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

[fskimospy]

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

Public forum, entwined with the state.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Public forum, entwined with the state.

It was recognized as being private land. The judge took that as having a lower priority to establish a public forum. The judge also said that other cases of the government assuming control over a non governmental entity for Constitutional priorities have happened. Argue with the judge, not me.

 

[xBiffx]

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.



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.



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

Argue away, I already said it was debatable.

Doesn't meant that you weren't wrong with your original point which was in fact patently false. You were trying to hide behind a "fact" that you made up, that was false and why I called you out on it. Don't like it, tough.

To answer you question on treason...are you fricken serious? Are you honestly going to take the position that treason isn't a violation of the constitution? So the framers just decided to define it and talk about punishment of treason because it was acceptable and allowed? Really? It's the only crime specifically defined in the constitution and you want to argue that its not a violation to commit it? Wow....

 

[fskimospy]

It was recognized as being private land. The judge took that as having a lower priority to establish a public forum. The judge also said that other cases of the government assuming control over a non governmental entity for Constitutional priorities have happened. Argue with the judge, not me.

I'm not arguing with the judge, I'm just explaining the nature of the sidewalk.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not arguing with the judge, I'm just explaining the nature of the sidewalk.

I understand the nature of things, but I am merely stating that there have been cases where the Constitution has been applied to non governmental entities. As far as I'm concerned it's so rare as to not be a general concern for me, but obviously it's happened. Big deal? I'm not going to lose sleep over it. In fact I wish there was a mechanism where those in power be they governmental or private could be very effectively prevented from taking advantage of those with lower status.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not arguing with the judge, I'm just explaining the nature of the sidewalk.

Congrats on winning your thread derailing pendantic point. Now how about we get back on subject. You can start by answering my question from ealier about why you think public infrastructure somehow obliges me to support welfare, the exchange from page 1 of the thread.

I think you're an asshole for your myopic view of your own condition and your inability to understand the larger system that has helped you to (presumably) prosper. People don't like to think that the things they've worked hard for didn't all stem from that hard work, no matter the fact that such a thing is irrefutably true.

It has nothing to do with deserving, it has to do with what works.

If it "helped me prosper" then you have the reciprochal duty to explain why it didn't help so many other people prosper. You know, the ones you want to give all that tax money to. Did you use a different technique or material to pave my street that you didn't use for the person who dropped out of high school, had 5 kids on welfare, and sells his SNAP benefit card for 50 cents on the dollar to buy crystal meth?

 

[xBiffx]

Congrats on winning your thread derailing pendantic point.

To be fair, I kinda started it by calling him out on it. ()

 

[fskimospy]

Argue away, I already said it was debatable.

Doesn't meant that you weren't wrong with your original point which was in fact patently false. You were trying to hide behind a "fact" that you made up, that was false and why I called you out on it. Don't like it, tough.

If you think that the existence of the 13th amendment in a way that has never been adjudicated by any court on an issue that has never occurred in more than two centuries renders what I said "undoubtedly false".. uhmm... okay. I'm perfectly fine with that.

To answer you question on treason...are you fricken serious? Are you honestly going to take the position that treason isn't a violation of the constitution? So the framers just decided to talk about punishment of treason because it was acceptable and allowed? Really?

Just quote the passage where you think it's prohibited then. What's so hard about that?

Here, I'll quote the passage:

treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or any of them; and in adhering to the enemies of the United States, or any of them. The Legislature of the United States shall have power to declare the punishment of treason. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses. No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood nor forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

It quite clearly spells out limits to what the crime of treason can consist of, it does not in and of itself prohibit it.

 

[xBiffx]

^ LOL, its getting deep in here.

Maybe you should focus on the issue at hand? Seeing is how that little derailment won you no points.

 

[fskimospy]

Congrats on winning your thread derailing pendantic point. Now how about we get back on subject. You can start by answering my question from ealier about why you think public infrastructure somehow obliges me to support welfare, the exchange from page 1 of the thread.

It's kind of a nonsensical point. You were undoubtedly helped by our country's infrastructure just like everyone else is. Nothing in my argument said that you had to support some specific program, just that the idea that being a net contributor of taxes at some point in your life is an unjustifiable imposition is silliness.

 

[fskimospy]

^ LOL, its getting deep in here.

