You're viewing part of a thread.
I don't mind defending what I see as theft, even if it's from people I don't like. Is it crazy to defend something you see as wrong even if you don't like the person? I don't think right and wrong changes based on if the act is being done to someone I like vs don't like
If you were actually against theft you would be against Bezos Musk and Gates stealing billions in profits from the people who are working for them.
You have no idea what you are talking about... profits aren't theft, paying people less than the money you make from their work also isn't theft. Being worth billions because the stock market values your ownership in a big company as worth billions also isn't theft.
paying people less than the money you make from their work also isn't theft
Why would someone agree to sell their labor for less than it's worth
What you are worth is less than the profit you make. If a company paid you exactly the money they made from you, they would make no money and cease to exist. It's really not that complicated.
It's like asking why do stores sell products for more than it costs them to buy. It's such a simple question that even you should know the right answer.
Why organize society this way?
Because that's the only way it will work? How do you expect businesses to exist and pay bills when they make zero money?
Yeah thats why everything is working so well lmao.
Who must the business pay bills to, and why?
So we should just sell items for what they cost? Doesn't matter if you spent all day working, you get nothing because you just sold everything for what it costs? That's a better society?
Businesses first need to pay employees, that's an obvious one, nobody is going to work for free. Then they need to pay for all the raw materials they buy, and the electricity, etc. If they can't make a profit they aren't paying any of those.
The fact that you willingly debase yourself like this says everything that is needed to know about the system we live under.
You are better than this.
You are better than this.
they should be but they aren't
Explain where I am debasing myself? If you are referring to a company paying me less than they make from me, how do you expect them to make any money, or even break even, if they don't do that?
If you are referring to a company paying me less than they make from me, how do you expect them to make any money, or even break even, if they don't do that?
- Karl Marx, Das Kapital
Care to elaborate about whatever point you are making?
You're pointing out the fundamental contradiction of capitalism - bosses make a profit by paying workers less than their value - that is the basis of Marxism. We are all extremely aware that your boss needs to underpay you to "make any money, or even break even". It is literally the reason we oppose capitalism.
So you propose they pay you exactly the amount you make them, and the company goes broke in the process, so now you also make nothing since you don't have a job?
No, we propose that there not be a group of people (capitalists) who own the business just so they can extract profit from the worker's labor. The workers should collectively own the firm. We recognize that there are two primary classes in society: those who work for a wage that is less than the value they generate (the working class) and those who own a business and extract profit by underpaying their workers (the capitalist class). These classes are inherently in conflict, and the only resolution to that is socialism, which removes the capitalist class from the equation entirely.
So the people who put in the most risk and started the company get nothing more than someone who joined 20 years later? How do you expect companies to get created if the owner constantly loses more and more of their company the bigger it gets? Why risk any of this money in the company when it isn't even his anymore?
Fundamentals of Marx: Surplus Labor and Value. (video is only 10 min long)
E: This one goes into more depth, is a bit more polished of a production, and is 17min: Marx's Law of Value: Intro to Marxist Economics | Socialism 101
You are better than this.
Permanently Deleted
It's called income tax, I'm the one making the income, so what should the company pay it? The company pays taxes also, like a payroll tax.
Permanently Deleted
Believe what you want to believe, I don't really care.
Permanently Deleted
You realize rich people do pay income taxes just like the rest of us, right?
Permanently Deleted
They do actually, the problem is that when people talk about their tax rate they compare it to wealth, not income, and that isn't how income tax works.
Why is theft inhereintly wrong? Would you see Robin Hood as the villain of his story? It's not a matter of whether you like them or not, their exorbitant wealth is a bad thing in of itself.
Do you mind if I steal your property? Would that be wrong? Or is it fine as long as I'm poorer than you?
The difference is between private property and personal property. Private property is the means of production that produce wealth by extracting a profit margin from the labor of the workers that operate that means. Seizing private property is just democratizing the ownership of it between all the workers that use it, because you can't really steal a corporation or a factory, just change ownership. Seizing personal property is taking someone's toothbrush or car or books.
Stealing ownership is still stealing though. You are suggesting we steal personal ownership in a company, ownership which is only worth a certain amount because the stock market says it is.
It's not like they're going to just give it up. Do you think that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people is a good thing? Is it a good thing that billionaires get to waste money shooting off rockets while so many people go without a roof over their head?
Wealth in this case is ownership in companies that have a massive worldwide presence. If wealth is ownership in the companies you own, then yes, I don't think they should be forced to give that up. What they decide to spend their wealth on is up to them.
What they decide to spend their wealth on is up to them
The only acceptable way to use that much money is to reinvest it in the society that enabled you to become a billionaire.
It would cost around 20 billion dollars to end homelessness in the US, why should people be allowed to have net worths of 100 billion+ when it would only cost 1/5th of that to provide everyone with a home? Is stealing from one man to house hundreds of thousands of people a bad thing to do? Is personal ownership of wealth worth more than human life to you?
The only acceptable way to use that much money is to reinvest it in the society that enabled you to become a billionaire.
Bill Gates seems to be doing a decent job of that, I'm glad he made the choices he has to redistribute his wealth, and I'm also glad it's his choice.
It would cost around 20 billion dollars to end homelessness in the US, why should people be allowed to have net worths of 100 billion+ when it would only cost 1/5th of that to provide everyone with a home?
