Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MonkeyHead]

So... basically people vote for what their share of the wealth is?

In a very crude or oversimplified sense, I suppose so. More like: "people get to have an opinion about what they are entitled to"... even if that opinion is horse shit and wont have any attention paid to it.

[Pnx]

So... basically people vote for what their share of the wealth is?

In a very crude or oversimplified sense, I suppose so. More like: "people get to have an opinion about what they are entitled to"... even if that opinion is horse shit and wont have any attention paid to it.

It seems heavily prone to corruption, although perhaps not much more than current systems. I'm not actually seeing what's better about it.

[MonkeyHead]

So... basically people vote for what their share of the wealth is?

In a very crude or oversimplified sense, I suppose so. More like: "people get to have an opinion about what they are entitled to"... even if that opinion is horse shit and wont have any attention paid to it.

It seems heavily prone to corruption, although perhaps not much more than current systems. I'm not actually seeing what's better about it.

In theory, its an effort to level the playing field. Within a Parecon people would still act in thier own self interest, like they would in any other system. To me there seems less opportunity for the so called 1% to develop thier control of 99% of the assets though the manner of using wealth to create more wealth, as who would choose to let the 1% control 99% of the assets if they had a voice that could make a difference. Of course, I could be wrong placing my faith in this system, since its not really been tried on a large scale, and is highly unlikley to ever be adopted on anything other than the small scale, where it has had some successes.

[Descan]

Besides, I'm sure there is a way for managers to unionize and form their own contract companies. Contract their managerial skills out to different worker-owned companies. They get paid for making things efficient (NOT firing people and lowering pay, but actually making things run better on an administrative side).

I'm a little tired so you guys run with that if you want to, I'm not sure I got the idea all that well thought through.

[Virex]

Besides, I'm sure there is a way for managers to unionize and form their own contract companies. Contract their managerial skills out to different worker-owned companies. They get paid for making things efficient (NOT firing people and lowering pay, but actually making things run better on an administrative side).

I'm a little tired so you guys run with that if you want to, I'm not sure I got the idea all that well thought through.

That would require someone to care about administrative efficiency, but who would? Certainly not the company, it's not a natural person and cannot have an opinion. Neither the board of directors, since the administrative efficiency of a company they're part off is only weakly coupled to their income, first of all because it doesn't yield many short-term gains and secondly because at the long term, they're not bound to a single company (and due to bonuses it's even beneficial to them if they get fired for poor performance). The managers only care for how their performance is graded, which is usually either by the stock market or by the board of directors and they are sure they'll only stay with the company for a short time. The shareholders don't care either because they're interested in optimizing short-term gain and not in long term gain, again because they're not bound to the company. The administration itself doesn't care either because if the efficiency is increased they run a risk of getting fired or delegated to a job where they have to be more efficient. Lastly, the people outside of the administration don't care because their job security depends in part on them not caring.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-democrats-cat-killed-painted-liberal-211435575.html

Democratic campaign manager for Arkansas 3rd congressional districts cat is beaten to death, spray painted with the word liberal and left on his front porch for his kids to find.

I also put this in the election thread... But I don't know if it belongs there. In any case: I rage at this act of terrorism.

[Levi]

http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-democrats-cat-killed-painted-liberal-211435575.html

Democratic campaign manager for Arkansas 3rd congressional districts cat is beaten to death, spray painted with the word liberal and left on his front porch for his kids to find.

That is just messed up.

[Criptfeind]

So... basically people vote for what their share of the wealth is?

In a very crude or oversimplified sense, I suppose so. More like: "people get to have an opinion about what they are entitled to"... even if that opinion is horse shit and wont have any attention paid to it.

It seems heavily prone to corruption, although perhaps not much more than current systems. I'm not actually seeing what's better about it.

In theory, its an effort to level the playing field. Within a Parecon people would still act in thier own self interest, like they would in any other system. To me there seems less opportunity for the so called 1% to develop thier control of 99% of the assets though the manner of using wealth to create more wealth, as who would choose to let the 1% control 99% of the assets if they had a voice that could make a difference. Of course, I could be wrong placing my faith in this system, since its not really been tried on a large scale, and is highly unlikley to ever be adopted on anything other than the small scale, where it has had some successes.