Maybe you should focus on the issue at hand? Seeing is how that little derailment won you no points.

I'm going to take that as an admission that the Constitution doesn't prohibit treason, haha.

But yes, I fully support moving on from your pedantic derailment.

 

[xBiffx]

I'm going to take that as an admission that the Constitution doesn't prohibit treason, haha.

But yes, I fully support moving on from your pedantic derailment.

Take as you will, its not like I'm changing you mind. I wasn't being pedantic, you were. Plenty of discussion on that particular topic outside of here. Guess everyone is being pedantic now.

 

[fskimospy]

Take as you will, its not like I'm changing you mind. I wasn't being pedantic, you were. Plenty of discussion on that particular topic outside of here. Guess everyone is being pedantic now.

Meh, I do agree with you that if someone enslaved a person they would be violating the constitution. I think that distinction is nearly entirely pointless and certainly irrelevant to this conversation, but it is ultimately correct. So you changed my mind in that!

As for your attempt to change my mind about a subject where you're trying to insert new words in the constitution, no you won't be changing my mind about wrong things that you made up.

 

[Zaap]

If it "helped me prosper" then you have the reciprochal duty to explain why it didn't help so many other people prosper. You know, the ones you want to give all that tax money to. Did you use a different technique or material to pave my street that you didn't use for the person who dropped out of high school, had 5 kids on welfare, and sells his SNAP benefit card for 50 cents on the dollar to buy crystal meth?

Lets see if you ever get an answer to this, or just more spin.

 

[doubledeluxe]

They've done studies and depending on what socio-economic class you are born into really does determine where you end up in life. I'm a bit too lazy too look it up but the number one place in the country for poor people to become successful is San Francisco. Their success rate was a measly 12%.

To get ahead in life you can't just work hard. That myth has been debunked. As someone who is successful I am more than willing to admit that it took more than hard work. It took a high level education, good contacts, and some luck.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Really it doesn't take that much effort to see the different world that those around you might be living in. My lower class employes could not grasp the concept of wealth generation. They understood working and spending their paycheck but investing, compound interest, and allocating your spending wisely was beyond their grasp. They had no problem buying depreciating assets but didn't understand appreciating assets. I held meetings trying to explain to them how a 401K works and yet nobody was willing to put a penny in. This isn't stupidity, it's simply a lack of understanding. If we go back 3 generations my family probably didn't understand any of this either but the difference today is that these people don't have 3 generations to get ahead since things are getting worse. Today's lower middle class population will be tomorrows lower class. People are getting poorer. They'll be unable to afford a higher education, a home, or any of the things that got our parents and grandparents ahead.

 

[ElFenix]

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.

uh, that's wrong about the 13th amendment. the 13th amendment is the one part of the constitution directly applicable to the people. everything else is prohibition against the federal government and/or the state government. if you enslaved someone, you would be taking unconstitutional action. that's pointed out in any first year constitutional law class.

edit: i see this was already resolved. carry on.

 

[ElFenix]

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?


On a related note, how is it right that I have to work my butt off to put food on the table, a roof over my family's head, internet and phone service, 2 cars, heat, ETC. but millions of people do not have to work to get those things? How is it right that the government takes money from me, to pay for those things for other people?

the federal government doesn't take money from you to pay for anything. the federal government takes money from you to retire money.


as for the social safety net, it's there to benefit the wealthy moreso than it is to benefit the poors.


about the wealth distribution part, our tax system vastly favors capital income generation over labor income generation and established industry gets regulations passed that keep competitors out of the market. fix those two things and then we can see how things shake out. but to pretend the wealthy aren't massively benefited by the rules of government is laughable.

 

[Atreus21]

How much should a corporation make?

As much money as they convince people to willingly give them.

How much should a person make?

As much money as they convince people to willingly give them.

How much should a person get paid not to work?

Depends.

On a related note, how is it right that I have to work my butt off to put food on the table, a roof over my family's head, internet and phone service, 2 cars, heat, ETC. but millions of people do not have to work to get those things? How is it right that the government takes money from me, to pay for those things for other people?

It's not right.

However, in some cases it's necessary. There ought to be some mechanism for caring for the poorest among us. There are going to be those among us who are truly disabled, and they will need another party's support. Whether that's done best by government, I can't say for sure.

