train!


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said:

    By the way, I am puzzled as to why everyone is arguing with me about something I don't agree with or want anyway?

    We're arguing with something you seem to believe. Which is that a minimum wage is a magical thing. Though you seem to be working your way back to reality.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said:

    Mine has more than 5 [CEOs].

    They're not very Chiefly then, are they?



  • It has rainbows and unicorn 💩 too.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    Stay in the top 10% or so, and I think my argument looks pretty good.

    You may be right on this. Top 10% might be a bit too broad.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said:

    Are they all worth megamillions? Really?

    The corporations are voluntarily paying them to do their job. So, yes, they're worth that because someone is willing to pay. I'm not willing to pay $10 for a mixed drink, but there are lots of people who pay a lot more than that at a bar or restaurant. I'm OK with that.


  • BINNED

    @boomzilla said:

    Of course, that doesn't take all taxes into account, and neither emphasizes that the top 1% has a very volatile membership. And these are just focusing on the top 1%. Stay in the top 10% or so, and I think my argument looks pretty good.

    This may be a case of looking for lost keys under a street lamp because there's more light there. The rich have creative ways of not showing income.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    They're not very Chiefly then, are they?

    My bad though, I keep saying CEOs but it's more like C-level. CEO is specifically the Chief Executive officer.

    Chief Executive
    Chief Financial
    Chief Operations
    Chief Information or Chief Technology
    Chief Marketing

    That makes 5, and I'm missing some.
    Most companies of any size have at least 3 C-level officers.



  • It's really fun when they start making positions up. One company I know had a Chief Vitalisation Officer. 5 years on and I still have no idea what it means.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    We're arguing with something you seem to believe. Which is that a minimum wage is a magical thing. Though you seem to be working your way back to reality.

    I do not believe in it. I do believe that some people's reactions to it are ridiculous, the world is not going to implode because of it. But it is not a magical solution that is going to fix everything. In the end it will all balance back out because the people who are still in control are that top 1% I keep referencing. And as the other person linked an article to, that top 1% will just screw you out of the money through other means, like removing benefits. No way they will let go of their mega-millions.

    I won't believe in a law that can't prevent the abuse of the lower/middle class by the upper class. And that's likely never going to be possible.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said:

    The right's unbendable view that the rich should get more special breaks than they already get for being rich

    You lost me.

    @darkmatter said:

    the ultra-religious nutcases that think the government should run on a Christian agenda

    Do you think people's politics shouldn't be informed by their morality if that comes from a religion? Are you paranoid? Do you just think ChristoFascist GodBag sounds funny and needs to be said more often?

    @darkmatter said:

    . but we do it through insurance companies that are competing to pay... oh yes, mega-millions to CEOS. Why?

    It all began when wage controls were introduced in WW2. Fringe benefits became a way to work around that, and it became a competitive advantage in hiring, and eventually the government got on board and we now have a tax code that encourages it.

    It sucks, but there you are: the government fucked our health care financing.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said:

    My bad though, I keep saying CEOs but it's more like C-level.

    Ah. That makes more sense.



  • @DrakeSmith said:

    I agree with Ann Coulter.
    Rush Limbaugh knows what he is talking about.
    Glenn Beck makes sense.
    Obama is a terrible president, and it has nothing to do with skin color or alleged religious choices.

    @darkmatter said:

    Glenn.... Beck...Was this a joke post intentionally I am guessing? Surely... right?

    It's kind of like a litmus test, based on what people pull out of it.
    Choose Ann Coulter, and they probably hate men.
    Choose Rush Limbaugh, and they probably think conservative = racist
    Choose Glenn Beck, and they are probably atheists that hate religion.
    Choose the Obama issue, and they just believe whatever cnn/msnbc/Huffington Post tells them to.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    Are you paranoid?

    Am I paranoid?
    In Tennessee the people sued the state to try to prevent a mosque from being built.
    I'm not paranoid if it's actually happening.

    @boomzilla said:

    Do you think people's politics shouldn't be informed by their morality if that comes from a religion

    Morality derived from religion, fine, to a point. Thou shalt not kill - cool.
    However, not all religious morality is the same. When one branch of one religion thinks it's ok to kill the infidels and another branch thinks you shouldn't be allow to have sex if you aren't doing it missionary style.... not okay for law!!



  • @darkmatter said:

    the people who are still in control are that top 1% I keep referencing

    Did Donald Trump kick your dog something? Why such vile hatred for success?


  • :belt_onion:

    @DrakeSmith said:

    Choose Glenn Beck, and they are probably atheists that hate religion.

    Interestingly I chose Glenn Beck not because of religion, but I am atheist. Guess it got lucky ;)



  • @boomzilla said:

    I couldn't find anything about taxes

    Obviously. Only 40 or so of the 80ish pages cover taxation, but, as you correctly point out, it only covers the top 1% in depth. There are a number of other equally detailed reports out there, it's just that this one pushed exactly the buttons that were being discussed.

    @boomzilla said:

    But we don't have a VAT, which is especially regressive.

    I'm not going to disagree with you on that one, but I have actually seen VAT being argued as progressive by free-market nuts on this side of the pond. The logic, presumably, being that the rich consume more.


  • :belt_onion:

    Did we break this topic, or did they ninja-change the forum to insert posts into the spot they were quoted from??


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said:

    Am I paranoid?In Tennessee the people sued the state to try to prevent a mosque from being built.I'm not paranoid if it's actually happening.

    I can't imagine why people might be uncomfortable with something like this. Not that they're right or anything, but I don't think this is part of a "Christian agenda."

    @darkmatter said:

    When one branch of one religion thinks it's ok to kill the infidels and another branch thinks you shouldn't be allow to have sex if you aren't doing it missionary style.... not okay for law!!

