Social Justice Warriors Thread

[Speaker to Animals]

Once you start subsidizing a labor force, it's going to grow. As long as there are people willing to take a low-paing job and depend on government assistance to make up the rest, the most unscrupulous employers will just lower wages to attract those applicants. This spreads as more and more people are forced to choose between joblessness and working poor. The choice between having a job with government assistance and just being totally on government assistance is no choice at all for most.

It's a terrible idea.

I do not have a problem with some kind of workfare. Just keep that shit out of the private labor market.

You cannot even pretend like this is hypothetical. What I described here is exactly what has happened over the past fifteen years or so.

It's also very interesting to see the same characters defending their alleged dogma of "free markets" for businesses then defend fucking with free markets for labor -- unless fucking with the labor market means businesses might pay more for labor.. It's almost as if there is no principle in play for them at all other than merchant values of making a buck no matter what.

What of minimum wage?

Did I stutter? Stop fucking with the market, deal with people who have nothing marketable to offer, and for the vast majority of low-wage workers things will improve. You guys are struggling precisely because we subsidize low skill labor via welfare.

[Speaker to Animals]

It absolutely is terminal. I disagree with your solution because it obviously makes everything worse.

[Martin Hash]

Taxing those who benefit from exploitation to subsidize the exploited makes it worse?

[Speaker to Animals]

Taxing those who benefit from exploitation to subsidize losers makes it worse?

You and I both know it is impossible to truly tax corporations like that.

Just stop fucking with free markets across the board and deal with the negative effects of free markets in other ways.

Step one for lolbergs is admitting that free markets are not some self-evident good, and that we need to mitigate all their negative effects to truly enjoy their positive effects as a society. Step one for liberals is to admit they make everything so much fucking worse when they try to mitigate those effects by trying to engineer markets.

[Martin Hash]

Really, StA, you have a long history of siding with the Aristocracy; just be honest about taking that side. We don't even have to debate; just say, "I'm with The King," and I'll say "I'm not." No more discussion required.

p.s. How many times do I have to repeat "only tax people, not business."

[DBTrek]

Once you start subsidizing a labor force, it's going to grow. As long as there are people willing to take a low-paing job and depend on government assistance to make up the rest, the most unscrupulous employers will just lower wages to attract those applicants.

A wage must begin at a higher rate in order to be lowered. I’m unaware of any employer offering jobs at a particular rate, then lowering that rate when hiring people on welfare. Are you familiar with any cases of this happening? We all know low wage jobs exist, but that’s not the same as jobs whose wage was higher but then lowered by welfare recipients.

It's also very interesting to see the same characters defending their alleged dogma of "free markets" for businesses then defend fucking with free markets for labor -- unless fucking with the labor market means businesses might pay more for labor.. It's almost as if there is no principle in play for them at all other than merchant values of making a buck no matter what.

If that was directed at me then you’re mistaken. I’m game to apply the free market to wages, especially since it will largely affect only those who are currently shut out of the labor market because their productivity falls below minimum wage.

Having a discussion about economic trade offs isn’t unprincipled in the least. Though emotional reactions to discussions like this only bolster my view that politics functions much like a religion for many.

[Speaker to Animals]

Really, StA, you have a long history of siding with the Aristocracy; just be honest about taking that side. We don't even have to debate; just say, "I'm with The King," and I'll say "I'm not." No more discussion required.

p.s. How many times do I have to repeat "only tax people, not business."

If we actually had an aristocracy, I would side with it. We do not. We have a gaggle of merchant cunts fucking up the world because they lack honor and integrity, and we're never meant to run anything outside of business.

Stop fucking with markets. I am sure we can figure out how to deal with the bad effects of free markets without a socialized labor force. Socializing the labor force is a horrible idea. I mean.. just look at how bad it gets. As it gets worse, liberals want more of it, like go ernment teachers demand more money to increase failure.

The people you incorrectly label an "aristocracy" are even worse! Socialize the labor force on the taxpayer's dime? Fuck no.

[Speaker to Animals]

If we had a real aristocracy, General Mattis would be our leader, and you better believe I would fall in line.

[DBTrek]

p.s. How many times do I have to repeat "only tax people, not business."

There are only two obvious downsides that immediately come to mind:

1) People primarily in business to accumulate massive wealth may leave the country or simply decide not to innovate because they can’t make the kind of money they want. Of course, power may act as a mitigating factor for the loss of wealth. Being the CEO of Facebook or Amazon has many perks beyond wealth. Just have to make sure your business-owner taxes don’t make things like owning a Starbucks or opening a kennel not worth the trouble.

2) I’m not sure you can pull in a comparable tax revenue base from individuals. I’m fine with starving the government behemoth, but most Americans are not. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos largely have their wealth tied up in stocks, so your tax revenue from their wealth will not materialize until they sell, which might be never. Their “income” may give you something to tax, but it will fall far short of what you get for taxing Amazon and Microsoft.

Still, even with the trade offs it strikes me as worth a shot - depending on the tax rates and brackets. Could work out better than what we’re doing now. Or worse, if everyone sees their individual taxes double or triple to make up for the shortfall.

[Martin Hash]

p.s. How many times do I have to repeat "only tax people, not business."

There are only two obvious downsides that immediately come to mind:

1) People primarily in business to accumulate massive wealth may leave the country or simply decide not to innovate because they can’t make the kind of money they want. Of course, power may act as a mitigating factor for the loss of wealth. Being the CEO of Facebook or Amazon has many perks beyond wealth. Just have to make sure your business-owner taxes don’t make things like owning a Starbucks or opening a kennel not worth the trouble.

If people want to start businesses in other countries where they can get richer, that pretty much determines their loyalties. I'm a Nationalist, so watching all those Globalists go to Sweden would be a win all on its own.

I don't have a problem with ultra-wealthy people; all my plan will do is slow down the accumulation. I also don't have a problem with folks on power-trips of their own; fly in that jet, eat that caviar, buy that 1000' yacht, I don't care.

2) I’m not sure you can pull in a comparable tax revenue base from individuals. I’m fine with starving the government behemoth, but most Americans are not. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos largely have their wealth tied up in stocks, so your tax revenue from their wealth will not materialize until they sell, which might be never. Their “income” may give you something to tax, but it will fall far short of what you get for taxing Amazon and Microsoft.

The tax revenue will be the same or more because the same amount of money will be in higher tax brackets. However, after a while, because high Progressive rates spread out income, many, many people will be getting more money, and they won't be in the super-high brackets, but THAT'S A GOOD THING. Hopefully, government won't be needed to subsidize as much.

Still, even with the trade offs it strikes me as worth a shot - depending on the tax rates and brackets. Could work out better than what we’re doing now. Or worse, if everyone sees their individual taxes double or triple to make up for the shortfall.

This gets into my next bullet point: taxes are to redistribute wealth, we can simply print money if government needs it, hell, we already do, probably $40 trillion just since Reagan.