Oh whatever, it's worth it. I'll gladly give up my aluminum foil in exchange for continued gropings by minimum wage employees.
Flying is in many ways one of the most surreal parts of my life. My tax dollars go towards paying this poor son of a bitch to feel me up for no good reason. I used to feel bad, but eventually that gave way to feeling dazed instead. I mean, I've become somewhat accustomed to being in this strange position where I can demand that a total stranger feels me up. How demeaning that must be! Even a greeter at Walmart retains more dignity than that.
Oftentimes, they ask why I'm opting out. My response is invariably "because I can", but I'm thinking about switching that up to either "because I like the feeling of superiority that comes with forcing strangers to do demeaning things" or "think of it as a jobs program for you guys". Maybe if we make their lives miserable enough, they'll finally quit and go work somewhere respectable like White Castle.
Michael Chertoff is his name, and he should be brought to justice. Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009, then founder of the consulting firm Chertoff Group from 2009 onwards. Chertoff Group represents manufacturers of the scanners. No conflict of interest there, no, not at all. Full body scanners showed up in our airports in 2007. Revolving door, anyone?
The airbag is even invisible and "not there" until you need it.
Airbags are heavy. Close to 10lbs each. I used to drive a 1989 Honda CRX HF, subcompact, no airbags, curb weight around 1800 lbs, fuel efficiency around 45mpg. Today, you can get the Honda CRZ, a subcompact hybrid that gets... around 35mpg. Even going full hybrid couldn't make up for the added weight of all the mandatory safety features you find in today's cars.
The bottom line is people seem to think its "only the rich" who control these decisions. But the average citizens in aggregate have far more power if they can only find a way to use it.
I mean, not really. I can complain to my elected officials to pressure the unions, but my elected official has no obligation to heed my words. Even if I were to convince all the constituents in the district to band together in complaining to our elected officials [unlikely], and said elected officials change their tune, then the unions have no obligation to heed our elected officials' words. And even if all the elected officials in the area are similarly convinced [unlikely], and said unions change their tune, then the fund managers still have no obligation to heed the unions' words.
Mutual fund shareholders have the legal right to vote on their funds' advisers and subadvisers, but apparently the SEC's indiscriminate granting of multi-manager fund voting exemptions to all comers has effectively repealed the right to approve fund advisers. No accountability, no transparency. Even if you "win the lottery" and your efforts get you all the way to the top of the pyramid, you're still powerless.
"It’s a big club and you ain't in it." - Saint Carlin
"Aristotle was the first to state that inequality triggers a revolution and that was certainly the case during the French Revolution, when onerous taxes on the lower and middle classes enhanced the lives of the wealthiest aristocrats." - Forbes blogger
So, researchers have noticed that when wealth distribution gets skewed enough, the poor bust out their trusty old pitchforks and torches. And the USA is getting frighteningly close to that point. Perhaps you're right that how rich the rich get should be no of our business. However, reality suggests that at some point, we make it our business, right or wrong. And then heads start rolling. If you think that since today's aristocracy is composed of CEOs instead of nobles they will be safe from the rioting masses, you haven't done a good job convincing me. If you think the average starving person will forgive the Walton family for hoarding billions of dollars simply because they "earned it" by failing to pay their workers a living wage, you have an amusing understanding of human nature. The average starving person sees no distinction between such "earning" and onerous taxation, as they both have the effect of pillaging society's coffers for the satisfaction of personal greed.
Also, to describe Mugabe as a "leftist" makes about as much sense as talking about "far-right" Somalia. I don't remember the left advocating for rigging elections, prosecuting gays, the abandonment of education, criminalization of inflation, or printing of money like it was newspapers. If you think his land redistribution programs (which would only be leftist if confiscated land was distributed equitably, and not disproportionately to Mugabe loyalists) are what define his reign, you haven't been paying attention.
Perhaps it's possible that taxation serves other purposes besides revenue generation. Perhaps progressive taxation can also be used to prevent stratification of wealth. Perhaps a small decrease in revenues is a fair price to pay to have a society where wealth is equitably distributed. Perhaps the socioeconomic benefits of actually having a middle class are more important than gross federal tax receipts.
