Ask the wealthy to pay a little more - Page 9 - GoFuckYourself.com

papill0n · 10-01-2012, 05:00 PM

paul markham = international finance expert

Robbie · 10-01-2012, 05:03 PM

Relentless... I see that you are really into this subject of people no longer needing to work and what the result will be.

My feeling is that people NEED to work. I know I sure do.

I was talking to Claudia Marie the other day and said: "What would we do if we went into the Casino and won the MegaBucks jackpot?"
Neither of us could contemplate just doing nothing. We both kept coming up with ideas to start new businesses and work at different things.

Neither of us even thought twice about just playing golf, lying on the beach, or going back to college and studying science (lol).

People BECOME what they do. We all gain our identity from what we do for a living.

Sure, elitist scholars can theorize all day long. But at the end of the day, the majority of people want to WORK. That's why it's such a hot button topic when we speak of welfare and redistribution of wealth.

IF the "new society" that you envision ever comes into existence, I don't believe it will be in our lifetimes or our children or grandchildren's lifetimes.

People simply NEED a function in life. And it ain't sitting around dreaming and/or thinking about things that could help humanity.
People need to WORK.

You know what I do for a living. I've been an affiliate since the mid 1990's. I've owned a content company, been involved with a hosting company,owned a domain portfolio company, owned some business zoned real estate, update and work on all my own websites, shoot-write-direct-edit-upload-update CM's site.
And I get a lot of satisfaction out of all that.
But I get even more satisfaction by going out and working on my car. Or mowing the lawn, Or working on my guitars and playing a gig. You know...getting my hands dirty.

It's just something us humans need psychologically to be healthy.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 05:34 PM

Robbie,

You need to work. I definitely need to work. I work 7 days a week by choice and get antsy during a day off because I spend most of my time thinking about ideas that I can't try until I get back to work. That is not a universal characteristic of all humans. I've known people in my life as smart or smarter than anyone I've met in business, but they valued time off more than wealth. Some became academics, one works at a 'political think tank' - I don't think one way is 'better' or 'worse' than the other. Some people like to work 9-5 and forget all about their job the moment they leave their place of employment, others can't put down their iPad because they just need to check one more thing before stopping for the day... And oh one more thing after that...

We used to need every person working to create enough food, shelter and clothing for everyone. At times even when everyone worked we still failed to succeed and people died from starvation, freezing to death and the like. Modern society doesn't abide by those same principles. How afraid are you of starving to death? It used to be the number one fear of every human only a couple centuries ago. Do you ever worry about freezing to death or dying from the heat? It happened all the time years ago.

Some will work as hard or harder than ever. Others won't have to do so at nearly the same pace as past generations... And we will still produce more each year than we did in any previous year. Those who work hard will drive lambos, those who don't will ride the bus or drive a cheap car... But they will eat, see doctors, have a dry reasonably comfortable place to live... Their number will grow until all the people who don't want to work won't have to.... And we still won't need all the people who want to work.

It should lead to an explosion of art and science...with pretty much zero poverty. If we manage it correctly.

Robbie · 10-01-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Robbie,
It should lead to an explosion of art and science...with pretty much zero poverty. If we manage it correctly.

I agree with the "explosion" part. Just not the art and science or zero poverty. Just explosions (plural)...as in bombs going off! lol

There is NO "managing" the majority of crazy people in this world.

What you described sounds like paradise.

But the reality is that people are power hungry and just plain out crazy in a lot of areas of this world (and in every town and city in the U.S.)

Warlords in Africa ain't gonna go for your vision. Drug lords in South America aren't gonna be swayed by this. Power hungry religious leaders in the Middle East are NEVER going to go this route. And every criminal in every town in the U.S. and the world won't.

Your description sounds great. But then again so did Karl Marx's descriptions.
But the human race is too crazy.

Those people who just want to stop working and "dream" would be eaten alive by this world we live in. And hell, truth be told...I like it this way. I like it "dog eat dog" and I like competing.

