The 2020s are set to be an economic turning point, says global banking giant

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,071
3,318
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#3
Conservatives sure won't enjoy this article, because too many liberal points were brought up, such as the wealthy will be taxed more to do something about inequality.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-13/the-2020s-set-to-be-an-economic-turning-point/11699386
Is it wrong for someone to be successful at making their money work? Should the person that gets up early everyday and goes to work 10 hours be responsible for the poor life decisions of someone else? Should we set a limit of how much a person can make? Last one. You do know the cash equivalent of wealth doesn’t exist? There’s not that much printed money in the entire world.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,413
32,371
1,743
oklahoma city
#4
Is it wrong for someone to be successful at making their money work? Should the person that gets up early everyday and goes to work 10 hours be responsible for the poor life decisions of someone else? Should we set a limit of how much a person can make? Last one. You do know the cash equivalent of wealth doesn’t exist? There’s not that much printed money in the entire world.
Can I add one. Should the person that got up early and worked 10 hours a day see his income drop because a major company has more power to lobby, more ability to meet regulatory requirements, and more ability to avoid taxation?
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,273
24,238
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#5
Can I add one. Should the person that got up early and worked 10 hours a day see his income drop because a major company has more power to lobby, more ability to meet regulatory requirements, and more ability to avoid taxation?
Why would a company that was able to lower both it's regulatory and tax expenses turn around and lower the income of it's employee's? I'd say increasing businesses tax burden to pay for ubi would have a far more detrimental affect on employee salaries.

If you're arguing we need less big business in bed with government, then I whole heatedly agree with you. The way to do that is with smaller government, not bigger.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,947
2,204
743
Where else but Stillwater
#6
Is it wrong for someone to be successful at making their money work? Should the person that gets up early everyday and goes to work 10 hours be responsible for the poor life decisions of someone else? Should we set a limit of how much a person can make? Last one. You do know the cash equivalent of wealth doesn’t exist? There’s not that much printed money in the entire world.
There should be no limit on how much anybody makes, because the more income the more tax revenue. Of course, billionaires and millionaires should pay a higher percentage of their income than poor people. The only question is how much higher should this percentage be?

Should poor people be imprisoned to be penalized for their bad financial decisions, such as those that led to bad credit? But then they would be taking from everybody while in prison, including billionaires.

Conservatives are strongly opposed to government welfare and want it abolished, because they believe far too much of it is given to deadbeats, who are too lazy to carry their full weight in society. It's viewed as immoral to make deadbeats dependent on government to live. That is where some of the Republican opposition for being against more Medicaid for Oklahoma comes from. But end welfare and you'll only have more crime from theft and pushing illegal drugs.
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,164
1,753
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#7
Should poor people be imprisoned to be penalized for their bad financial decisions, such as those that led to bad credit? But then they would be taking from everybody while in prison, including billionaires.
Western nations did away with debtors prisons over a century ago. I can't tell if you're being serious. No sane person wants to send people to jail for having bad credit.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,032
8,468
1,743
#8
Western nations did away with debtors prisons over a century ago. I can't tell if you're being serious. No sane person wants to send people to jail for having bad credit.
Of course he's being serious. It's just Townie being Townie... case in point vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv. :derp:

Of course, billionaires and millionaires should pay a higher percentage of their income than poor people.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,413
32,371
1,743
oklahoma city
#9
Why would a company that was able to lower both it's regulatory and tax expenses turn around and lower the income of it's employee's? I'd say increasing businesses tax burden to pay for ubi would have a far more detrimental affect on employee salaries.

If you're arguing we need less big business in bed with government, then I whole heatedly agree with you. The way to do that is with smaller government, not bigger.
Why don't you ask the CMGs that have taken over many of the small private physician groups and then paid the doctors far less that question.

Regarding the completely separate topic of UBI, can you show me any data that correlates wage growth and fall with corporate profits and/or taxation? Because there are tons of graphs showing corporate profits increasing over the past several decades. Many more graphs showing corporate taxation rates have dropped massively. Yet, wages have not increased.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
20,017
9,012
1,743
Earth
#10
There should be no limit on how much anybody makes, because the more income the more tax revenue. Of course, billionaires and millionaires should pay a higher percentage of their income than poor people. The only question is how much higher should this percentage be?

Should poor people be imprisoned to be penalized for their bad financial decisions, such as those that led to bad credit? But then they would be taking from everybody while in prison, including billionaires.

Conservatives are strongly opposed to government welfare and want it abolished, because they believe far too much of it is given to deadbeats, who are too lazy to carry their full weight in society. It's viewed as immoral to make deadbeats dependent on government to live. That is where some of the Republican opposition for being against more Medicaid for Oklahoma comes from. But end welfare and you'll only have more crime from theft and pushing illegal drugs.
Seriously townie....you just need to stop. I don't know a single conservative (and I know a TON of us) that is opposed to 'ALL' government welfare and want's it abolished. Wow man, how can you be so misinformed?
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,071
3,318
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#11
Can I add one. Should the person that got up early and worked 10 hours a day see his income drop because a major company has more power to lobby, more ability to meet regulatory requirements, and more ability to avoid taxation?
Can I add one. Should the person that got up early and worked 10 hours a day see his income drop because a major company has more power to lobby, more ability to meet regulatory requirements, and more ability to avoid taxation?
Yes. Survival of the fittest and all. There’s a caveat though. Is said company an international one? Is said company more powerful than some G7 members? Forbes top 10 corporations have more financial power than France.
It sucks, I know. A person who does right their whole working life and plays by the rules gets laid off just as fast as intern. Maybe the should’ve worked harder at learning more and making themselves a better fit. Or are they at fault because they didn’t save 50, 60 or 70% of their paycheck?