Your reasoning baffles me. Perhaps we should make murder legal, because then murderers wouldn't engage in prosecution avoidance. That criminals try to find ways around the law doesn't mean we should just abandon our legal system.
Thinly veiled? No, people are openly and clearly calling for a return to the progressive taxation that made America what it is today (or, what it was until Reagan started us on this death march). The 80%-90% top marginal rates in the USA didn't drive out the rich in the past, so it's a bit idiotic to proclaim that they will in the future. Also, linking to the WSJ in this context is hilarious. Perhaps it didn't occur to you that they're a mouthpiece for the wealthy and unlikely to offer any impartial commentary on the issue. (I'm a subscriber, but only in a "know thy enemy" sense)
Your point about Obama is valid, to some extent. I agree that the salaries of the millionaires running the show ought to be suspended when the country's going broke. However, to claim that they get paid too much is absurd. They make a tiny fraction of what these CEOs make. If you're upset about Obama's salary, you should be orders of magnitude more upset about corporate executive salaries.
Despite not being a baseball fan, I very much am yelling about the great American pastime becoming something that the ordinary American just can't afford. It's fucking baseball, tickets are supposed to be virtually free.
I find the rest of your post relatively agreeable, but it doesn't make any points in the argument against progressive taxation. Yes, CEOs dodge taxes adeptly. Yes, there's a huge conflict of interest inherent in the way executive salaries are determined. Yes, there's shitloads of other problems. But that doesn't mean that progressive taxation is somehow bad.
There is such a thing as too rich. If Bill Gates had $72T instead of $72B, that would necessarily mean that you and I had no money. Trot out the "it's not a zero sum game" argument as much as you like, but there is a finite amount of wealth in this world (I said finite, not static/constant), and possession of it all by one individual necessarily means that nobody else has any. We're rapidly moving towards just such a scenario, where the poor have no money (but are kept warm and fed by social welfare programs) and the wealthy have it all. Is that what we collectively want?
But wait. The mutual funds that I own shares of, they all retain the voting rights for themselves. The police/fire/teachers unions, well, they're not receptive to me when I tell them to sell their shares in company X. Even my local government will not heed my requests to divest themselves from certain companies I find unsavory. For some reason, I don't think it would really be too effective to seek out redress through the courts, since this is all legal.
So, as a "shareholder", how do you suggest that I object?
If you hold individual shares in your Roth IRA, I believe you can vote them.
Most Roth IRAs allow you to buy individual shares. Consider selling your stake in the mutual funds and then buying back your position with individual shares. Save yourself the fund fees, earn your voting rights back. Of course, you're stuck handling your own allocation then, and you'll be responsible for all the trading fees, but such is life! I'm no day trader, and definitely of the buy-and-hold mentality, so for me this has proven to be a worthwhile course of action. Then again, I have no idea what I'm doing. YMMV, IANAL, KTNXBAI.
Well, considering that things were relatively great in the 50s, and nowadays we have threats of government shutdowns and debt defaults, I say returning to a top marginal rate in the 80%-90% range would be a better deal.
But that would hurt the job creators, and we just can't have that.
I should've hopped through the full thread before posting my previous response. I didn't know you were an irrational partisan.
I didn't know dismantling SNAP and other social welfare programs was part of Mitt's platform. He really didn't do well advertising that part, so maybe that's why he lost.
I'm fascinated by your ideas. Clearly the solution is to make sure that people working full-time at McDonalds and Walmart can't afford to eat. That's the society we all dream of living in. Maybe one day we'll all wise up and just take all these worthless poor people, haul them off to the gas chambers, and replace them with robots.
Similarly, if all the wealth in the country except yours was to be confiscated by a single individual, why would that be any of your business? Count your own money, after all...
You see, the distribution of wealth in a society has far-reaching effects. High levels of wealth concentration can result in things like the French Revolution or Zimbabwe, which affects entire countries. You seem to be suggesting that the gutting of the middle class only affects the middle class, which is hilarious.
That's funny. Personally, I'd be relieved. Relieved that society has some sense of morality, proportionality, rationality, or justice. You know, the same way I'd be relieved if someone offered me $200 million to kill someone and some "dumb law" said that they can't pay me to do that.
