Conspiracy Theories and Pedophilia

[King Green]

Somebody made a chart

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13C1JrX63Ff8OuuGvvUbHvRYveqKEEHBW/view

Chrome won't load that chart. Possibility of company sabotage or bad-glitch?

You ever think maybe it's you and not Chrome?

I'd just replaced the processor and updated the hard-drive a week ago. It was fine until the Google crash-bot logo started popping up and lying to me!

[CharlesPhipps]

Because the Right Wing wants to demonize the Left and they can't really go after their politics if it's, "Give money to the poor."

Especially if you're the poor.

[Madner Kami]

Because the Right Wing wants to demonize the Left and they can't really go after their politics if it's, "Give money to the poor."

Especially if you're the poor.

The counter-point to that is, "Take the money from everyone else" and we all know, that even if we you don't have to turn every penny twice before spending, it's still something we'd all rather prefer not having to do, on top of our already existing tax-expenses and fixed costs. And we all know how taxes tend to be a larger problem the fewer money you have available in the first place, so those who aren't considered poor but still aren't exactly well off either will have to share proportionally more than those who technically have more available.

[CharlesPhipps]

The counter-point to that is, "Take the money from everyone else" and we all know, that even if we you don't have to turn every penny twice before spending, it's still something we'd all rather prefer not having to do, on top of our already existing tax-expenses and fixed costs. And we all know how taxes tend to be a larger problem the fewer money you have available in the first place, so those who aren't considered poor but still aren't exactly well off either will have to share proportionally more than those who technically have more available.

It's a question of how much you believe we have, how much we can produce, and how much it costs to provide basic social services vs. charging for them. For example, it's less expensive to have everyone have a decent medical coverage than our current one that leaves people destitute or unwilling to get healthy because they can't afford it.

Limiting people's fortunes is a dumb idea because Jeff Bezos doesn't have a Scrooge McDuck Money Bin, he just owns an incredibly wealthy corporation that exists in nonmaterial assets. You can tax him and the company's profits but you can't tax the property in the way some morons think.

But quite a lot of laws in Washington is just naked corruption. There's no reason, for example, for the medical and prison industries to be private for instance.

[Madner Kami]

Limiting people's fortunes is a dumb idea because Jeff Bezos doesn't have a Scrooge McDuck Money Bin, he just owns an incredibly wealthy corporation that exists in nonmaterial assets. You can tax him and the company's profits but you can't tax the property in the way some morons think.

That is exactly the problem we are facing. The right is actually correct when they point out, that you can only take the wealth of a wealthy once, whenever people scream for higher taxes for the rich. The trick is in finding ways to milk the cow without slaughtering it and that usually means, that company-taxes need to be adressed. Tighter checks on their tax reports, closing of loopholes and drying up swamps of corruption.

[Rocketboy1313]

It's a question of how much you believe we have, how much we can produce, and how much it costs to provide basic social services vs. charging for them. For example, it's less expensive to have everyone have a decent medical coverage than our current one that leaves people destitute or unwilling to get healthy because they can't afford it.

Limiting people's fortunes is a dumb idea because Jeff Bezos doesn't have a Scrooge McDuck Money Bin, he just owns an incredibly wealthy corporation that exists in nonmaterial assets. You can tax him and the company's profits but you can't tax the property in the way some morons think.

It is easier to tax wealth than people realize.
If Bezos does not have liquidity to pay the taxes he can liquidate assets to do so.
That is the point, it is a series of tax laws intended to break up these monopolies.
Honestly if there was a way to turn back time, all of the functions currently being performed by Amazon should have been done by the USPS. Amazon is in effect a needless middle man running a show room. All you need is the guy who makes the product and the delivery service, the digital show room could be run by either of those participants.

[CharlesPhipps]

That is exactly the problem we are facing. The right is actually correct when they point out, that you can only take the wealth of a wealthy once, whenever people scream for higher taxes for the rich. The trick is in finding ways to milk the cow without slaughtering it and that usually means, that company-taxes need to be adressed. Tighter checks on their tax reports, closing of loopholes and drying up swamps of corruption.

My argument above is the big issue is that privatization is the larger issues versus taxing the rich. The rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, this is absolutely true. Companies like Amazon certainly should. Donald shouldn't because he's broke and needs to have his assets confiscated to pay off his debt. However, we need to have government services for a lot of what businesses run poorer. There's looter kleptocrats in our government who would turn us into Russia with their dismantling of our infrastructure and public utilities.

[CharlesPhipps]

It is easier to tax wealth than people realize.
If Bezos does not have liquidity to pay the taxes he can liquidate assets to do so.
That is the point, it is a series of tax laws intended to break up these monopolies.
Honestly if there was a way to turn back time, all of the functions currently being performed by Amazon should have been done by the USPS. Amazon is in effect a needless middle man running a show room. All you need is the guy who makes the product and the delivery service, the digital show room could be run by either of those participants.

Breaking up a successful delivery company that has dramatically increased the benefit to a large portion of the public is a dumb idea, though. Amazon is a net benefit to the public. There's no argument for breaking it up other than, "it's big and has no competition."

Amazon made its deliveries faster and cheaper.

And it did so with a public USPS that it lightened the burden of and not as competition to it.

[ProfessorDetective]

It is easier to tax wealth than people realize.
If Bezos does not have liquidity to pay the taxes he can liquidate assets to do so.
That is the point, it is a series of tax laws intended to break up these monopolies.
Honestly if there was a way to turn back time, all of the functions currently being performed by Amazon should have been done by the USPS. Amazon is in effect a needless middle man running a show room. All you need is the guy who makes the product and the delivery service, the digital show room could be run by either of those participants.

Breaking up a successful delivery company that has dramatically increased the benefit to a large portion of the public is a dumb idea, though. Amazon is a net benefit to the public. There's no argument for breaking it up other than, "it's big and has no competition."

Amazon made its deliveries faster and cheaper.

And it did so with a public USPS that it lightened the burden of and not as competition to it.

Hell, Amazon is a frequent CUSTOMER of the USPS. If an item is going to Eustace and Muriel out in the middle of Nowhere, Amazon will dump it on the closest PO for the last leg. They HAVE to head out that way, anyhow.

The real rivals are UPS and FedEx, honestly. The private, peer-to-peer, services who'd LOVE to do like the ISP and divvy up the continent into little shipping fiefdoms.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

It is easier to tax wealth than people realize.
If Bezos does not have liquidity to pay the taxes he can liquidate assets to do so.
That is the point, it is a series of tax laws intended to break up these monopolies.
Honestly if there was a way to turn back time, all of the functions currently being performed by Amazon should have been done by the USPS. Amazon is in effect a needless middle man running a show room. All you need is the guy who makes the product and the delivery service, the digital show room could be run by either of those participants.

Breaking up a successful delivery company that has dramatically increased the benefit to a large portion of the public is a dumb idea, though. Amazon is a net benefit to the public. There's no argument for breaking it up other than, "it's big and has no competition."

Amazon made its deliveries faster and cheaper.

And it did so with a public USPS that it lightened the burden of and not as competition to it.

NO argument against Amazon? Do you need an itemized list?