All those Hollywood Liberals would be so fucking mad that they would actually have practice what they preach. Also, Hollywood would probably not survive so our entertainment industry would kind of collapse..But its worth it if the middle class have that much more in their pockets

>>2979807
>Paris Hilton
Hilton hotel chain? dumb OWS fuck

Why don't you just fuck off, thug?

oh look a witch hunt..

can you see further than a few feet, cause you are extremely short sighted. tell me what happens during this witch hunt...more people exit this country taking their money and companies with them.

>YOU ARE THE CANCER that caused the mess in this country.

The Jews would never allow this. They control both Hollywood and a significant part of the Federal government.

>>2979847
>Hilton hotel chain
She was a fucking heir

>>2979847

Paris Hilton's wealth was inherited. She didn't do shit to build or run Hilton hotels, although her great-grandfather did.

>>2979904
Fuck yeah, tax that bitch

>>2979856
Libertarian detected

That feel when Paris Hilton is probably responsible for at least 100 jobs directly related to her personal maintenance, let alone everyone involved in the places she goes and things she does.

>>2979891
and is a major stock holder

>>2979957
The people who work on TV show, staff and she blows a crapton on products

>>2979957
>That feel when Paris Hilton is probably responsible for at least 100 jobs directly related to her personal maintenance, let alone everyone involved in the places she goes and things she does.
>100 jobs

1-- jobs is nothing. Why not take her wealth and invest it to create THOUSANDS of jobs? Maybe give it an entrepreneur if not just redistribute it to the people that actually need it directly.

>>2979957
100 jobs aint shit, nigger

>>2980016

> WHY NOT JUST TAKE..
That's stealing you fucking retard.
Why not just kill YOU for good of society?

imokaywiththis.jpg

>>2980048

>taxation
>stealing

Pick one.

>>2979807
1. is against the law
2. cannot properly determine what constitutes a "job creator"
3. will bring wrath rather than stop "greed"
4. the funds will just go to waste

>>2980048
>That's stealing you fucking retard.
The ends justify the means.

>>2979807

Because theft of labor is illogical.

>However, all the people who are just sitting on their wealth

They all are. This is why the economy is shit. Big companies, "job creators", are sitting on huge amounts of money, because contrary to glibertarian propoganda, the free market doesn't magically ensure that they do the right thing and use it to hire workers and invest. They know inflations going to be fuck all as long as the Republicans have any say, so there happy to count their dollar bills while everyone else has to (literally) tighten their belts.

God libertarians suck balls.

>>2980089

> those with capital are sitting on it because the free market (that does not exist) is the problem

>>2980065
>1. is against the law
Don't care.
>2. cannot properly determine what constitutes a "job creator"
Sure you can. Get a team of qualified economists or successful business people or whatever, and just measure their productivity, what they've contributed to the US economy, and how many jobs they've made for people.

>3. will bring wrath rather than stop "greed"
Wrath from the Kardashians? I'd love that. The Middle class however (you know, the foundation of the country) would love it.
>4. the funds will just go to waste
Are they not being waste now, just being sat on or blown on yachts?

>>2980089
>Big companies, "job creators", are sitting on huge amounts of money
[citation needed]

>>2980118
The free market exists whenever glibertarians need it to.

>>2980148
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57275155/top-10-richest-companies-slide-1-of-10/

>Collectively, Corporate America is sitting on a record $2 trillion in cash

10 seconds in google.

>>2980182
2 Trillion. Wow

muh free markets

muh job creators

>>2980188
1.9 of those are off-shored.

See how Apple does business.

muh freedom

>>2980140
>Don't care.
You'll be dead, so of course.
>just measure their productivity, what they've contributed to the US economy, and how many jobs they've made for people.
The information won't be available.
>Wrath from the Kardashians?
More than just them, I'm afraid. You'll incur the wrath of all who don't agree. Don't fuck with us.
>The Middle class however (you know, the foundation of the country) would love it.
Care to back up that claim?
>Are they not being waste now, just being sat on or blown on yachts?
Tell that to the people who build, maintain, commandeer yachts, the parts and the accessories.

>>2980188
Yep. And the Republicans and Ron Paul think we should give them hundreds of billions more. But give anything like that money to workers, in exchange for work, and you'll have libertarians lining up to tell you how ruinous that would be.

Sigh.

>>2980182
but how much debt do they have, that is more important factor, cash on hand is usually peanuts compared to loans on balance sheets

>>2979807

Jobs are created by the entertainment industry. Your point is invalidated.