It seems to me that when a welfare recipient is reasonably young and of sound mind and able body, there should be considerable pressure brought to bear against him or her, up to and including cessation of benefits.

 

[werepossum]

Even there some lucky bastard is probably getting a second helping of dirt and tree bark to eat, and thus subject to your jealous disapproval.

You'll be happy to know that at the expense of a sticky, stained shirt sleeve I have saved my monitor from being sprayed with tea as I read that.

If only these brilliant new ideas could be tried, comrade! Utopia on earth!

lol QFT

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

Pretty sure the courts have ruled that such schemes to limit participation are un-Constitutional.

Besides Constitutional issues, the practical issue is that given such power, those contributing to the funding of the federal government would be incentivized (incented? incentivated?) to structure government for their own benefit - under the same principle. Thus what is notionally strengthening the middle class ends up concentrating it down into an ever-smaller self-sustaining oligarchy as those without power increasing lack the ability to rise out of poverty, so those who drop out tend not to be replaced.

This is one of those things that as a knee-jerk principle seems great, but upon closer inspection is a really bad idea.

EDIT: It's also worth pointing out that government is roughly 30% - 40% of our GDP. Thus, the chance that any one person will not be offended at something government spends from what it takes from him and others like him is virtually nonexistent. That can be reduced by reducing the overall size of government, but without any guarantee that what is reduced will be what one dislikes rather than what one likes. In fact, considering the number of people on the dole one way or another, I'm guessing that will be a given.

 

[Atreus21]

I posted limits on wealth already, companies should be fined for compensation over 5 million a year, a 200% fine for each dollar of compensation over 5 million annually. Self employed people should have a 25% fine for each dollar of self employed income over 5 million. This is in addition to income tax.

Income tax also needs to be raised to 50% at 1 million.

No needs to make millions a year, and no one should be allowed to.

Why is 4 million acceptable where 5 is not?

 

[bshole]

It seems to me that when a welfare recipient is reasonably young and of sound mind and able body, there should be considerable pressure brought to bear against him or her, up to and including cessation of benefits.

Typical fucking christian. Let 'em starve damnit. So end their benefits and then what? When they get hungry, what do you think they have a higher probability of doing? Curling up in a ball placidly or grabbing a weapon and heading to the nearest suburban neighborhood? Are you sure you want a society like Brazils? Where murder and kidnapping of the haves is commonplace and they are all barricaded in barbed wired conclaves?

 

[Cozarkian]

There should be not taxation without representation. Between social security withholdings and taxes on fuel, tobacco, cigarettes and ammunition, I doubt you can find a single person in the U.S. that doesn't pay some kind of tax and should therefore have the right to vote.

Some people might argue that it doesn't matter if you pay some tax as long as the direct subsidies you receive (like EIC) exceed the total taxes paid. While I disagree, it is actually irrelevant whether the above argument is correct, because the cost of attempting to determine at every election whether a person paid more in taxes than they received in direct subsidies would exceed the cost of the direct subsidies in the first place, so we'd just end up wasting more money in the name of trying to force people off of welfare.

Typical fucking christian. Let 'em starve damnit. So end their benefits and then what? When they get hungry, what do you think they have a higher probability of doing? Curling up in a ball placidly or grabbing a weapon and heading to the nearest suburban neighborhood? Are you sure you want a society like Brazils? Where murder and kidnapping of the haves is commonplace and they are all barricaded in barbed wired conclaves?

And yet again I am reminded of 1984. The governing class realized that you can't just suppress the proletariat, you have to keep them happy. Thus, for example, you can provide free music, protect their access to addictive substances, and drop bombs on them under the guise of foreign attacks so they think the government is protecting them. Otherwise, you risk an uprising.

 

[Darwin333]

Then take it away from private industry altogether and have the federal government fund the research and development. Take out the profit motive altogether. It would be much more cost effective for the American people.

Oh hell no! Put the know-nothing assholes in Washington in charge of what meds we research next???? Have you lost your mind!?

 

[Darwin333]

Fine if 15% is to low make it 35%, but instead of 20 year patent, they now have a 5 year patent.

We already have drugs that could help people with serious conditions that will never see market because the testing and approval will cost more than potential profits, the above will ensure that virtually no new drugs will be made.