I really doubt it's that simple. Where are these houses being built, in the middle of nowhere I suspect? How many homeless people want to move there? Will there be jobs out there? What about electricity, gas, and Internet?
Why would they need to be built in the middle of nowhere? We can build high density apartments if we need to, a roof over your head in a small apartment is better than the sidewalk.
ownership which is only worth a certain amount because the stock market says it is.
Market value and use value are not the same thing. Cases like Musk obviously display wild overvaluing, but the practical use a repatriated asset can provide is not the same as its price tag unless your only use for it is to sell it.
So how do we calculate wealth if it isn't based on what the market says it's worth? If we are going to tax Musk on his wealth, most of which is stock, how do you figure out the "real" wealth to tax?
In the case of stock, when we say it is "overvalued", that is implicitly based on the idea that there is a better evaluation that we can at least estimate, wherein (using more Marxist terms) the use value and market value are more correlated.
How a wealth tax should be implemented depends a lot on the society in which it is implemented. If we are assuming it is just the US but with a wealth tax, then I think ignoring what I said and taxing people more when their stock is higher makes sense, because market-dictated wealth represents really the ultimate ability to direct society within the US. In other countries with more checks against the wealthy, another approach may be more justified.
Really, I don't like wealth taxes compared to other models like a higher capital gains tax, but anything that takes money disproportionately from all billionaires is probably going to have my support merely for that fact, because anything that mainly hurts them is likely to be a good thing relative to the nothing we have.
What about the middle class that relies on stocks to retire? If you aren't aware, retirement accounts are usually mostly stocks, do we tax the middle class retirement money?
I think your last paragraph is pretty telling, just blindly supporting anything that hurts billionaires simply because they are billionaires, no matter how unfair or unjust it is, or even his bad the consequences would be for the country.
I think there is a reason the most successful companies are from the US, you would have them move their bushes elsewhere that's more supportive of their size?
Obviously I don't want to fuck over retirees, so it should be a progressive tax, since those retirement accounts don't reach 8 figures, let alone 10 to 12.
I was pretty careful in my phrasing about it hurting billionaires specifically rather than hurting a larger swath of the population that included billionaires. Given that, I don't think it would hurt "the country" very much at all, and indeed benefit the country because billionaires are a perpetual malus on us.
I think there is a reason the most successful companies are from the US,
There are several reasons, and I think you probably aren't adequately accounting for the US being the global hegemon and engaging in brutal imperial exploitation as being chief among them. The US literally goes to war using the most over-funded military in the world for the sake of oil companies. It backs juntas to get cheap deals on lithium. It authors puppet governments for fucking bananas.
Regarding capital flight: It's awesome if billionaires want to flee. If they try, seize everything from them. They play ball or fuck off, no need to accommodate them playing God.
Even a progressive tax is going to fuck over retirees, unless you are suggesting 0% below like $10M. Even then they are still paying taxes either when they put the money in or when they take it out, so taxing on the value is just double tax dipping.
So you are actually suggesting if billionaires want to move we steal everything from them? How is that even remotely ok?
Permanently Deleted
It would be worthless if half the ideas in this thread were enacted. Luckily they won't be and tons of middle class people will be able to retire thanks to the stock market.
Just to compare, what's your moral read on all the people we deny housing to, who regularly die of exposure while empty housing units outnumber them?
I'm not against giving people a chance, and helping them get that chance, but that doesn't include taking away houses from rightful owners and giving them away to homeless people. It's no coincidence that the homeless tend to destroy wherever they set up, so they need to set up in government run shelters that can handle it.
So in the moral system you're proposing, it would be an offense to use those buildings without their owner's permission. The fact that people denied access to those buildings will die as a result, though, is just a part of nature
So, why would you expect a perspective which values property more than people to stir anyone's moral feeling? If you don't expect that, then why are you bothering to frame it in terms of right and wrong?
So in the moral system you're proposing, it would be an offense to use those buildings without their owner's permission. The fact that people denied access to those buildings will die as a result, though, is just a part of nature
Well, yes. Do you donate every least penny you have to the homeless, since it would save lives? Or do you instead spend your money on luxuries for yourself? There are right and wrong ways to go about helping people like the homeless, stealing and ruining property isn't one of those ways.
So, why would you expect a perspective which values property more than people to stir anyone's moral feeling? If you don't expect that, then why are you bothering to frame it in terms of right and wrong?
I assume you have some property, right? If you are an adult you are probably at least renting an apartment and have some basic stuff like a TV. Why don't you let a homeless person sleep on your couch every night? If you don't have your own place yet, would you allow some random homeless person access to your couch for free every night?
It's much easier when it isn't your property in question, but when it's your place you might start to care about random people living rent free in your place.
It's much easier when it isn't your property in question, but when it's your place you might start to care about random people living rent free in your place.
I've had people living rent free in my rented home for the last year, except i gave them a bedroom. I think you'll find a lot of people advocating for reallocation of wealth actually do help people out when they need it.
Is it someone you knew or just a random person off the street?
Do you understand the difference between an unused housing unit and an in-use one?
theft
the theft was them getting that rich in the first place you blinkered clown.
Maybe check a dictionary before you talk more nonsense.
🌽