Income inequality: exactly how much money should a person or corporation make?

[fskimospy]

he didn't violate the constitution in the least. Maybe you should read the thing once. Its worth your time.

Don't be an idiot. Advocating for a poll tax is advocating the violation of the constitution.

Maybe you should take your own advice

 

[rudeguy]

Don't be an idiot. Advocating for a poll tax is advocating the violation of the constitution.

Maybe you should take your own advice

but it is not a violation of the constitution to advocate for it. You didn't say he was advocating for violating the constitution, you said he was violating it.

 

[fskimospy]

but it is not a violation of the constitution to advocate for it. You didn't say he was advocating for violating the constitution, you said he was violating it.

It's not possible for anyone except an agent of the government to violate the constitution. Are you saying you took my post to mean:

1. "I believe you either have or will shortly have a position in the government and will use this position to personally bar individuals from voting".

Or

2. "You advocate for policies that violate the constitution".

I have no idea why you're trying to have an argument that relies on you being unable to understand normal conversation.

 

[xBiffx]

It's not possible for anyone except an agent of the government to violate the constitution.

Patently false. And you know it.

 

[fskimospy]

Patently false. And you know it.

Obviously, incontestably true.

Please name literally any circumstance that you believe involves someone violating the Constitution where they are not acting as an agent of the government.

 

[rudeguy]

It's not possible for anyone except an agent of the government to violate the constitution. Are you saying you took my post to mean:

1. "I believe you either have or will shortly have a position in the government and will use this position to personally bar individuals from voting".

Or

2. "You advocate for policies that violate the constitution".

I have no idea why you're trying to have an argument that relies on you being unable to understand normal conversation.

Normal people are able to convey their thoughts. You on the other hand are a blubbering moron who shits all over his keyboard and calls it a complete though.

 

[fskimospy]

Normal people are able to convey their thoughts. You on the other hand are a blubbering moron who shits all over his keyboard and calls it a complete though.

So far you're the only person who has been unable to understand what I wrote. I will notice the irony of you calling someone else stupid in an argument that relies on you not being able to understand normal conversation as well as how cool it is that you were unable to complete the phrase "a complete thought".

 

[glenn1]

You do understand it.

It exists; http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-income

You just don't understand why anyone should care about it. Or, if anything should be done about it. This isn't a thread about "what is the problem" - this is a thread about "is there a problem".

You are stating there is not.

Now, since the government should not get involved in 'padding' people's incomes,.. do you feel the same about the government padding corporation's profits with subsidies?

What I can't figure out, is how people make such a huge deal over a peanut butter & jelly sandwich school lunch, but, don't seem to bat an eye when corporations are cranking out billions in profits and STILL receiving corporate subsidies.

Yes please remove all subsidies to industries! That would by itself pretty much eliminate social welfare as we know it. Food stamps are a huge subsidy to agri-business, medicare is a huge subsidy to the medical-pharmaceutical industry, student aid is a huge subsidy to academia and universities, subsidized housing is a huge subsidy to builders and landlords... well you get the idea. Even the handful of subsidies which progressives actually oppose instead of clamoring for could easily be done away with - early amortization for oil exploration, military hardware, etc.

Can you find me a country that has truly hungry people that isn't a shit storm?

And on the same questions, name one fucking thing that the .mil has done to improve my life since WW2. Nix that and your taxes get cut by a 1/3 or so but I noticed it wasn't on your list, why is that? Fuck feeding the poor (how very Christ like) but build the fuck out of super carriers and bombs despite that we are fairly well isolated in the world and don't have any sort of reasonable military threat to our homeland?

If you honestly think the U.S. has lots of "truly hungry" you need to travel more to places where actual starvation exists, and people are dying of rickets, scurvy, beriberi, and pellagra. Just because the diet of someone in the inner city consists of processed junk food and things from fast food chains doesn't make them "truly hungry."

WRT the military, I fully support your efforts to cut it down dramatically. No more Iraqs from the right or "humanitarian interventions" from the left.

 

[xBiffx]

Obviously, incontestably true.

Please name literally any circumstance that you believe involves someone violating the Constitution where they are not acting as an agent of the government.