Relentless · 10-01-2012, 06:13 PM

Robbie,

Poor people are generally not power hungry. Most are placated by a good football game on television, some beer and a cheap pizza.
Keeping the masses calm is not hard, and it is the responsibility of the power hungry people who lead them.

There is and old saying: Fat men don't fight.

If you provide an adequate standard of living for people they quickly become complacent. If you agitate them with hunger, ridicule, and endless amounts of monotonous labor they become much harder to manage. It costs us almost nothing to provide basic necessities for everyone in this country... But doing so isn't profitable. We need to see beyond earning a large markup on a 79 cent can of string beans and look at the advantages of not having hungry poor people.

The sooner we let gay people love whoever they want, allow adults to smoke pot in privacy, provide basic medical care for everyone who needs it and make sure nobody is starving or living in poverty, avoid sending our military out to mangle itself in unnecessary wars of choice, etc - the faster our nation will heal itself.

We are 'fucking with our own people' - who would otherwise be very calm, somewhat productive, much happier, more patriotic Americans if we didn't get distracted by moronic wedge issues being created by a tiny group of asshats who are raping our economy and creating real global insecurity for their own profit. People profit from prisons... It's slave labor for the chicken industry among others. People profit from illness. From old age. From war. We aren't imprisoning people because they are dangerous, we do it because it is profitable. Medicine for profit in many cases does not lead to better health. We are as Fuller said, beyond the need to compete over necessities. The only reason we do is that someone is profiting from creating a false scarcity where none actually exists. We ought to compete over luxuries and provide basic necessities to everyone... It costs almost nothing these days if done right.

BFT3K · 10-01-2012, 09:41 PM

_Richard_ · 10-01-2012, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Robbie,

Poor people are generally not power hungry. Most are placated by a good football game on television, some beer and a cheap pizza.
Keeping the masses calm is not hard, and it is the responsibility of the power hungry people who lead them.

There is and old saying: Fat men don't fight.

If you provide an adequate standard of living for people they quickly become complacent. If you agitate them with hunger, ridicule, and endless amounts of monotonous labor they become much harder to manage. It costs us almost nothing to provide basic necessities for everyone in this country... But doing so isn't profitable. We need to see beyond earning a large markup on a 79 cent can of string beans and look at the advantages of not having hungry poor people.

The sooner we let gay people love whoever they want, allow adults to smoke pot in privacy, provide basic medical care for everyone who needs it and make sure nobody is starving or living in poverty, avoid sending our military out to mangle itself in unnecessary wars of choice, etc - the faster our nation will heal itself.

We are 'fucking with our own people' - who would otherwise be very calm, somewhat productive, much happier, more patriotic Americans if we didn't get distracted by moronic wedge issues being created by a tiny group of asshats who are raping our economy and creating real global insecurity for their own profit. People profit from prisons... It's slave labor for the chicken industry among others. People profit from illness. From old age. From war. We aren't imprisoning people because they are dangerous, we do it because it is profitable. Medicine for profit in many cases does not lead to better health. We are as Fuller said, beyond the need to compete over necessities. The only reason we do is that someone is profiting from creating a false scarcity where none actually exists. We ought to compete over luxuries and provide basic necessities to everyone... It costs almost nothing these days if done right.

sounds logically levelheaded

how are you going to replace the warmachine industry and it's positive economic impacts?

so development, troops, mercenaries, etc

Paul Markham · 10-01-2012, 11:10 PM

Here is the truth.

The biggest change from 1965 when I started working and today is the lack of jobs for the lass educated. There's even a shortage of jobs for the well educated. Any one who wants to convince himself that the majority of unemployed are lazy is a fool, or thinks we are.

What about university students who have slogged through 6-8 years of studying through school, high school and university who can't get a job, or the 30 and up year old who has worked for decades and lost his job?

