FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Matt Damon arrives at LAX with broken collarbone and pink backpack

Matt Damon arrives at LAX with broken collarbone and pink backpack

(2:18) January 4, 2014: Hollywood superstar Matt Damon demonstrates how to handle paparazzi and fans.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1399 days ago)

What a nice man

ReplyVote up (336)down (180)
Original comment

What a nice man

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
DrOfnothing DrOfnothing (1394 days ago)

That's an unfair accusation. We all dislike you regardless of the fact that you're poor.

ReplyVote up (170)down (158)
Original comment

That's an unfair accusation. We all dislike you regardless of the fact that you're poor.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1398 days ago)

I agree. He does seem like a nice man. Too bad his net worth is $65 million so most boreme users will hate him.

ReplyVote up (201)down (253)
Original comment

I agree. He does seem like a nice man. Too bad his net worth is $65 million so most boreme users will hate him.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland4ever (1398 days ago)

More substandard astroturfing from our twat-like chum.

ReplyVote up (190)down (165)
Original comment

More substandard astroturfing from our twat-like chum.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1398 days ago)

Couldn't care less what he earns or is 'worth'. He takes a little time to talk to people, sign autographs and pose for pictures. All it costs is good manners toward the people who helped put him where he is. To hate him for that would be pointless.

ReplyVote up (181)down (175)
Original comment

Couldn't care less what he earns or is 'worth'. He takes a little time to talk to people, sign autographs and pose for pictures. All it costs is good manners toward the people who helped put him where he is. To hate him for that would be pointless.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: chin boy (1398 days ago)

To say boreme users hate Matt Damon because he's rich is an insult to boreme users, not to mention the fact that, according to wikipedia, mat Damon is a progressive who supports the democratic party *

Damon appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews in December 2006 and, while discussing the ongoing war in Iraq, he stated: "It seems like we have a fighting class in our country that's comprised of people who have to go for financial reasons... I don't think that that is fair. If you're gonna send people to war... then that needs to be shared by everybody, you know, and if the president has daughters who are of age then maybe they should go too."[78]

Damon is a supporter of the Democratic Party, and has made several critical comments on Republican Party figures, and expressed his disillusionment with the policies of President Barack Obama.[79][80] In 2012 Damon, Ben Affleck, and John Krasinski hosted a fundraiser for Democratic Senate nominee Elizabeth Warren.[81]* . Such comments are to be expected of you.

ReplyVote up (164)down (169)
Original comment

To say boreme users hate Matt Damon because he's rich is an insult to boreme users, not to mention the fact that, according to wikipedia, mat Damon is a progressive who supports the democratic party *

Damon appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews in December 2006 and, while discussing the ongoing war in Iraq, he stated: "It seems like we have a fighting class in our country that's comprised of people who have to go for financial reasons... I don't think that that is fair. If you're gonna send people to war... then that needs to be shared by everybody, you know, and if the president has daughters who are of age then maybe they should go too."[78]

Damon is a supporter of the Democratic Party, and has made several critical comments on Republican Party figures, and expressed his disillusionment with the policies of President Barack Obama.[79][80] In 2012 Damon, Ben Affleck, and John Krasinski hosted a fundraiser for Democratic Senate nominee Elizabeth Warren.[81]* . Such comments are to be expected of you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1398 days ago)

That means you're all okay if there are super rich billionairres as long as they are democrats?

ReplyVote up (171)down (150)
Original comment

That means you're all okay if there are super rich billionairres as long as they are democrats?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: politics=corruption (1398 days ago)

Being a Liberal, Republican or Democrat has no basis in what Boreme users think. How much money one has has no bearing also. What most Boreme users dislike are arrogant, opinionated, ruthless, cut throat, moneygrabbing, I don't give a shit about anyone else kind of people.

ReplyVote up (172)down (155)
Original comment

Being a Liberal, Republican or Democrat has no basis in what Boreme users think. How much money one has has no bearing also. What most Boreme users dislike are arrogant, opinionated, ruthless, cut throat, moneygrabbing, I don't give a shit about anyone else kind of people.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1398 days ago)

That description could fit the poor too. So you don't have any problem with super rich people then because many of them are nice people.