Obviously not, there is case law that already proves it to be false. Marsh v. Alabama, United Church of Christ v. Gateway Economic Development Corporation are examples.

Plus, you're forgetting things likes treason and the 13th amendment which doesn't apply to only representatives of the state.

 

[pauldun170]

This "income inequality" thing is still talked about and I don't understand it.

How much should a corporation make?
How much should a person make?
How much should a person get paid not to work?

A corporation make should be able to make as much money as it can. Since corporations are dependent on government (trade agreements, foreign policy, infrastructure, defense) it should be taxed accordingly but not so much where it negatively impacts that corporations ability to compete with peer corporations globally.

A person make should make whatever salary that market conditions decide.

Third question is not a valid question outside of right wing, left wing loony sites.

 

[Cozarkian]

Advocating for a poll tax is advocating the violation of the constitution.

Alternatively, it is advocating for a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You are free to leave this Country since you clearly hate it.

I don't have money for airfare but I will gladly pay for your transportation to the airport for your imminent departure.

Have your passport ready?

You clearly hate America and we've offered on repeated occasions to buy you a one-way ticket out. What's wrong coward, afraid to follow through?

 

[fskimospy]

Obviously not, there is case law that already proves it to be false. Marsh v. Alabama, United Church of Christ v. Gateway Economic Development Corporation are examples.

Marsh v. Alabama ruled that the state's trespassing statute could not be applied in that specific circumstance. It ruled that Alabama violated the Constitution by enforcing the statute there, not that the company violated the Constitution.

Plus, you're forgetting things likes treason and the 13th amendment which doesn't apply to only representatives of the state.

The Constitution places limits on what the government can define as treason, it does not actually prohibit treason. Government again.

The thirteenth amendment compels Congress to make slavery illegal. If you enslaved someone you would not be found to be violating the Constitution in a court, you would be found to be violating some other law passed by the government.

There is not a single solitary case in the entirety of US law that I am aware of where a private entity has been found in violation of the Constitution.

 

[glenn1]

Obviously, incontestably true.

Please name literally any circumstance that you believe involves someone violating the Constitution where they are not acting as an agent of the government.

Stop being pendantic - we don't charge people with violations of the Constitution but rather violations of laws that are in accordance with it. Even in examples where non-government agents commit unconstitutional acts (e.g. treason) they would still be punished under a law, not as a Constitutional violation. Ditto for agents of the government, even though it's very hard for them to act personally in violation of the constitution (such as accepting a title of nobility) there's still no "Constitution Court" we use to put them on trial.

 

[fskimospy]

Alternatively, it is advocating for a Constitutional Amendment.

I guess specifically it would be calling for the repeal of the 24th amendment. Considering the facts behind the 24th amendment that's truly an impressively horrible position for someone to take, haha.

 

[fskimospy]

Stop being pendantic - we don't charge people with violations of the Constitution but rather violations of laws that are in accordance with it. Even in examples where non-government agents commit unconstitutional acts (e.g. treason) they would still be punished under a law, not as a Constitutional violation. Ditto for agents of the government, even though it's very hard for them to act personally in violation of the constitution (such as accepting a title of nobility) there's still no "Constitution Court" we use to put them on trial.

Maybe you should be talking to biff?

 

[Vic]

2

ok

You realize that only a relatively small percentage of your income taxes go towards social programs, right?

 

[xBiffx]

Marsh v. Alabama ruled that the state's trespassing statute could not be applied in that specific circumstance. It ruled that Alabama violated the Constitution by enforcing the statute there, not that the company violated the Constitution.



The Constitution places limits on what the government can define as treason, it does not actually prohibit treason. Government again.

The thirteenth amendment compels Congress to make slavery illegal. If you enslaved someone you would not be found to be violating the Constitution in a court, you would be found to be violating some other law passed by the government.

There is not a single solitary case in the entirety of US law that I am aware of where a private entity has been found in violation of the Constitution.

All of that is of course arguable, but its not true just because you say it is. There are entire studies, classes, discussions on this exact topic.

In the Marsh v. Alabama case, Chickasaw was in fact in violation of the Constitution. However, because the case made it all the way through the Alabama court system (appeals and supreme court) the burden fell to the state.

