US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

Quasi-religious belief in that authority. They'll never give you an objective argument for legitimacy of state authority. It will always boil down to two simple responses: they have guns and without them things would be worse.

 

I have noticed that when they run out of logical arguments they tend to go the 'ad hom' route. Things like, 'Your argument is dumb.' Not very convincing.

 

[

They can't make a logical counter-arguement and get churlish once they realize it.

 

No you didn't. It was nowhere in the terms. Payment of property tax to retain the land title WAS in the terms.

 

Look at the contract for the real estate you bought, or the land title deed. The stipulation that you keep the taxes current to keep the title will be in there somewhere.

 

Real estate I bought? What are you talking about?

 

Is it you contention that terms are valid no matter what? Because that appears to be the case. They are valid, according to you, even if they are changed after the contract is (allegedly) signed. They are valid even if though there is an implicit threat of violence for not signing. They are valid even if the terms are unconscionable.

From where does the state derive the objectively legitimate authority to create and enforce those terms?

 

Doesn't matter, at some time or other you or your parents signed some thing that was provided by the government, and according to totalitarian contract law, that makes you owned by the government. If President McCheeto wants to send you to fight and die in North Korea, he has every right to do so because you or your parents agreed to it!

 

Property taxes. If you bought real estate, you already agreed to pay the property taxes because keeping them current is, and has always been, a condition of the title.

 

No. They are not valid if consented to by someone mentally incompetent to enter into a contract, or under duress, or when such terms are deemed contrary to the public interest, or when they require commission of a crime, etc. But none of those was the case when you bought your real estate, was it?

Nope. The terms haven't changed. You agreed to keep the property taxes current even if they increased, or were amended by the relevant duly constituted authority in any other way.

That is false, and you know it. There was no threat of violence. You could simply decline to buy the property, and nothing would be done to you -- other than that you would continue to be robbed for the unearned profit of those who HAD bought land, of course.....

<yawn> "Unconscionable"?? Who secures your exclusive tenure for you? Who provides the publicly funded services and infrastructure and the privately provided opportunities and amenities that make the location valuable and useful? Why do you think you should be able to deprive others of access to those publicly provided benefits without paying for them?

What is done according to law by duly constituted authority is objectively legitimate by definition. But maybe you mean morally legitimate. Well, we can debate the legitimacy and effectiveness of democratic institutions and the quality of the resulting accountability to the people, but the fact remains that government is the only institution that has the competence and duty to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. We have government because a government has to be very bad indeed to be worse than no government.

 

So, what you're saying is that the government owns the title.

 

So according to the puerile libertarian utopian dogma no citizen has any obligation to ever pay taxes or defend their nation because they refuse to be "subjects" of We the People!

The concepts of duty, responsibility and accountability just don't appear to have developed in the minds of libertarians.

 

The government is We the People!

 

So I can get those cool government license plates?

 

Yes, governments do issue license plates as part of the services in the social contract.

 

Income inequality is an inevitable result of Capitalism, the free markets and taking responsibility for your actions.

A company is a hierarchy. The further up you go, the higher the pay. And the further up you go, the higher the qualifications, experience, potential talent/expertise and . You don't need a Bachelor's in economics or psychology to figure that one out.

A 339 to 1 ratio is good. The higher the difference, the more people will be inspired to aim for that level of income. The more people who are driven towards that goal, the more people will be lifted out of poverty and low-income households. Financial gain is a basic but tempting goal for many.

Yes, I am citing HuffPo, but they have a decent article on the topic.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/obadias-ndaba/the-world-halved-global-p_b_6212494.html

 

That article does NOT support your fallacious allegation that corporations are responsible for a decline in poverty.

 

What would you rather aim for?: The CEO's seat or such a position where you can in some cases earn 7-figures a year, or the office job in the same company?

The more lucrative the pay the more people will be tempted to work their asses off to get there.

 

So you are unable to admit that your link does not support your fallacy?

Furthermore your grasp of corporate politics leaves a great deal to be desired. Reaching a C-level position requires a great deal more than just motivation. In fact it requires a college degree at a bare minimum and for those in poverty that alone is a massive hurdle.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/28/these-9-colleges-produce-the-most-ceos.html

 

So, I can get a set of those plates that say 'government'? We the people are the government, right?

 

Yet another vapid and fatuous post with no merit whatsoever!

 

Haha, I laugh at you! "We the people" is a crock. The state is a criminal gang writ large. It's not "we the people", because then that would include me, and I don't initiate violence against my fellow man like the state does.

 

Thank you for proving my comment to be 100% accurate about the content of your post.

 

Your home is your castle, as long as you can afford to pay government the perpetually increasing rent.

 

Then why does the US twin high inequalities with low social immobility?