This is great news. I think the boreme crowd has finally seen the light.

ReplyVote up (158)down (163)
Original comment

That description could fit the poor too. So you don't have any problem with super rich people then because many of them are nice people.

This is great news. I think the boreme crowd has finally seen the light.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1398 days ago)

i think you're confused and you're still in the dark

ReplyVote up (158)down (169)
Original comment

i think you're confused and you're still in the dark

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1398 days ago)

Then enlighten me.

ReplyVote up (172)down (163)
Original comment

Then enlighten me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1398 days ago)

god knows we all tried, it's just not getting through to you. Nobody can enlighten you if you're not willing.

ReplyVote up (164)down (158)
Original comment

god knows we all tried, it's just not getting through to you. Nobody can enlighten you if you're not willing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1398 days ago)

Does anyone need 65 million dollars? That's an equivalent to 62 people making $35,000 (after tax) for 30 years each. To top it off, he apparently is not satisfied with the amount of money he has so he continues to work and earn more money.

The boreme crowd doesn't have a problem with Matt but they do have a problem with other rich people. Bill Gates has billions and gives most of his money away to charity and it seems the boreme crowd doesn't like him as much because he's clearly in the super rich crowd. Both are part of the 1% so what part of that 1% is it that people don't like specifically and why?

ReplyVote up (170)down (154)
Original comment

Does anyone need 65 million dollars? That's an equivalent to 62 people making $35,000 (after tax) for 30 years each. To top it off, he apparently is not satisfied with the amount of money he has so he continues to work and earn more money.

The boreme crowd doesn't have a problem with Matt but they do have a problem with other rich people. Bill Gates has billions and gives most of his money away to charity and it seems the boreme crowd doesn't like him as much because he's clearly in the super rich crowd. Both are part of the 1% so what part of that 1% is it that people don't like specifically and why?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1398 days ago)

as one of the boreme users allready said ""Being a Liberal, Republican or Democrat has no basis in what Boreme users think. How much money one has has no bearing also. What most Boreme users dislike are arrogant, opinionated, ruthless, cut throat, moneygrabbing, I don't give a shit about anyone else kind of people. "" We have a problem with those super rich who do everything in their power to undermine the democratic system and the society in which we live in, without any concern for anyone or anything else other than their own wellbeing. We have a problem with those super rich people that use their financial power to buy our politicians, legally or illegaly, in order to make laws that benefit only themselves, their companies and their interests in the detriment of the common good.

ReplyVote up (165)down (168)
Original comment

as one of the boreme users allready said ""Being a Liberal, Republican or Democrat has no basis in what Boreme users think. How much money one has has no bearing also. What most Boreme users dislike are arrogant, opinionated, ruthless, cut throat, moneygrabbing, I don't give a shit about anyone else kind of people. "" We have a problem with those super rich who do everything in their power to undermine the democratic system and the society in which we live in, without any concern for anyone or anything else other than their own wellbeing. We have a problem with those super rich people that use their financial power to buy our politicians, legally or illegaly, in order to make laws that benefit only themselves, their companies and their interests in the detriment of the common good.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: politics=corruption (1398 days ago)

Thank you. Why can't "he" get it ?

ReplyVote up (174)down (244)
Original comment

Thank you. Why can't "he" get it ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mister ROBOTO (1398 days ago)

he can, he just doesn't want to

ReplyVote up (166)down (152)
Original comment

he can, he just doesn't want to

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1398 days ago)
You are right, I don't get it. Boreme users are sending contradictory messages.
ReplyVote up (172)down (259)
Original comment
You are right, I don't get it. Boreme users are sending contradictory messages.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1398 days ago)

it's not just boreme users, it's the majority of the world\s population. nobody can enlighten you if you are not willing. maybe there's something wrong with your way of thinking, have you thought about that?