>>2980237

> ron paul
> bail outs

Pick one.

>>2980223
Nope. To be fair, businesses are largely putting it into government bonds, because they're considered to be very safe (unlike libertarians who know nothing, big business leaders know that the government is financially secure for the forseeable future). Handing cash in huge sums to the government for virtually no interest. Ron Paul prefers the government to at the very least just sit on these funds, or even better (for him) give it all back to businesses in the form of tax cuts. Crazy people like me think the government should use all this incredibly low interest money for something productive, like employing people, lifting the economy out of the recession. But Ron Paul's the gynecologist, that means he's the expert on economics right?

>>2980261
>Tax breaks
>Ron Paul
pick two.

>>2980188

>that feel when there are people with such a ridiculous amount of money that most of it only serves as a number that gets attached to their name so they can dickwave

What do these people tell themselves to keep from committing suicide? They can't just be on a 24/7 consumer high their whole lives.

>>2980308

> ron pauk
> tax less

I love picking both.

>>2979807
>lets leave multi-billionaires alone and steal from millionaires instead

>redistribution of wealth

>implying wealth is static

>not confronting the source of our problem which is our bullshit state run economy

god damn it, fuck summer. I mean even for a leftist this is a stupid fucking thought.

>pic semi-related

>>2980261
And before it happens, giving that the important point is that he wants to increase the wealth of big businesses, "give them money" and "give them tax cuts" are for the relevant intent and purpose equivalent.

But then
>lazy semantic arguments to cover up superficial level of economic knowledge
>glibertarianism
pick two.

>>2980314
Add in a significant amount of crocodile tears and calling it "unpatriotic" when they try to move money from the tax paradises back into the US.

Your country is so fucked, I just hope you won't take my country's pension fund with it.

>>2980182
>Collectively, Corporate America is sitting on a record $2 trillion in cash. The top 20 companies in the S&P alone account for $1.4 trillion of that. Why so much cash? Firms are squeezing as much productivity as possible out of existing employees, but, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, they aren't seeing enough demand to justify spending their money to hire new workers. Following S&P's downgrade of U.S. Treasury bonds, and the manic-depressive stock market action that followed, it looks as if that rainy day has arrived.
[citation needed]
>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57275155/top-10-richest-companies-slide-1-of-10/
Rather light on the details. We need to know what their debts, their liabilities and their expenditures are. Try again.

There are two ways to balance our budget, and we will need to use both of them if we want to survive.

Death panels and sales taxes.

Death Panels meaning a comprehensive health care reform, much more far-reaching than Obamacare. With drug prices being slashed and optional medical procedures being price-fixed or barred from being covered by insurance.

Sales taxes meaning a value-added tax of some kind.

>>2980349

> give them money
> ron paul

Pick one only.

>>2980367
Less than they were before the recession I imagine.

Would you like a turn with google?

>>2980395
Are you actually retarded? I said he wants to increase their wealth through tax cuts, which for the relevant intent and purpose may as well be giving them money. Christ, I knew libertarians were functionally retarded, but I thought they knew varied enough propaganda to avoid saying the same moronic thing over and over.

>>2980453
muh end the fed.

>>2980230
>>2980217
>>2980198
muh equality

>>2980453

> tax cuts is spending
> logical, reasonable, rational, true

Pick only one while i make this face:

>>2980223
Yeah, I remember Piers Morgan ranting about that

>>2980453
>letting people keep more of their own money
>giving

lol wow. So if you had five twenties in your wallet, and then I robbed you but left one of them, I'm giving you $20?

>liberal logic

>>2980474
see >>2980314

That's how Apple and other big business deals with not paying taxes while crying to get tax cuts and the ability to repatriate their money without paying taxes on them.

RICH PEOPLE DO NOT JUST FUCKING SIT ON WEALTH YOU RETARD. THE NOTION OF JUST HORDING MONEY IS A MIDDLE CLASS WAY OF THINKING.

>>2980237
>Yep. And the Republicans and Ron Paul think we should give them hundreds of billions more. But give anything like that money to workers, in exchange for work, and you'll have libertarians lining up to tell you how ruinous that would be.
The Republicans maybe..Not Paul though. Don't lump him with the rest of those slimeballs.

"sitting on your wealth" Is what we want them to do. that way the wealth is invested, which creates jobs.

>>2980469
tax cuts are spending, that is true.