We’ve got separate questions here. When it comes to corporations, my main problem is that they are afforded status as non human. Therefore, they can operate outside human emotion. To me, that’s wrong, they’re in the human world and that has consequences on all of us. It’s not fair that the working individual is held liable for their mistakes but some Corps aren’t.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,071
3,318
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#12
There should be no limit on how much anybody makes, because the more income the more tax revenue. Of course, billionaires and millionaires should pay a higher percentage of their income than poor people. The only question is how much higher should this percentage be?

Should poor people be imprisoned to be penalized for their bad financial decisions, such as those that led to bad credit? But then they would be taking from everybody while in prison, including billionaires.

Conservatives are strongly opposed to government welfare and want it abolished, because they believe far too much of it is given to deadbeats, who are too lazy to carry their full weight in society. It's viewed as immoral to make deadbeats dependent on government to live. That is where some of the Republican opposition for being against more Medicaid for Oklahoma comes from. But end welfare and you'll only have more crime from theft and pushing illegal drugs.
I agree on the first point. Problem is how do you tax a billionaire or millionaire who is no longer working? Just living off the spoils of hard work, all that anyone can do is property, sales and capital gains taxes. Are we really going to take money from them that they earned and paid tax on already? And what if they don’t have money but only assets? What then?
Second part. People are penalized for making poor financial and life decisions. They have to pay higher rates. They have to go backwards and correct mistakes before going forwards. That’s life in a nutshell. No on prisons and such. I’m against holding people against their will unless they’re dangerous to us or themselves.
Third part. I’m all over the place when I take political quizzes. Apparently, there’s no box for me. Welfare and the like are fine by me as long as it’s used for compassion and not profit.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,413
32,371
1,743
oklahoma city
#13
Yes. Survival of the fittest and all. There’s a caveat though. Is said company an international one? Is said company more powerful than some G7 members? Forbes top 10 corporations have more financial power than France.
It sucks, I know. A person who does right their whole working life and plays by the rules gets laid off just as fast as intern. Maybe the should’ve worked harder at learning more and making themselves a better fit. Or are they at fault because they didn’t save 50, 60 or 70% of their paycheck?

We’ve got separate questions here. When it comes to corporations, my main problem is that they are afforded status as non human. Therefore, they can operate outside human emotion. To me, that’s wrong, they’re in the human world and that has consequences on all of us. It’s not fair that the working individual is held liable for their mistakes but some Corps aren’t.
See, I just disagree. In capitalism, survival of the fittest is supposed to be based on providing the best service or at least having the customer believe that you are providing the best service. But, this has nothing at all to do with that. It is like winning a basketball game by buying dinner and a vacation for the referee.

I do agree about the non-personhood as that has a huge effect for us. A physician's malpractice liability is personal. In the past, physicians would personally hire a physician assistant or nurse practitioner and would make money off off that person's work as well as take on malpractice liability supervising them. Now, the corporations hire them. But, they still require the employed physician to supervise and be personally responsible for their care. The corporation gets the profit but transfers the liability.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,071
3,318
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#14
See, I just disagree. In capitalism, survival of the fittest is supposed to be based on providing the best service or at least having the customer believe that you are providing the best service. But, this has nothing at all to do with that. It is like winning a basketball game by buying dinner and a vacation for the referee.

I do agree about the non-personhood as that has a huge effect for us. A physician's malpractice liability is personal. In the past, physicians would personally hire a physician assistant or nurse practitioner and would make money off off that person's work as well as take on malpractice liability supervising them. Now, the corporations hire them. But, they still require the employed physician to supervise and be personally responsible for their care. The corporation gets the profit but transfers the liability.
Yup. That true capitalism has been dead and buried. That’s the caveat.
 
Jul 25, 2018
2,235
587
243
48
Boulder, CO
#15
Oh look everybody!!!!! Townie found an article that he thinks unequivocally solves this specific debate!!

Everybody rest easy. Issue solved!

Fyi, in another forum, he's impressed with this thing called "sliced bread."
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,947
2,204
743
Where else but Stillwater
#16
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,947
2,204
743
Where else but Stillwater
#18
Seriously townie....you just need to stop. I don't know a single conservative (and I know a TON of us) that is opposed to 'ALL' government welfare and want's it abolished. Wow man, how can you be so misinformed?
I think bleedinorange would be sharply in disagreement with you.

Replacing government welfare with Universal Basic Income is one way to abolish welfare, but I doubt most conservatives support doing that.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
20,017
9,012
1,743
Earth
#19
I think bleedinorange would be sharply in disagreement with you.

Replacing government welfare with Universal Basic Income is one way to abolish welfare, but I doubt most conservatives support doing that.
So is Bleedinorange ALL conservatives? These groups you are mad at aren't lock step in line with each other....we are all individuals that have different and sometime opposing ideas. Hell if we talk long enough I will find things in common with you even...lol. :) Have a good weekend townie!