When you're screaming to pay less tax to buy more comfort goods, it's not going to dsound right if you talk about cutting off those who deserve some support. Because you're hoarding all the goods or outsourcing their jobs.

No one has even bothered to think or reply to my posts on the consequences of cutting spending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

sounds logically levelheaded

how are you going to replace the warmachine industry and it's positive economic impacts?

so development, troops, mercenaries, etc

That's the biggest problem. Modern life is at fault for the unemployment. As we automate and export jobs, this situation will not change.

If you black, born in the wrong area and poorly educated, it's an almighty struggle to get a job at school leaving age. Yes you can go into the fields and pick fruit/veg or a meat processing factory and work with illegals. Because the bosses asking for less taxes will pay wages only illegals will work for. Odds are he won't give it to you.

One solution to this problem is fine them $20,000 per illegal worker, even if it sends him bankrupt. If so sell his factory, home and the rest. I did hear on a TV documentary that bosses don't get fined in some US States. Is that true? In the UK they do.

Maybe tax people outsourcing affiliates work to overseas citizens. So what ever you pay someone outside your country is taxes at 100% on top. You can't complain about people not working while you export jobs. </sarcasm>

Still it's a good point, why should China, India and a few other Third World countries develop millionaires and billionaires buy selling to the First World without any penalty in the form of a tax on their goods?

Or community work for the long term unemployed or the school leavers unable to find a job in 6 months of leaving school. In exchange for the dole. This will cause a lot of anger at first, because of the change in our societies. It will be labelled as slave labour. As we lose more jobs in the First World, got a better idea?

Paul Markham · 10-01-2012, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Fuller, Steve Jobs, Ray Kurzweil... and other elite achievers, some of the most inventive people in the last century, have echoed the same sentiments. We are moving beyond the period of human history where each person has to earn more than they consume and our society is becoming so technologically complex that many people will be unable to do more than the very minimum in our economy moving forward. A period that could be dominated by thought, peace and prosperity... if we move past the mystical certitude of religion, militant ignorance of political parties and angry emotional attachment some people seem to feel for the status quo.

We need more universities, hospitals, mentors and a renewed interest in Science for its own sake. Less prisons, aircraft carriers, high frequency trading hedge funds and violent religious zealots. It's a pretty simple choice really.

Great post. We need people to realise it's 2012 not 1970

stillsexy · 10-02-2012, 12:33 AM

there is nothing new actually... there is a balance somewhere... rich has been in the past subsidising the poor in one way or another to ensure social stability. It's just a matter of how much.

crockett · 10-02-2012, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Robbie,

Poor people are generally not power hungry. Most are placated by a good football game on television, some beer and a cheap pizza.
Keeping the masses calm is not hard, and it is the responsibility of the power hungry people who lead them.

There is and old saying: Fat men don't fight.

If you provide an adequate standard of living for people they quickly become complacent. If you agitate them with hunger, ridicule, and endless amounts of monotonous labor they become much harder to manage. It costs us almost nothing to provide basic necessities for everyone in this country... But doing so isn't profitable. We need to see beyond earning a large markup on a 79 cent can of string beans and look at the advantages of not having hungry poor people.

The sooner we let gay people love whoever they want, allow adults to smoke pot in privacy, provide basic medical care for everyone who needs it and make sure nobody is starving or living in poverty, avoid sending our military out to mangle itself in unnecessary wars of choice, etc - the faster our nation will heal itself.

We are 'fucking with our own people' - who would otherwise be very calm, somewhat productive, much happier, more patriotic Americans if we didn't get distracted by moronic wedge issues being created by a tiny group of asshats who are raping our economy and creating real global insecurity for their own profit. People profit from prisons... It's slave labor for the chicken industry among others. People profit from illness. From old age. From war. We aren't imprisoning people because they are dangerous, we do it because it is profitable. Medicine for profit in many cases does not lead to better health. We are as Fuller said, beyond the need to compete over necessities. The only reason we do is that someone is profiting from creating a false scarcity where none actually exists. We ought to compete over luxuries and provide basic necessities to everyone... It costs almost nothing these days if done right.