I take note that you completely ignored the other case, which is much more straightforward in proving a non state actor violated the constitution.

Also, your explanation for treason and slavery are cute but insufficient. If a person enslaves another or commits an act of treason, they are in violation of the Constitution. Whether or not that is cited as the reason is immaterial. The constitution is never usually cited as the reason for a crime, it is always a statute, law, or act that they violated. So its disingenuous to say that in this case, not citing the constitution means that they didn't violate it.

Fact remains, absolutely a person not acting on the states behalf can violate the constitution. This is 100% debatable, and has been for years (I even had a section of a course on it - why I knew right away what cases to cite), but its definitely not false just because you say it is.

 

[xBiffx]

Maybe you should be talking to biff?

Maybe you should be reading and learning? What he typed is 100% true.

 

[glenn1]

Maybe you should be talking to biff?

No, I'm talking to you because your point is meaningless. So tell me what exactly is the penalty for a government agent violating the Constitution? Will constitution police come arrest him and put him on trial? When only self-enforcement mechanisms (like impeachment) exist to handle constitutional violations and even these can be nullified by partisan solidarity or outright constitutional crisis you might as well say the idea of a "constitutional violation" is a moot one anyway.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Obviously, incontestably true.

Please name literally any circumstance that you believe involves someone violating the Constitution where they are not acting as an agent of the government.

Here's one. A first amendment argument is part of the basis of the finding the judge made.

 

[Moonbeam]

How much is the wrong question, a means by which to frame a problem whose answer lies in an awareness blocked direction by putting in in a box with a label. By addressing the problems from the wrong directions we are able to stay asleep.

 

[WackyDan]

How much should a corporation make?
How much should a person make?
How much should a person get paid not to work?

Do we govern how much a company is allowed to lose? No.
Do we govern whether a person can be laid off, fired at will, etc? No.
Do we govern what a person should get paid not to work? Yes - based on the federal poverty line.

Bottom line is you can't regulate/cap maximum profits/wages unless you are willing to regulate the loses too. That resembles fascism to a degree - an amount of gov't intervention that most here would not welcome.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How much is the wrong question, a means by which to frame a problem whose answer lies in an awareness blocked direction by putting in in a box with a label. By addressing the problems from the wrong directions we are able to stay asleep.

Many questions address issues which really aren't all that important. I question why we should ascribe worth beyond financial assets to people to begin with. A rich man can be very poor and the reverse true as well. The quality of income and possession tell me very little about an individuals value.

 

[fskimospy]

All of that is of course arguable, but its not true just because you say it is. There are entire studies, classes, discussions on this exact topic.

In the Marsh v. Alabama case, Chickasaw was in fact in violation of the Constitution. However, because the case made it all the way through the Alabama court system (appeals and supreme court) the burden fell to the state.

I take note that you completely ignored the other case, which is much more straightforward in proving a non state actor violated the constitution.

No, Marsh v. Alabama is quite clear: the enforcement of trespassing statutes by the government in that situation was unconstitutional. There was no ruling that the company violated the Constitution. For the second case, SCOTUS's decision explicitly hinged on the fact that public forums must be treated as state owned for 1st amendment purposes.

Public actors can violate the Constitution, but that's because it has been determined that they are acting as agents of the state in some capacity. If there was no agent of the state status, no Constitutional violation.

Also, your explanation for treason and slavery are cute but insufficient. If a person enslaves another or commits an act of treason, they are in violation of the Constitution. Whether or not that is cited as the reason is immaterial. The constitution is never usually cited as the reason for a crime, it is always a statute, law, or act that they violated. So its disingenuous to say that in this case, not citing the constitution means that they didn't violate it.

Can you quote me the section where the Constitution forbids treason? I can't find it. All I see is the Constitution limiting what can be defined by the government as treason. There is no prohibition of it.

As for slavery, I'll give you that. That would be the sole case I can think of where a private individual could violate the Constitution. It has literally never come up.

Fact remains, absolutely a person not acting on the states behalf can violate the constitution. This is 100% debatable, and has been for years (I even had a section of a course on it - why I knew right away what cases to cite), but its definitely not false just because you say it is.

Interesting how it went from "patently false" to "debateable" so quickly.