    All true. But I don't think anyone today is seriously thinking about anything like the second example (or at least in the US, about the first).


  • :belt_onion:

    Bug - replying to this topic no longer puts the text below the last post, even when I was replying to the last post!!


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    But I don't think anyone today is seriously thinking about anything like the second example (or at least in the US, about the first)

    You should read more news then 😦
    The laws already exist for "sodomy" and other lewd sexual acts. These include in home acts. How they ever expected to enforce some of them, god (get it hrrr hrrr) only knows.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Do you just think ChristoFascist GodBag sounds funny and needs to be said more often?

    Fuck yes.

    Filed under: ChristoFascist GodBags



  • Maybe you got caught in the flurry of amazingly well civilized off topic political discussion posts, and several appeared right after you hit post? Or is @codinghorror splitting things again (I bet this topic is making him squirm with its digression)?



  • Something's definitely fuxx0red.

    [edit] And, as DrakeSmith points out, reloading fixyforates it. Curiouser and curiouser.


  • :belt_onion:

    @darkmatter said:

    The laws already exist for "sodomy" and other lewd sexual acts. These include in home acts



  • Working fine here, though I am on mobile


  • :belt_onion:

    @tufty said:

    Something's definitely fuxx0red.

    Reload the page, it's fixed then. Don't know what went haywire in the middle though.


  • :belt_onion:

    Anyway... in my opinion, a vote for either Democrats or Republicans is a vote for authoritarianism. Which is part of why a lot of people like having a split Democrat/Republican senate and house... then they can agree on what to control :)


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @tufty said:

    Only 40 or so of the 80ish pages cover taxation, but, as you correctly point out, it only covers the top 1% in depth.

    I guess I should have filled in the context. Damn you Discourse for not making nested quotes easy. I didn't find the answer to my question about taxes.

    Yeah, it's 80 bloody pages, and I didn't feel like slogging through it all in a detailed manner. I went through again, looking at a few promising sections, and I still couldn't find the answer. I'm genuinely interested in this, but that link talks about things like top marginal rates and some other types of taxes, but doesn't pull it all together.

    If you think it does, please point out the page / figure and I'll take another look.

    @tufty said:

    I'm not going to disagree with you on that one, but I have actually seen VAT being argued as progressive by free-market nuts on this side of the pond. The logic, presumably, being that the rich consume more.

    They certainly do consume, but probably not as a percentage of income. Or I wouldn't think so. I suppose part of that argument relies on certain things like food being excluded?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said:

    You should read more news then The laws already exist for "sodomy" and other lewd sexual acts. These include in home acts. How they ever expected to enforce some of them, god (get it hrrr hrrr) only knows.

    These are old laws that haven't been enforced and probably couldn't since Lawrence v Texas.


  • :belt_onion:

    @DrakeSmith said:

    Did Donald Trump kick your dog something? Why such vile hatred for success?

    Read the Elop summary. I don't hate success. I hate the overvaluation of those at the top. Half of them aren't even successful, and they are not worth as much as they deem themselves to be.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @tufty said:

    Fuck yes.

    Filed under: ChristoFascist GodBags

    I kind of agree with you. But probably for some different reasons.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    These are old laws that haven't been enforced and probably couldn't since Lawrence v Texas.

    The problem now is that there are several states with representatives moving to put those laws back into place, especially for homosexuality. See - Kansas, for one.


  • :belt_onion:

    @darkmatter said:

    The problem now is that there are several states with representatives moving to put those laws back into place, especially for homosexuality. See - Kansas, for one.

    It is also an almost entirely Republican-backed thing. Though that is irrelevant, it doesn't matter who backs it, they should not be in office, and their party should be ashamed.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said:

    The problem now is that there are several states with representatives moving to put those laws back into place, especially for homosexuality. See - Kansas, for one.

    Hmm...a quick search shows that their old law is still on the book. It's a dead letter though, as I mentioned already.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I suppose part of that argument relies on certain things like food being excluded?

    I think it actually relies on a total disconnect from reality, to be honest.

    I'll see if I can't dig up the tax burden stuff, I found it somewhere, nd I'm fairly sure it was from OECD. IIRC, for the US it went something like (since 1981) total taxation up by n%, taxation of the 90%->99% group down by around 10%, taxation of top 1% down by 35% or more. Very much a "fuck the poor and middle classes" situation.


  • :belt_onion:

    Also, the first person to say it's a gateway to sex with animals is an idiot.
    Homosexuality (really, ALL sexuality which is legal) is between consenting people.
    Animals can not consent. Same as rape. Or children, who can not legally consent, which is also rape.

    It is not some magical gateway because there is a clearly defined line.



  • @darkmatter said:

    magical gateway

    Good euphemism


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @tufty said:

    IIRC, for the US it went something like (since 1981) total taxation up by n%, taxation of the 90%->99% group down by around 10%, taxation of top 1% down by 35% or more. Very much a "fuck the poor and middle classes" situation.

    But for it to really be a "fuck the poor and middle classes" situation, the taxes would have to have been raised for the poor and middle class, no? Your statistics may be evidence of that, but I'm skeptical.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    Hmm...a quick search shows that their old law is still on the book. It's a dead letter though, as I mentioned already.

    Yep, it is still on several states' books. They all had to repeal the regular sodomy laws, but did not all have to repeal the homosexuality laws I believe.

    note I'm not gay, but I believe it is a perfectly fine thing to be.
    Hell, I'm not religious, but it is also a perfectly fine thing to be.

    But in both cases, no one religion nor one sexual preference should ever be forced on everyone, and especially not by a governmental body.

    @tufty said:

    Good euphemism

    Thanks ;)


Log in to reply