>>2980494
I believe you're the only one confusing wealth and bags of money in this thread.

HERE IS MY PLAN
THROW RICH PEOPLE IN A LAKE WITH WEIGHTS ON THEIR FEET
IF THEY FLOAT THEY HAVE PRIVILEGE AND MUST BE KILLED
IF THEY SINK THEY WILL DIE INNOCENT OF THE CRIME OF BEING WEALTHY.

>>2980514
Where do I sign up for this?

>>2980469
Ok, certified retard, this is the last response you get.
Didn't say -anywhere- that tax cuts were spending. Just didn't say it. If Ron Paul wants to make big business, which is wealthy enough and doing fuck all with the wealth it's got, even wealthier then I don't care if he plans on doing it through tax cuts or bailouts.

>>2979807
>I have an idea.
>hurr durr just audit and seize
No, thanks.
See it before.
Next idea...

>lets make owning money illegal
democrat logic

>>2980539
Anarchist logic, but I guess that's democrat in your vocabulary?

>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862
>>2979862

>>2980549

> anarchist
> legal and illegal still apply

Pick both because anarchists are simply fascists.

OP here. Look fags.. I love free markets, libertairianism, and ron paul as much as the next guy. However there is no reason why some people should be getting paid millions upon millions of dollars to throw a ball around or have rich actor parents while at the same time the middle class is drowning in debt and barely making ends meet.

>>2980491
>for the relevant intent and purpose may as well be giving them money
Christ, you need this explained?

Ok, use your example, suppose I took 4 twenties from your wallet. Compare that to taking 5, but then finding you and giving you one back. What's the important difference here? Either way I've got $80 and you've got $20.

So for the relevant intent and purpose (increasing business wealth). they're the same.

>>2979862
Yes, it sure was a witch hunt on derivate trading for instance that caused this mess, right?

>>2980566
I believe you're confusing one definition of anarchy with the political concept of anarchism.

Hint: They're not interchangeable.

WHAT A GREAT IDEA SOMEONE MAKE OP PRESIDENT

>>2980428
>Would you like a turn with google?
Oh, I'm just going to look to see what their profit margins are, and if they're not more than 50% then you can just fuck off. Hehe.

>>2980573
>I love free markets, libertairianism, and ron paul as much as the next guy but I want to regulate what other people are allowed to own or earn. Life should be fair, and fairness can only be achieved by equal outcome.

>>2980623
If you can find any business BEFORE the recession with profit margins at 50%, I'd love to hear about it.

(Fun Fact: High profit margins are a sign of low competitiveness in an industry, not its health)

>>2980577

Except that's not even how it works. The government doesn't take 100% of Warren Buffett's capital gains and other income every year and then give him back the 85% or whatever that he doesn't owe. He figures out how much he's supposed to pay and then sends that amount to the IRS.

So no, for all intents and purposes, it's not giving them more money. It's letting them keep more of what they already have.

Hilton and Kardashian employ many people to do shit for them. They are job creators.

>>2980691
>I gave money to a panhandler, I'm a job creator!

>>2980691
fuckin sheep. burn in hell faggot

>>2980743
>equating giving money because of charity to hiring someone to do a service for them and paying them a salary

this place sinks in to a bigger pit of dumb every single day

>>2980671
Fun Fact: As expenditure approaches 0, profit margin approaches 100%, regardless of the revenue.

Being competitive is having very good quality for very low prices and even lower expenditures. A very high volume of sales is a bonus.

Why not audit the federal reserve and the pentagon?

>>2980676
FUCK FUCK FUCK LISTEN

>Ok, use your example, suppose I took 4 twenties from your wallet.
(i.e analogous to a tax of 80%)

> Compare that to taking 5, but then finding you and giving you one back
(i.e analogous to a 100% tax followed by a subsidy/bailout/handout)

The point of discussion, as the OP brought up, is the -amount of wealth- these guys have. And as I've spelled out, whether that amount is increased by taxing less or by handing out more is irrelevant (just as whether someone takes 4 of 5 twenties or takes 5 and gives one back is irrelevant if I'm only interested in the content of my wallet)

Do I need to get sock puppets out and sing an expository song? Or is that enough?

>>2980776
Yeah, it's like OWS is returning, except they've /pol/ instead of /b/.

The Rich should have a quota of jobs to create every year, or they get 100% of their wealth taken

It's only fair, the poor have a quota of job applications to get their welfare in my state

Bob, Adam and David live on a remote island. Bob creates food, David creates clothes, Adam builds and maintains housing and sanitation.

