All right, those are the stats. Still doesn't convince me that there's any way to get a truly representative sample. Again, literature is welcomed on this. This one: I'm sorry, things would probably blow up long before we got done tapping out the "resource" of taxes on the rich. We've got a long way to go. So you really think you should have say over other people's lives because the government used your tax money to give them social services? Why not just move to a "patriot commune" in Idaho and get it over with? Probably all the employees of the company that get zero say in the matter? Good for the shareholders != good for the people who are employed by the corporation. Sometimes the lobbyists does whats good for the shareholders and the company still goes under (as long as everyone on the inside gets a golden parachute.) Why does that matter here? Thanks for dismissing any and all criticism of the pipeline as "paranoia" and "out there" thinking. Jeez, get some perspective dude.
There might have been a good point or two in all this snark, but it was lost in all the 'messiah'-talk bullshit and nonsensical topic flow. Try again?
First of all, I didn't dismiss your criticism of the pipeline as anything. You asked if there was possibly ONE person in the universe who might vote against the pipeline and I gave you the slam dunk example. The employees of a company like Exxon have both stock options and stock purchase plans, as well as 401K plans. They are the shareholders of the company, just as anyone who has a 401K that is likely invested in Exxon. You seem to have an issue with mathematics: 1) How the math and probability behind surveys work. The government uses them to figure out unemployment rates (they call a sample of people and ask them if they're out of work). The government wants even less than the +/- 3% margin of error, so they survey 60,000 (out of several millions of) households. 2) Then you dismiss the coming fiscal challenge facing the government as some sort of "patriot commune" kind of thinking; only the math challenged can deny what has to come of the massive debts we're running up the past several years. The payments for interest on the debt is going to cost so much of the government's revenues, they're going to have to raise taxes just to pay that and some minimal amount of other services. They're going to have to raise taxes to cover the baby boomers' payments for SS and medicare, too. 3) The claim we can tax the rich only to cover it all. The numbers are so huge the government may have to double its income. To do that, they have to double everyone's taxes. If the rich are already paying > 50%, you can't double their taxes because you'd be taxing them > 100%. Your anticapitalist belief system may make that a "good idea," but they will stop working altogether and you'll get $0 and force even more of the burden on everyone else. Then there's the tricky part of the "everyone" in "double everyone's taxes." That means you and me and everyone else. To go along with the anticapitalst theme... we have socialized the welfare of the people to such a degree that it absolutely matters to me what happens far away from me. I don't at all suggest forcing my will over anyone else as you suggest. It would be forcing one's will to prevent the pipeline from being built against the peoples' wishes. I think you need to look in the mirror. You ask about how polling companies get their representative samples. There is a plethora of WWW pages that discuss how it's done. The thing is, if they're random dialing as they claim, there's no way they're off by the 30% to suit your world view. Peace
"They will quit working" Absolutely Denny. Prior to Reagan we had a Federal tax rate of up to 70%. I found myself in the 67% bracket in the course of the year once. I shut down every damn thing I could and deferred any income that I could. 67% fed, 15% federal self employment tax, 11% State income tax. Holy damn, it is totally discouraging. Anyone that advocates such a system need only experience it once to feel the pain. You won't like it!
Denny, I suppose I deserve to get called an anticapitalist since I made the patriot commune comment. I think this is a good place to leave the argument and pick it up another time. In the mean time, I'm going to do a little reading about polls. Thanks for the mental exercise
Sure. But the anticapitalist remark is in response to your rhetoric in general. Golden parachutes, workers aren't shareholders, unanimous vote, etc. It is what it is.
One can criticize what you perceive to be that system's failures without being against that system in its entirety. With that being said: 1. Are golden parachutes a thing that an ardent capitalist (such as yourself?) would actually argue for? 2. Me saying workers aren't shareholders and being incorrect doesn't mean I'm against capitalism, it just shows that I don't know enough about how corporations are structured... but surely even ardent capitalists can look at cases where major corporations fail, the top brass make off with millions, their employees get screwed and say, "Something is wrong here" (unless that never happens.) 3. The unanimous vote comment was for a thought exercise. I wouldn't push for such a thing.
I don't think much of the golden parachute. I see it as a no trade clause or player option in a basketball contract. A thing to entice talent to sign. I don't see it as a means to loot the company, but a means of making it painful to fire the CEO or other top executive. An "exit" or big payday in the end is what entrepreneurs look for. Those are the reasons they exist. If you want to entice a Google exec to leave a great position to take the CEO job of JC Penny's, which needs a serious turnaround or it will fail, you have to make it worthwhile. And I think the CEO wants to collect a big paycheck and other compensation rather than the golden parachute. The latter means failure.