So I thought of a product I and my fellow colleague can provide. It would take only about two man-years to implement, with no significant capital outlay.
The thing is, we can't find anyone to support us and our families for the year it would take for us to implement the product (not to mention any additional time we'd require to actually, you know, sell it). Of course, we could continue at our day jobs and work on this project in our spare time (as though we have any), but it's likely that competitors would already be fielding a superior product in the decade or two it would take for us to do so.
See, it's not so easy when you're not already rich.
While most of your post is wrong (CEOs taking risk: what are they risking, personally? CEOs working 70 hour work weeks: does golf count as work now? MBAs working without compensation: salaries well above the median income are "without compensation"?), I can't help but pick on:
who is the shareholder? Your elderly mom, YOU, etc. If you have a savings plan you own shares.
Alright, so let's say I've got a 401(k) retirement account. Well, odds overwhelmingly suggest that your employer limits your investment options to just a handful of mutual funds. You want some GOOG shares? Well, you can't do that with your 401(k). And those mutual funds, well, they hold shares of publicly traded stocks as well. But they hold those shares, along with the voting rights that go with them. So, let's say I hold some FOCPX mutual fund shares. Roughly 10% of FOCPX's assets are invested in AAPL. I'm an Apple "shareholder" [*shudders*], so I'm the one that gets to hold Apple's board accountable. I'm the one that's supposed to pressure the board to fire an asshat CEO. But I can't, because FOCPX is the real shareholder here, and I have very little power over them thanks to the [unimaginably ineffective] SEC.
So let's get that little lie put to bed. If you have a [certain type of] savings plan, your money is enabling someone else to own shares. You yourself don't own shit. You're a peon, and you have no say in anything. You have nothing to do with the CEO, not directly, and not indirectly. You are a slave to the system, and you won't be missed when you're gone.
Summoning Zeus to smite the offending banksters.
Riding the invisible pink unicorn to a world with a sane banking system.
Abandoning currency and moving to a Star Trek economy instead.
Of course, if we restricted this conversation to plausible options, none of our suggestions apply.
Don't like nuclear fission power either - it produces *filthy* dirty waste, that we have no idea what to do with.
The only reason the waste is *filthy* is because it's still very radioactive. If it's still very radioactive, it's not waste, it's fuel. Breeder reactors are not new, and they've been in use [outside this country] for a very long time. The primary reason why the US has such a problem storing "spent" nuclear fuel is that the fuel isn't very spent at all. Additionally, your perception that nuclear power is amateurish, half-assed, ill-thought-out, and a poor example of our abilities is in line with the fact that our nuclear power plants are about half a century old. I'd expect any technology that old to be seen no differently.
People like their electricity, and it's not going to be easy to cram them all back into the caves they came from. If you don't like the idea of burning hydrocarbons, then your only other options currently are nuclear power or pre-industrial society. I know, it sucks that you can't power the world with solar panels and wind turbines [yet], but that's just how it is.
Is that the same Obamaphone that was being distributed three months prior to Obama's election? Those damn Kenyan Muslims, always time traveling when you least expect it...
Either Polish people are uniquely predisposed to thyroid problems around the turn of every millenium, or there's some indication that Chernobyl's effects on human health extended quite a bit beyond 50 miles.
I made it out in 1984, so I guess I dodged that bullet. Any Polish expats I know that left after 1986 have had thyroid surgery and/or will be taking thyroid meds for the remainder of their lives. All this, just from living hundreds of miles away from Chernobyl when it blew its top.
We've been getting along fine for a long time now without a national database of license-plate scans.
Have we? Have we really? You think Iraqi and Afghani terrorists flying commercial jetliners into skyscrapers and federal buildings is "fine"? You think jihadis smuggling weapons of mass destruction onto airplanes in their shoes and their underwear is "fine"?
You, citizen, are the reason this great nation is crumbling before the henchmen of Allah! Why do you hate America so much?
[Disclaimer: It's satire. Save yourself the whoosh.]
Slashdot Mirror
Oh whatever, it's worth it. I'll gladly give up my aluminum foil in exchange for continued gropings by minimum wage employees.
