Cocky Ignorance ...

tampicos

tampicos

Well-Known Member
undertheice said:
the question is - what value is derived from the ceo versus the worker? that value is not merely a matter of labor, but of risk and responsibility as well. the ceo holds the responsibility of operating an entire company while the worker merely puts in his eight and walks away. those who provide the capital have risked their savings in the hope of a flourishing business while the worker is guaranteed his wage whatever the status of the company. it is the duty of government merely to assure that the workers rights are not infringed upon, not to regulate or cap executive salaries. meddling in such affairs is just another step toward full blown totalitarianism.

Again with the cap, there is no cap on the wages, your company if it is doing well will still be able to increase. I think i should have referred to the companies who push billions in excess. It feels like what I really wanna advocate is that if you make lets say walmart status, worth over $200bn you cant take 1 of those billions and lets say use it to raise 1 billion of their employees wages 1 dollar?

watch out, that's not a very popular opinion to hold. the right to raise a family is widely held to be of utmost importance, regardless of whether you are capable of supporting them or not. it is a catch 22 of the liberal agenda. we cannot discourage people from starting families (even by withholding federal program funds from those who procreate irresponsibly) and once those children are born it is society's responsibility to see to it that they are given all that society has to give. people who are incapable of raising even one child are given extra money for each child they create and asked for no value in return.

didn't know it was taboo :confused:. yeah its important and im not the one to be able to deem if you are ready or not, it should be based on your own feeling of readiness but i don't think everyone is capable of making that judgement correctly. But programs do currently exist to help people out.

this is where you lost me.

what is called the "fair tax" is a tax on consumption instead of what is loosely considered income. it is not merely a tax on the rich, but a tax on all new item sold inside this country. once adjustment is made to allow for basic survival, it is inarguably the most equitable solution to taxation. it does not penalize success or investment, only what might be considered the little extras that make it all worthwhile. a prudent man could manage to pay next to no tax, while the spendthrift would be penalized for his extravagances. with more disposable income, the wealthy would be much more heavily taxed than a poorer family that attempted to live within their means. the harshest criticism for this system comes from those who are unhappy with anything that doesn't arbitrarily penalize the rich, liberal leader who feel that the citizenry having a direct say in how much they are taxed would stifle their desire for ever increased tax revenues and those few who believe that such a system might harm the materialistic consumer culture.

I think i understand the fair tax better and i can see its flaws already. It's not the commodity that should have the tax because those should be available to all to acquire once they are able to. I guess i advocate a system that's a little different.

i just don't see how anyone could believe that government has the right to make the wealthy cater to the needs of the poor. people who make the sacrifices and take the risks needed to succeed may feel morally obligated to help out those less fortunate, but to demand they hand over an inordinate amount of their earnings to someone else merely because that person failed to thrive is a bit of tyranny. that excess, as you call it, belongs to someone and no one has the right to take it away without their consent. there may be an implied consent, the price we must pay for living in a society, to a reasonable percentage of that wealth, but only to an equitable amount. the idea of raping the coffers of the wealthy in order to subsidize an endless welfare state is far beyond what could be considered reasonable and amounts to nothing more than a petty and unwarranted vengeance.

The percents I speak about are minimal to say the least. and they are few because not much is needed when it is spent wisely and efficiently. Applied to those companies that earn so much excess would set them back their renovation and grand opening and new expansion of their new district mall till their next earnings quarter. I think they can wait 3-4 months to regain that billion or so they used to help someone who failed to thrive in the tyranny they could easily help finance. I believe raping would be taking close to 99% of their earnings

i doubt that anyone fears that a tax on consumption would have such a result, but it is a very real consequence of the expansion of the welfare state and its associated cult of entitlement. endless government give-aways that ask for no value in return have created entire communities whose major source of income, arguably their only source of income, is the state. fearing the loss of their condition of comfortable poverty, the habitual abusers of the government dole all too often become enslaved by the very programs that were meant to free them from poverty. as a temporary measure, government assistance is one of the noblest purposes our tax dollars could go toward. when it is extended out to last for years or even a lifetime it is just another tool used by the powerful to control the masses.