Who would assign value to jobs?

[DrPoo]

Im Anarchist and what is this?

[lemon10]

Im Anarchist and what is this?

Anachrist...
lets see what does ana mean:

a prefix in loanwords from Greek, where it means “up,” “against,” “back,” “re-”: anabasis;  used in the formation of compound words: anacardiaceous.

And christ...
OH GOD YOUR A SATANIST EVERYBODY RUN AWAY. 

So... basically people vote for what their share of the wealth is?

In a very crude or oversimplified sense, I suppose so. More like: "people get to have an opinion about what they are entitled to"... even if that opinion is horse shit and wont have any attention paid to it.

It seems heavily prone to corruption, although perhaps not much more than current systems. I'm not actually seeing what's better about it.

In theory, its an effort to level the playing field. Within a Parecon people would still act in thier own self interest, like they would in any other system. To me there seems less opportunity for the so called 1% to develop thier control of 99% of the assets though the manner of using wealth to create more wealth, as who would choose to let the 1% control 99% of the assets if they had a voice that could make a difference. Of course, I could be wrong placing my faith in this system, since its not really been tried on a large scale, and is highly unlikley to ever be adopted on anything other than the small scale, where it has had some successes.

Who would assign value to jobs?

It seems to me that the very people who assign value would probably become corrupt in any decent size system.

[Frumple]

Um, fairly sure th'fellow was saying the ones that decided the value of jobs would be the people. Setting job value/wage via popular vote, basically. S'kind of an interesting concept, I guess.

[Andir]

Um, fairly sure th'fellow was saying the ones that decided the value of jobs would be the people. Setting job value/wage via popular vote, basically. S'kind of an interesting concept, I guess.

So the unpopular (sewage treatment?) jobs would be less valuable?

[MonkeyHead]

Or, alternativley, made more valuable to encourage (other) people to do it, based on its unpleasantness. Nobody wants thier waste left lying around.

[Truean]

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/five-shocking-facts-from-mitt-romney-s-tax-return?cid=dflo-facebook-12412-RomneyTaxReturn

13.9% tax rate on Romney's income of $21.7 million in 2010.... It isn't "wages" it's "capital gains." He has no real wages (he does but they're nothing compared to what he actually makes) and thus doesn't really pay social security taxes, medicaid taxes, or any sort of payroll taxes. Moreover, he doesn't really pay income taxes because "capital gains" aren't "income as defined by IRS code 61(a). Basically, he gets a crapload of money which [cough] isn't income [cough] and legally doesn't pay income taxes on it. Rather he pays the significantly lower "captial gainst taxes, which due to George W Bush are about 15% and lower for Romney due to deductions.... Not surprisingly, Both Romney's and Gingrich's proposed plans have them paying even less taxes than they currently do....

Why am I, and indeed why are most people, paying a higher percentage of my/their income as taxes than Romney is?

This is how the rich screw the system. They often don't pay income taxes, because they reclassify their income as "not income." At the same time they decry the "complexity" of the current tax code while being the ones who take advantage of it. Romney's tax return for one year was 550 pages. Most people use a 1040ez or a 1040 and do not exceed 10 pages with deductions and attachments. 550 pages to save millions in taxes? He should be grateful, because that's a bargain if ever there was one....

Keep in mind this is total bullshit with an easy solution. He doesn't personally hold anything at all in his own name. It's all held in corporations. The corporations are separate entities from him and that means his corporations have to give him money in some form for it to make sense. Simply say that income is not "capital gains," by redefining the tax code and tax it as income, because that's what it is.

There actually is a legitimate use for capital gains as an accounting measure. This is not it.... He does "technically" have "income" on his Schedule C as a speaking and director fee, but it's really nothing comparatively.....

[Andir]

I think you're asking the wrong question :p

You should be asking: [How do I make my income a "capital gain"?]