US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

Again, a socialist cannot be a capitalist. They are mutually exclusive. You can have a libertarian socialist and an Austrian socialist, but they are way beyond your childishness.

 

It's the basis of libertarianism.

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

 

According to you, mind you, it also involves also ignoring the coercion from monopsony and the underpayment created through market power. You're a sham artist, like all the right wingers abusing the libertarian tag.

 

so you are a socialist socialist, not a free market socialist, but a socialist market socialist??

 

yes we ignore it because its trivial, any attempts to fix it would make it worse, and its far better than non free market socialism which killed 120 million

 

Actually it simply involves not aggressing against one's neighbor's person or property.

If you feel you're underpaid, then increase your skills and earn what you think you deserve.

 

Exploitation of the worker is trivial? Crikey, you're useful in your idiotic comment.

 

capitalist exploitation certainly is since everyone can afford an Iphone supercomputer while socialist exploitation is not having slowly starved 120 million to death so far.

 

Wow, you don't give a toss that workers aren't paid according to their worth?

 

they get paid close enough to afford Iphone super computers whereas socialist socialism paid 120 million human souls enough to slowly starve to death. Now do you understand?

 

The worker exploits the employer.

 

In the 1960's under Eisenhower top income earners were paying 90% taxes!!!

 

Please quote the specific stipulations in the Constitution where there is your IMAGINARY PROMISE that the federal government "would remain tiny"?

 

Thank you for conceding that you do not have any comprehension of the history of the founding of this nation.

 

Thank you for CONTRADICTING YOURSELF and saving me the trouble.

 

Were they? Perhaps a copy of some tax returns would resolve this once and for all.

 

That all changed with JFK, who wanted to reward his father for "helping" him win the presidency.

The history of taxation rates of the US since its inception looks like this:


Some remarks regarding upper-income taxation:
*Note the green-line for upper-income taxation. Note how it started in 1915 at high-rates that came down sharply in the 1920s thus feeding the Great Recession.
* In 1931 the rates were put up and finally (in the midst of WW2) they were at 95%.
*IN 1962, the rates were reduced by JFK to the 70% level.
*Upon Reagan's election the were brought down to 50% and in 1988 t0 27%.
*By 1993 (by Clinton upon entering office) they had risen to 40%
*The table ends in 2013.

The Pew Research Center has done an analysis of present tax-rates, which looks like this for the entire range of incomes in the US:


Upper incomes are insufficiently taxed. The result being (if untaxed) is that total Wealth in the nation is obtained almost wholly by a very select group of families - as this analysis (by the UofCal) has shown:


That is, the bottom 90% of us in America obtain just a bit less than 50% of total income (net of taxation), whilst the top 10% obtain just a wee-bit more than 50%.

One has to be damn fool to think that such a conclusion is fair-and-honest ...

 

How many tax returns were filed paying the highest tax rate in each year?

 

Btw, it should be obvious from the above that America's super-rich benefit from a "flat-rate" tax above an income of $500K, which is around 27%! (And means the other 63% is a "rip-off"!)

Americans are so fixated on wealth-accumulation that I am likely the only one to believe profoundly in an upper-income maximum Total Earnings tax of 100%. Coupled with an inheritance tax that is close to 90% of all Wealth that is intended for either families or individuals - leaving only a restricted list of bona-fide philanthropies (including institutions of learning) for whom inheritance-funds are tax-free.

We, the sheeple, are being screwed royally ...

 

Obviously if there was a contradiction you and not be so afraid to tell us what it was. What do we learn from the Liberals fear?

 

We are being screwed because we don’t steal the wealth of others at gunpoint?

 

You've claimed that the articles were a failure. I disagree.

 

You have learned no less than 129 times that the Constitution limits the federal government to a few carefully enumerated powers and reserves all other powers to the states and to the people. 1+1 = 2 shall we go for 130 times?

 

Obviously if the articles had been a failure they would have amended them as per the process provided for in the articles.

 

If wealth distribution is not fair you are free to earn more wealth but you are not free to steal more wealth at gunpoint. Why is it that liberals always think only in terms of violence?

What is the real difference between a liberal and a bank robber? they both seek more money by stealing it rather than earning it by inventing or selling new products that people want to buy In order to raise their standard of living