Flying is in many ways one of the most surreal parts of my life. My tax dollars go towards paying this poor son of a bitch to feel me up for no good reason. I used to feel bad, but eventually that gave way to feeling dazed instead. I mean, I've become somewhat accustomed to being in this strange position where I can demand that a total stranger feels me up. How demeaning that must be! Even a greeter at Walmart retains more dignity than that.
Oftentimes, they ask why I'm opting out. My response is invariably "because I can", but I'm thinking about switching that up to either "because I like the feeling of superiority that comes with forcing strangers to do demeaning things" or "think of it as a jobs program for you guys". Maybe if we make their lives miserable enough, they'll finally quit and go work somewhere respectable like White Castle.
Michael Chertoff is his name, and he should be brought to justice. Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009, then founder of the consulting firm Chertoff Group from 2009 onwards. Chertoff Group represents manufacturers of the scanners. No conflict of interest there, no, not at all. Full body scanners showed up in our airports in 2007. Revolving door, anyone?
The airbag is even invisible and "not there" until you need it.
Airbags are heavy. Close to 10lbs each. I used to drive a 1989 Honda CRX HF, subcompact, no airbags, curb weight around 1800 lbs, fuel efficiency around 45mpg. Today, you can get the Honda CRZ, a subcompact hybrid that gets... around 35mpg. Even going full hybrid couldn't make up for the added weight of all the mandatory safety features you find in today's cars.
Ubuntu 14.04, or Ubuntu 8.1?
In his defense, his username is Required Snark.
The bottom line is people seem to think its "only the rich" who control these decisions. But the average citizens in aggregate have far more power if they can only find a way to use it.
I mean, not really. I can complain to my elected officials to pressure the unions, but my elected official has no obligation to heed my words. Even if I were to convince all the constituents in the district to band together in complaining to our elected officials [unlikely], and said elected officials change their tune, then the unions have no obligation to heed our elected officials' words. And even if all the elected officials in the area are similarly convinced [unlikely], and said unions change their tune, then the fund managers still have no obligation to heed the unions' words.
Mutual fund shareholders have the legal right to vote on their funds' advisers and subadvisers, but apparently the SEC's indiscriminate granting of multi-manager fund voting exemptions to all comers has effectively repealed the right to approve fund advisers. No accountability, no transparency. Even if you "win the lottery" and your efforts get you all the way to the top of the pyramid, you're still powerless.
"It’s a big club and you ain't in it." - Saint Carlin
Ugh.
"Aristotle was the first to state that inequality triggers a revolution and that was certainly the case during the French Revolution, when onerous taxes on the lower and middle classes enhanced the lives of the wealthiest aristocrats." - Forbes blogger
So, researchers have noticed that when wealth distribution gets skewed enough, the poor bust out their trusty old pitchforks and torches. And the USA is getting frighteningly close to that point. Perhaps you're right that how rich the rich get should be no of our business. However, reality suggests that at some point, we make it our business, right or wrong. And then heads start rolling. If you think that since today's aristocracy is composed of CEOs instead of nobles they will be safe from the rioting masses, you haven't done a good job convincing me. If you think the average starving person will forgive the Walton family for hoarding billions of dollars simply because they "earned it" by failing to pay their workers a living wage, you have an amusing understanding of human nature. The average starving person sees no distinction between such "earning" and onerous taxation, as they both have the effect of pillaging society's coffers for the satisfaction of personal greed.
Also, to describe Mugabe as a "leftist" makes about as much sense as talking about "far-right" Somalia. I don't remember the left advocating for rigging elections, prosecuting gays, the abandonment of education, criminalization of inflation, or printing of money like it was newspapers. If you think his land redistribution programs (which would only be leftist if confiscated land was distributed equitably, and not disproportionately to Mugabe loyalists) are what define his reign, you haven't been paying attention.
Perhaps it's possible that taxation serves other purposes besides revenue generation. Perhaps progressive taxation can also be used to prevent stratification of wealth. Perhaps a small decrease in revenues is a fair price to pay to have a society where wealth is equitably distributed. Perhaps the socioeconomic benefits of actually having a middle class are more important than gross federal tax receipts.
