Does National Socialism have any truth or relevance to it?

[The Ozzman]

Explain why you have your stance on each part of what I said, because I'm curious about your opinions on 'wealth' redistribution

There's a difference between 'wealth' redistribution and 'income' redistribution

 

[skeptik]

Giving somebody money = benefiting that person

 

[Zephyrus]

By setting limits on wealth accumulation I meant for people who become insanely rich. Some people have way much more wealth than they need to even live in luxury. They don't need megayachts that burn 100 gallons of petrol for every nautical mile. Think of it as a salary cap on corporations. Once the business grows to the point that its CEO's salary has hit the cap, then his or her salary stays at the cap and whatever more he'd earn as the corporation grows would be redistributed down the social hierarchy.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'm not sure if I'd go that far but the wealthy certainly should be taxed higher than others. Losing 50% of a few million is not nearly as bad as losing 20% of 30,000

 

[waif]

that sounds reasonable...Maybe when the CEO hits the cap everything else goes to other workers at the company.
Except, of course...Stock options. Since stock prices change, it's hard to regulate salary when a lot of what CEOs make is in stock options.

 

[Zephyrus]

I'd rather they invest in the stock market than in private islands.

 

[The Ozzman]

Giving somebody money = benefiting that person

Yes, but forcing someone to give other people money is not beneficial, which is the basic premise behind wealth distribution (at least in communist and socialist theory)

By setting limits on wealth accumulation I meant for people who become insanely rich. Some people have way much more wealth than they need to even live in luxury. They don't need megayachts that burn 100 gallons of petrol for every nautical mile. Think of it as a salary cap on corporations. Once the business grows to the point that its CEO's salary has hit the cap, then his or her salary stays at the cap and whatever more he'd earn as the corporation grows would be redistributed down the social hierarchy.

First off, there's no such thing as 'enough money' or 'enough wealth'. The term 'enough' is completely subjective in this case. Who are you to say that 20 million dollars is enough money? I mean, if you're comfortable living off 40,000 dollars or whatever, fine, but just because you don't think someone doesn't 'need' 20 million dollars doesn't mean that they automatically don't deserve 20 million dollars. I'll agree that corporate welfare is bullshit and should be abolished and that CEO compensation needs to be massively reformed, but if a CEO did something beneficial while working for the company, then I don't see why paying the CEO 20 million dollars is a big deal anyway. I think if you're going to overhaul the corporate structure, it should be the boards of directors since they hire the top executives in the first place. There's a lot of nepotism that goes on within the boards (ie: I hire a friend to be on my board while he puts me on his board, etc) and I think that's the main problem (nepotism).

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Who are you to say that 20 million dollars is enough money?

Someone who understands that it is way too much money for any one person to have?

 

[The Ozzman]

that sounds reasonable...Maybe when the CEO hits the cap everything else goes to other workers at the company.
Except, of course...Stock options. Since stock prices change, it's hard to regulate salary when a lot of what CEOs make is in stock options.

Unless you regulate how many options they are given.

 

[The Ozzman]

Someone who understands that it is way too much money for any one person to have?

Not if the person fucking worked hard and earned the fucking money it isn't

 

[cookiecutter]

Fine, but do you not even agree he should pay higher taxes, consider you don't really need that extra money as much as people who are poor

 

[The Ozzman]

I'm not sure if I'd go that far but the wealthy certainly should be taxed higher than others. Losing 50% of a few million is not nearly as bad as losing 20% of 30,000

How about instead of taxing 50% of a CEOs money, you reform the tax code? Wouldn't that be a better option than just saying 'Oh, they make 3 million dollars, which is way too much money because I'm a jealous motherfucker and don't think they should make that much money'?

 

[The Ozzman]

Fine, but do you not even agree he should pay higher taxes, consider you don't really need that extra money as much as people who are poor

I believe in a fair tax. Marginal tax rates aren't fair.

To be fair, I would make it to where people that make under a certain amount of money aren't taxed. After that, it would be a flat tax rate for everyone else

 

[cookiecutter]

What do you mean by "reform the tax code"?

I know you're probably just being dumb but no one wants to tax the rich because they are jealous. It's because it makes sense to gather money from people who can actually afford it. Also do you not understand my point about how taking away a higher percentage matters less when you have more money?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

ftl @ thinking it is about jealousy.

 

[The Ozzman]

What do you mean by "reform the tax code"?

Get rid of tax loopholes.

I also understand the other point, I just don't agree with you

 

[The Ozzman]

I was being an asshole when I said it was about jealousy

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

k

 

[skeptik]

Yes, but forcing someone to give other people money is not beneficial, which is the basic premise behind wealth distribution (at least in communist and socialist theory)

Unfortunately what you said was that it wasn't beneficial for anybody, when it clearly is beneficial for some.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I think he is using the net gain definition of "helping someone." In essence, I believe that Mike is saying that if you take a lot away from someone to help someone a lot, the net help is zero (or close to it). It is implicative that it helps someone, of course.