Well then i think you are onto something. Make them work. put a government program that helps build and strengthen communities and then it turns into an entitlement rather than a hand out. Or use it wisely. Have a time cap and give 3/4 of what you give now and put 1/4 into a savings that can't be touched until you are off the program and capable.

it may sound trite, but there is a thin line between morality and legality and it seems to blur a little more each day.

there is a segment of our society that seems to believe that the law should be used to enforce our morality. from the greatest circumstances to the least, they would have government become arbiter of our beliefs with few if any exceptions. the danger here is that the law goes too far and that our freedom to choose is infringed upon. as example; though the hate crimes legislation may be a great step forward in the prosecution of violent offenders whose crimes were generated by their prejudices, it is also a step backward in that it attempts to control the way we think and feel. the freedom that exists within our own minds is now in danger, but we endure the threat for the good of society as a whole.

this is where you lost me, i'm a moral guy myself. i believe that by living a moral life, im pretty sure i can get by without breaking the laws but i do believe not every law is correct. i judge a law by morality and thats how i look at things. i digress though, through the hate crime example, i see nothing wrong in it. there are people who get screwed over, the ones who would kill you or maim you regardless of your race, and the people who it was intended for, violent racists. our minds are our most sanctimonious place in that only now does mind reading technology exist. no one can control what you think unless you let them. sure you can brown nose or kiss ass to get by in the day even though you might bite your lip in anger but when you act on it, violence is violence.

the other main faction seems to be those who think that the law should only intrude into our interpersonal lives. these are the folks who would have government step in only when we directly infringe upon the rights of others. it seems a sensible position. what right has the state to decide what i can do with myself and my belongings? why should anyone be able to tell me how i can love or hate, what i can believe or deny, where i should go or what i should do as long as i don't trample the rights of others?

the same law that prevents someone from doing it to you
Click to expand...

^^ Look for the blue ^^ :joint:
 
NewGrowth

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
Morals are for idealist and don't work in the real world of grey. Throw all the ideas you once had and you will be free. "People demand freedom of speech to make up for their fear of freedom of thought". Our current society is a failure of people trying to control things that they in the end, cannot. Money no longer represent real value just the faith of the people and most people are blind to their fate on this planet if they don't free their minds. People of morals commit the greatest sins in this world of grey. https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/82600-permacuture-low-energy-future.html
 
tampicos

tampicos

Well-Known Member
That's pretty harsh there NG. as there are some pretty important morals. morals aren't meant to be the absolute decision on how you lead your life, more along the lines of a guide. they are also an integral part of learning so if you throw away your morals, you throw away you. people of faith and twisted morals who constantly preach about an ideal world to acquire wealth and power are the corrupt. i can't see myself lumped in that boat because I don't preach for power and through my morals i try to help. through my morals i also try and solve problems. giving talking a chance at all instances. the only gray line i see is killing. i don't believe in it nor do i care to place myself in a situation where it requires it. and no one can control what you think mate. turn off the tube and shake that haze out
 
NewGrowth

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
tampicos said:
That's pretty harsh there NG. as there are some pretty important morals. morals aren't meant to be the absolute decision on how you lead your life, more along the lines of a guide. they are also an integral part of learning so if you throw away your morals, you throw away you. people of faith and twisted morals who constantly preach about an ideal world to acquire wealth and power are the corrupt. i can't see myself lumped in that boat because I don't preach for power and through my morals i try to help. through my morals i also try and solve problems. giving talking a chance at all instances. the only gray line i see is killing. i don't believe in it nor do i care to place myself in a situation where it requires it. and no one can control what you think mate. turn off the tube and shake that haze out
Click to expand...
I practice tantra so it is often hard to understand that there is really no need for morals until you have a "tantric" experience(s). Corruption is not due to outside conditions but is in all men we are composed of both "good" and "bad" the absolute truth is not black and white however. Nobody truly needs morals life occurs regardless. I am not trying to be harsh I have simply found that what we refer to as morals are simply another way to reject a basic part of our humanity. All others are welcome to continue to believe and act as they wish as far as I am concerned. If you look close the most celebrated spiritual teachers had no morals. :peace:
 
bongspit

bongspit

New Member
I love it: The push and pull, the constant renegotiating of morals, ethics, what to do, how to live... All of us stuck here together trying to sort it all out. It's fun. It can be, anyway.
 
NewGrowth

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
bongspit said:
I love it: The push and pull, the constant renegotiating of morals, ethics, what to do, how to live... All of us stuck here together trying to sort it all out. It's fun. It can be, anyway.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this is life right here in this moment live it in wonderment or miss it thinking of the next or last moment. We are here right NOW and will never be anywhere else but here NOW. So love it and have fun! Well put :joint:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top