Your reasoning baffles me. Perhaps we should make murder legal, because then murderers wouldn't engage in prosecution avoidance. That criminals try to find ways around the law doesn't mean we should just abandon our legal system.
Thinly veiled? No, people are openly and clearly calling for a return to the progressive taxation that made America what it is today (or, what it was until Reagan started us on this death march). The 80%-90% top marginal rates in the USA didn't drive out the rich in the past, so it's a bit idiotic to proclaim that they will in the future. Also, linking to the WSJ in this context is hilarious. Perhaps it didn't occur to you that they're a mouthpiece for the wealthy and unlikely to offer any impartial commentary on the issue. (I'm a subscriber, but only in a "know thy enemy" sense)
Your point about Obama is valid, to some extent. I agree that the salaries of the millionaires running the show ought to be suspended when the country's going broke. However, to claim that they get paid too much is absurd. They make a tiny fraction of what these CEOs make. If you're upset about Obama's salary, you should be orders of magnitude more upset about corporate executive salaries.
Despite not being a baseball fan, I very much am yelling about the great American pastime becoming something that the ordinary American just can't afford. It's fucking baseball, tickets are supposed to be virtually free.
I find the rest of your post relatively agreeable, but it doesn't make any points in the argument against progressive taxation. Yes, CEOs dodge taxes adeptly. Yes, there's a huge conflict of interest inherent in the way executive salaries are determined. Yes, there's shitloads of other problems. But that doesn't mean that progressive taxation is somehow bad.
There is such a thing as too rich. If Bill Gates had $72T instead of $72B, that would necessarily mean that you and I had no money. Trot out the "it's not a zero sum game" argument as much as you like, but there is a finite amount of wealth in this world (I said finite, not static/constant), and possession of it all by one individual necessarily means that nobody else has any. We're rapidly moving towards just such a scenario, where the poor have no money (but are kept warm and fed by social welfare programs) and the wealthy have it all. Is that what we collectively want?
You're right. As shareholders, we should object.
But wait. The mutual funds that I own shares of, they all retain the voting rights for themselves. The police/fire/teachers unions, well, they're not receptive to me when I tell them to sell their shares in company X. Even my local government will not heed my requests to divest themselves from certain companies I find unsavory. For some reason, I don't think it would really be too effective to seek out redress through the courts, since this is all legal.
So, as a "shareholder", how do you suggest that I object?
If you hold individual shares in your Roth IRA, I believe you can vote them.
Most Roth IRAs allow you to buy individual shares. Consider selling your stake in the mutual funds and then buying back your position with individual shares. Save yourself the fund fees, earn your voting rights back. Of course, you're stuck handling your own allocation then, and you'll be responsible for all the trading fees, but such is life! I'm no day trader, and definitely of the buy-and-hold mentality, so for me this has proven to be a worthwhile course of action. Then again, I have no idea what I'm doing. YMMV, IANAL, KTNXBAI.
Well, considering that things were relatively great in the 50s, and nowadays we have threats of government shutdowns and debt defaults, I say returning to a top marginal rate in the 80%-90% range would be a better deal.
But that would hurt the job creators, and we just can't have that.
As through this world you travel, you'll meet some funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen.
Find me one person on this fucking planet that couldn't muster up some kind of "strong vision" when offered tens of millions of dollars.
I don't have an MBA, but I can be a bucket of LSD for any company that offers that kind of salary.
The Walton family needs to be stabbed many, many times.
Every person that takes their own life without at least attempting to bring these assholes with them is incredibly selfish.
I should've hopped through the full thread before posting my previous response. I didn't know you were an irrational partisan.
I didn't know dismantling SNAP and other social welfare programs was part of Mitt's platform. He really didn't do well advertising that part, so maybe that's why he lost.
I'm fascinated by your ideas. Clearly the solution is to make sure that people working full-time at McDonalds and Walmart can't afford to eat. That's the society we all dream of living in. Maybe one day we'll all wise up and just take all these worthless poor people, haul them off to the gas chambers, and replace them with robots.
Similarly, if all the wealth in the country except yours was to be confiscated by a single individual, why would that be any of your business? Count your own money, after all...