This is a nice theory and sounds great in a magical unicorn land filled with fairies.. However the real world has these other power hunger fanatic types, that may not want to lead people, but they sure as hell want to tell them what to do and how to live their lives.

Even if everyone had everything they needed, someone would be there telling someone else they can't do this or that..

KillerK · 10-02-2012, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

The sooner we let gay people love whoever they want, allow adults to smoke pot in privacy, provide basic medical care for everyone who needs it and make sure nobody is starving or living in poverty, avoid sending our military out to mangle itself in unnecessary wars of choice, etc - the faster our nation will heal itself.

Please explain why you think the gay issue will solve anything?

Relentless · 10-02-2012, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

sounds logically levelheaded
how are you going to replace the warmachine industry and it's positive economic impacts?
so development, troops, mercenaries, etc

That's Fuller's whole point. We don't need to replace jobs no longer needed with other jobs that aren't needed. We do not need everyone working at a job to produce all the necessities we need. For example, if we return to a time when one parent or the other stays home to raise their kids, we will be much better off because children will become better, more secure, intelligent adults. However we would have to subsidize people who do it. Not with free lambos... But with things like real single payer healthcare. Many people work to have a job with health insurance because their spouse doesn't, and the cost is too high if both aren't working. It would cost much less overall if we provided free basic single payer healthcare that allowed more people to leave the workforce. Their productivity would not be missed, their contribution in raising good citizens rather than dim criminals would be much greater than anything they would have done on a Raytheon assembly line.

Relentless · 10-02-2012, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

This is a nice theory and sounds great in a magical unicorn land filled with fairies.. However the real world has these other power hunger fanatic types, that may not want to lead people, but they sure as hell want to tell them what to do and how to live their lives. Even if everyone had everything they needed, someone would be there telling someone else they can't do this or that..

Entrepreneurs do not compete with poor people, they compete with other entrepreneurs. The primary role of government is enforcing regulations, laws and treaties that create a framework which protects ordinary people from power hungry foreign regimes, entrepreneurs or anyone else who would take advantage of them. That's why we have a military, police, the SEC, FTC and an alphabet soup of other government entities on the state and federal level.

We are not talking about providing everyone with luxuries. There is plenty of room for capitalism and private enterprise. If people want a lambo they can work for one, and someone selling a lambo should be charging whatever they think the market will pay for one. We are talking about necessities... People should not worry about having enough to eat and those creating food should be subject to the same kinds of rules public utilities are restrained by in terms of price and distribution. We give an ton of tax money to ADM, Monsanto and other food corps. They should be required to provide a certain amount of food set aside for poor people.

Food, healthcare, housing, electricity, home heating oil, etc... - profit should not be the primary motivator in any market that people require to survive as a matter of necessity. The power hungry can compete 8 days a week to profit over luxuries. Allowing businesses to treat necessities as if they are luxuries is a ridiculous notion. Nobody makes a decision about a heart transplant for their infant child based on price, service, warranty, etc...

Relentless · 10-02-2012, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerK

Please explain why you think the gay issue will solve anything?

What issue? There is No issue. There is a bogus distraction created as a wedge to divide society so that people have false arguments with each other over moronic topics while thieves continue bleeding our economy in the background. One of the biggest forces against gay rights is the church. So people argue about gay rights, and nobody ever discusses the fact that the church is given billions of dollars in subsidies each year thanks to a provision that inexplicably makes church property untaxable. Any idea how many poor people we could feed if the church had to pay taxes on all the land it owns? I'll bet you the number is a whole lot higher than the number of people the church feeds.