They pay each other for this work in pieces of gold.

Each day each of Bob, David and Adam pays 1 piece of gold to each of the two others, and receives 2 pieces of gold in total. They also work for themselves, doing work to the value of 1 piece of gold.

One day Bob fiends a chest with 1,000,000,000 pieces of gold in it.

Bob buries it under his floorboards. Each of the three continue living as before.

Question: Will the economy collapse because Bob has a chest with 1,000,000,000 pieces of gold that he doesn't spend or use?

>>2979807
Everyone is equal under the law. THAT'S THE POINT OF THE LAW.

>>2980776
Both examples contribute to the economy.

>>2980835
Not only this, but if they get rich Romney style by buying up companies and sacking hundreds of workers, this will count as a negative and so they have to make more jobs to reach their quota

Anyone with a net negative number of jobs created not only loses their wealth but faces a lengthy prison sentence

What gives you the moral authority to take other peoples property.

>>2980858
You mean like a hostile takeover?

>>2980847
No one was talking about the economy you sped, they were making a fallacious example about how paris hilton is a job creator because she has a staff of people that do stuff for her to the same as if someone gave some bum on the street 20 bucks.

>>2980869
>>2980858
Well we are the government. The government should have the authority to do this, if the the people as a whole benefit.

>>2980836
Wrong question.

The question is, if Bob hid his two pieces of gold under the floorboards one day, would the economy collapse? And the answer is, losing a third of its currency, yes the economy will almost certainly collapse, at least in its old form.

>>2980782
Difference between a market being competitive and a business being competitive.

>>2980858
democracy

and
>Implying money is private property

>>2980858
>>2980858
because they have a monopoly on force

>>2980910
>Implying money is private property
this is why we cant have nice things, because people think like this

Why don't we just change the fucking system? Why don't we get rid of fractional reserve banking? Why don't we get rid of privatized banks? Why don't we end the fucking fed?

I don't understand why OP, who is clearly 12, is making up such dumbass ideas. You aren't the first, OP, and you aren't the last. Regardless of how much you "redistribute" the wealth, you're still going to have economic depressions and insane amounts of tripling debt while a small group of people, probably less than a thousand, control the money supply and are sitting on trillions and trillions of dollars.

So yeah, OP. It wouldn't be a good situation because you're thinking too shallow. I have no problem with the Kim Kardashians and Paris Hiltons of the country possessing great amounts of wealth - they are doing something that you (and the rest of the middle class) clearly aren't. What I have a problem with is the hidden manipulation of fraudulent individuals who no one is willing to audit and who contribute to most of the world's economic woes and simply just go "oopsies". The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or so dependent on its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests. (I'm sure you've all heard this before.)

>>2980836
Depends how much money is already in the economy. If there's only a few pieces like implied, some of that money could be very useful.

>taxation is theft

So if you had a choice on not paying taxes in exchange for all state and federal programs to blacklist you until you pay up would you still stop paying taxes?

>>2980934
How is it private property?

>>2980894
Further to this, it wouldn't matter if the ensuing economic crisis was solved by Bob getting the coins back out from the floorboards, or by Adam and David minting more. Bob wouldn't be so well off in the second scenario, but fuck him.

Of course, the analogy is to government printing money to make up for what the wealthy are hanging on to. Not surprising to see Ron Paul unhappy about that too. After all, he only cares for the greedy misers of this world.

>>2981000
its just a medium of currency exchanged for goods or services.. how is it anything BUT private property

>>2981000
Uh, it belongs to somebody.

>>2980995
>So if you had a choice on not paying taxes in exchange for all state and federal programs to blacklist you until you pay up would you still stop paying taxes?
Yes? That's one surefire way for neither me to steal from the public nor the public to steal from me.

>>2981022
>>2981000
>>2981077
If you bank notes say "Reserve Bank of XXXX" you really don't own them. Same goes for any accounts at banks, brokerages, or almost any other financial institution.

Ever heard of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC)? They are the legal owner of every stock and bond held in "street name" in a brokerage account. The DTCC owns all the stock and bond certificates held in brokerage accounts. This relieves the brokerage from the responsibility of transferring certificates for each trade. Wall St. used to employ an army of couriers to perform this function. Anything in your account is merely "For the Benefit" of you.

tldr: you don't own your money, stocks or bonds