You see, the distribution of wealth in a society has far-reaching effects. High levels of wealth concentration can result in things like the French Revolution or Zimbabwe, which affects entire countries. You seem to be suggesting that the gutting of the middle class only affects the middle class, which is hilarious.
That's funny. Personally, I'd be relieved. Relieved that society has some sense of morality, proportionality, rationality, or justice. You know, the same way I'd be relieved if someone offered me $200 million to kill someone and some "dumb law" said that they can't pay me to do that.
So I thought of a product I and my fellow colleague can provide. It would take only about two man-years to implement, with no significant capital outlay.
The thing is, we can't find anyone to support us and our families for the year it would take for us to implement the product (not to mention any additional time we'd require to actually, you know, sell it). Of course, we could continue at our day jobs and work on this project in our spare time (as though we have any), but it's likely that competitors would already be fielding a superior product in the decade or two it would take for us to do so.
See, it's not so easy when you're not already rich.
who is the shareholder? Your elderly mom, YOU, etc. If you have a savings plan you own shares.
Alright, so let's say I've got a 401(k) retirement account. Well, odds overwhelmingly suggest that your employer limits your investment options to just a handful of mutual funds. You want some GOOG shares? Well, you can't do that with your 401(k). And those mutual funds, well, they hold shares of publicly traded stocks as well. But they hold those shares, along with the voting rights that go with them. So, let's say I hold some FOCPX mutual fund shares. Roughly 10% of FOCPX's assets are invested in AAPL. I'm an Apple "shareholder" [*shudders*], so I'm the one that gets to hold Apple's board accountable. I'm the one that's supposed to pressure the board to fire an asshat CEO. But I can't, because FOCPX is the real shareholder here, and I have very little power over them thanks to the [unimaginably ineffective] SEC.
So let's get that little lie put to bed. If you have a [certain type of] savings plan, your money is enabling someone else to own shares. You yourself don't own shit. You're a peon, and you have no say in anything. You have nothing to do with the CEO, not directly, and not indirectly. You are a slave to the system, and you won't be missed when you're gone.
You forgot the other options:
Summoning Zeus to smite the offending banksters.
Riding the invisible pink unicorn to a world with a sane banking system.
Abandoning currency and moving to a Star Trek economy instead.
Of course, if we restricted this conversation to plausible options, none of our suggestions apply.
Don't like nuclear fission power either - it produces *filthy* dirty waste, that we have no idea what to do with.
The only reason the waste is *filthy* is because it's still very radioactive. If it's still very radioactive, it's not waste, it's fuel. Breeder reactors are not new, and they've been in use [outside this country] for a very long time. The primary reason why the US has such a problem storing "spent" nuclear fuel is that the fuel isn't very spent at all. Additionally, your perception that nuclear power is amateurish, half-assed, ill-thought-out, and a poor example of our abilities is in line with the fact that our nuclear power plants are about half a century old. I'd expect any technology that old to be seen no differently.
People like their electricity, and it's not going to be easy to cram them all back into the caves they came from. If you don't like the idea of burning hydrocarbons, then your only other options currently are nuclear power or pre-industrial society. I know, it sucks that you can't power the world with solar panels and wind turbines [yet], but that's just how it is.
Is that the same Obamaphone that was being distributed three months prior to Obama's election? Those damn Kenyan Muslims, always time traveling when you least expect it...
I guess Bushphone sounds too creepy?
Either Polish people are uniquely predisposed to thyroid problems around the turn of every millenium, or there's some indication that Chernobyl's effects on human health extended quite a bit beyond 50 miles.
I made it out in 1984, so I guess I dodged that bullet. Any Polish expats I know that left after 1986 have had thyroid surgery and/or will be taking thyroid meds for the remainder of their lives. All this, just from living hundreds of miles away from Chernobyl when it blew its top.
We've been getting along fine for a long time now without a national database of license-plate scans.
Have we? Have we really? You think Iraqi and Afghani terrorists flying commercial jetliners into skyscrapers and federal buildings is "fine"? You think jihadis smuggling weapons of mass destruction onto airplanes in their shoes and their underwear is "fine"?
You, citizen, are the reason this great nation is crumbling before the henchmen of Allah! Why do you hate America so much?
[Disclaimer: It's satire. Save yourself the whoosh.]