Gay marriage, a few tax points on people over 250K per year, getting rid of immigrants, etc, etc, etc, etc... It's bogus issues created specifically to distract the sheep from looking at the real issues which need to be solved. What any two or more consenting adults do in privacy sexually or otherwise has zero impact on society and is none of our business. If someone is not consenting, or if their actions have a negative public impact then society has a right to be involved. However, if eleven people want to get together every Thursday at 4PM in one of their houses to have sex with an old broom covered in peanut butter - that has nothing to do with anyone other than those eleven adults...whether they are all male, all female, shemales or a combination of all three does not in any way change the outcome of the equation.

Paul Markham · 10-02-2012, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

That's Fuller's whole point. We don't need to replace jobs no longer needed with other jobs that aren't needed. We do not need everyone working at a job to produce all the necessities we need. For example, if we return to a time when one parent or the other stays home to raise their kids, we will be much better off because children will become better, more secure, intelligent adults. However we would have to subsidize people who do it. Not with free lambos... But with things like real single payer healthcare. Many people work to have a job with health insurance because their spouse doesn't, and the cost is too high if both aren't working. It would cost much less overall if we provided free basic single payer healthcare that allowed more people to leave the workforce. Their productivity would not be missed, their contribution in raising good citizens rather than dim criminals would be much greater than anything they would have done on a Raytheon assembly line.

The problem is you can't win an election with that in the manifesto. People would never vote for it. Tell them you're going to cut spending, cut taxes and this will bring back the good times will get votes.

Utter bullshit and no chance of working, but look at some of the posts here. They will vote for this.

Paul Markham · 10-02-2012, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

What issue? There is No issue. There is a bogus distraction created as a wedge to divide society so that people have false arguments with each other over moronic topics while thieves continue bleeding our economy in the background. One of the biggest forces against gay rights is the church. So people argue about gay rights, and nobody ever discusses the fact that the church is given billions of dollars in subsidies each year thanks to a provision that inexplicably makes church property untaxable. Any idea how many poor people we could feed if the church had to pay taxes on all the land it owns? I'll bet you the number is a whole lot higher than the number of people the church feeds.

Good luck getting elected with that in the manifesto. Most churches care little about poor people annd a lot about building bigger churches and wealth. Mormons are te worse.

Quote:

Gay marriage, a few tax points on people over 250K per year, getting rid of immigrants, etc, etc, etc, etc... It's bogus issues created specifically to distract the sheep from looking at the real issues which need to be solved. What any two or more consenting adults do in privacy sexually or otherwise has zero impact on society and is none of our business. If someone is not consenting, or if their actions have a negative public impact then society has a right to be involved. However, if eleven people want to get together every Thursday at 4PM in one of their houses to have sex with an old broom covered in peanut butter - that has nothing to do with anyone other than those eleven adults...whether they are all male, all female, shemales or a combination of all three does not in any way change the outcome of the equation.

Sad but true.

Except, I'm here to represent the broom and he did not agree.

10-01-2012, 05:03 PM	#402
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,960	Relentless... I see that you are really into this subject of people no longer needing to work and what the result will be. My feeling is that people NEED to work. I know I sure do. I was talking to Claudia Marie the other day and said: "What would we do if we went into the Casino and won the MegaBucks jackpot?" Neither of us could contemplate just doing nothing. We both kept coming up with ideas to start new businesses and work at different things. Neither of us even thought twice about just playing golf, lying on the beach, or going back to college and studying science (lol). People BECOME what they do. We all gain our identity from what we do for a living. Sure, elitist scholars can theorize all day long. But at the end of the day, the majority of people want to WORK. That's why it's such a hot button topic when we speak of welfare and redistribution of wealth. IF the "new society" that you envision ever comes into existence, I don't believe it will be in our lifetimes or our children or grandchildren's lifetimes. People simply NEED a function in life. And it ain't sitting around dreaming and/or thinking about things that could help humanity. People need to WORK. You know what I do for a living. I've been an affiliate since the mid 1990's. I've owned a content company, been involved with a hosting company,owned a domain portfolio company, owned some business zoned real estate, update and work on all my own websites, shoot-write-direct-edit-upload-update CM's site. And I get a lot of satisfaction out of all that. But I get even more satisfaction by going out and working on my car. Or mowing the lawn, Or working on my guitars and playing a gig. You know...getting my hands dirty. It's just something us humans need psychologically to be healthy. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com Last edited by Robbie; 10-01-2012 at 05:04 PM..

10-01-2012, 05:34 PM	#403
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,698	Robbie, You need to work. I definitely need to work. I work 7 days a week by choice and get antsy during a day off because I spend most of my time thinking about ideas that I can't try until I get back to work. That is not a universal characteristic of all humans. I've known people in my life as smart or smarter than anyone I've met in business, but they valued time off more than wealth. Some became academics, one works at a 'political think tank' - I don't think one way is 'better' or 'worse' than the other. Some people like to work 9-5 and forget all about their job the moment they leave their place of employment, others can't put down their iPad because they just need to check one more thing before stopping for the day... And oh one more thing after that... We used to need every person working to create enough food, shelter and clothing for everyone. At times even when everyone worked we still failed to succeed and people died from starvation, freezing to death and the like. Modern society doesn't abide by those same principles. How afraid are you of starving to death? It used to be the number one fear of every human only a couple centuries ago. Do you ever worry about freezing to death or dying from the heat? It happened all the time years ago. Some will work as hard or harder than ever. Others won't have to do so at nearly the same pace as past generations... And we will still produce more each year than we did in any previous year. Those who work hard will drive lambos, those who don't will ride the bus or drive a cheap car... But they will eat, see doctors, have a dry reasonably comfortable place to live... Their number will grow until all the people who don't want to work won't have to.... And we still won't need all the people who want to work. It should lead to an explosion of art and science...with pretty much zero poverty. If we manage it correctly. Last edited by Relentless; 10-01-2012 at 05:38 PM..

10-01-2012, 06:13 PM	#405
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,698	Robbie, Poor people are generally not power hungry. Most are placated by a good football game on television, some beer and a cheap pizza. Keeping the masses calm is not hard, and it is the responsibility of the power hungry people who lead them. There is and old saying: Fat men don't fight. If you provide an adequate standard of living for people they quickly become complacent. If you agitate them with hunger, ridicule, and endless amounts of monotonous labor they become much harder to manage. It costs us almost nothing to provide basic necessities for everyone in this country... But doing so isn't profitable. We need to see beyond earning a large markup on a 79 cent can of string beans and look at the advantages of not having hungry poor people. The sooner we let gay people love whoever they want, allow adults to smoke pot in privacy, provide basic medical care for everyone who needs it and make sure nobody is starving or living in poverty, avoid sending our military out to mangle itself in unnecessary wars of choice, etc - the faster our nation will heal itself. We are 'fucking with our own people' - who would otherwise be very calm, somewhat productive, much happier, more patriotic Americans if we didn't get distracted by moronic wedge issues being created by a tiny group of asshats who are raping our economy and creating real global insecurity for their own profit. People profit from prisons... It's slave labor for the chicken industry among others. People profit from illness. From old age. From war. We aren't imprisoning people because they are dangerous, we do it because it is profitable. Medicine for profit in many cases does not lead to better health. We are as Fuller said, beyond the need to compete over necessities. The only reason we do is that someone is profiting from creating a false scarcity where none actually exists. We ought to compete over luxuries and provide basic necessities to everyone... It costs almost nothing these days if done right. Last edited by Relentless; 10-01-2012 at 06:15 PM..

10-01-2012, 09:41 PM	#406
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	Last edited by BFT3K; 10-01-2012 at 09:52 PM..

10-02-2012, 12:33 AM	#410
stillsexy Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,913	there is nothing new actually... there is a balance somewhere... rich has been in the past subsidising the poor in one way or another to ensure social stability. It's just a matter of how much. __________________

10-01-2012, 05:00 PM	#401
papill0n Unregistered Abuser Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 15,547	paul markham = international finance expert