ReplyVote up (221)down (123)
Original comment

it's not just boreme users, it's the majority of the world\s population. nobody can enlighten you if you are not willing. maybe there's something wrong with your way of thinking, have you thought about that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1398 days ago)

And since the viewing audience of BoreMe has a wide demographic, shouldn't they display a variety of opinions? We don't all have narrow, buttoned-down viewpoints and we are capable of changing our minds and adjusting our opinions if we see something which really speaks to us. Why should we all have to fall into step with you? Maybe it would be easier if you accepted that (a) you don't speak for all of us and (b) although you refuse, point blank, to recognise an alternative point of view, we don't all have to see things your way.

ReplyVote up (162)down (158)
Original comment

And since the viewing audience of BoreMe has a wide demographic, shouldn't they display a variety of opinions? We don't all have narrow, buttoned-down viewpoints and we are capable of changing our minds and adjusting our opinions if we see something which really speaks to us. Why should we all have to fall into step with you? Maybe it would be easier if you accepted that (a) you don't speak for all of us and (b) although you refuse, point blank, to recognise an alternative point of view, we don't all have to see things your way.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1398 days ago)

I don't mind if people disagree with me. In fact, I sort of like that so I can then try to understand the other point of views that people have. However, in this case, many of the previous posts were about the 1% and how much money they have and the hatred for those people. And then comes Matt and how everyone loves this guy. He's one of the 1% so it doesn't make sense to me. The boreme crowd seem wishy-washy with their views and cannot take a stand one way or another.

ReplyVote up (172)down (161)
Original comment

I don't mind if people disagree with me. In fact, I sort of like that so I can then try to understand the other point of views that people have. However, in this case, many of the previous posts were about the 1% and how much money they have and the hatred for those people. And then comes Matt and how everyone loves this guy. He's one of the 1% so it doesn't make sense to me. The boreme crowd seem wishy-washy with their views and cannot take a stand one way or another.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1398 days ago)

I don't hate people because of the amount of money they make (in fact I hate very few people). I just think people earning squillions should pay more tax.

ReplyVote up (157)down (158)
Original comment

I don't hate people because of the amount of money they make (in fact I hate very few people). I just think people earning squillions should pay more tax.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1398 days ago)

Okay, let's use your "more tax" scenario.

Take Bill Gates as an example. Let's say we tax him 100%. Who collects that money? That's the government. What will the government do with that money? Think they should give free handouts to the poor? Think they should subsidize farmers more than they are now?

ReplyVote up (162)down (154)
Original comment

Okay, let's use your "more tax" scenario.

Take Bill Gates as an example. Let's say we tax him 100%. Who collects that money? That's the government. What will the government do with that money? Think they should give free handouts to the poor? Think they should subsidize farmers more than they are now?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Puppy Dog (1397 days ago)

you must have missed this comment, or chose to ignore it so you can continue with your babble.

""Rising income inequality creates economic, social and political challenges. It can stifle upward social mobility, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve. Intergenerational earnings mobility is low in countries with high inequality such as Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and much higher in the Nordic countries, where income is distributed more evenly (OECD, 2008). The resulting inequality of opportunity will inevitably impact economic performance as a whole, even if the relationship is not straightforward. Inequality also raises political challenges because it breeds social resentment and generates political instability. It can also fuel populist, protectionist, and anti-globalisation sentiments. People will no longer support open trade and free markets if they feel that they are losing out while a small group of winners is getting richer and richer. Reforming tax and benefit policies is the most direct and powerful instrument for increasing redistributive effects. Large and persistent losses in low-income groups following recessions underline the importance of well-targeted income-support policies. Government transfers – both in cash and in-kind – have an important role to play in guaranteeing that low-income households do not fall further back in the income distribution. At the other end of the income spectrum, the relative stability of higher incomes – and their longer-term trends – are important to bear in mind in planning broader reforms of redistribution policies. It may be necessary to review whether existing tax provisions are still optimal in light of equity considerations and current revenue requirements. This is especially the case where the share of overall tax burdens borne by high-income groups has declined in recent years (e.g. where tax schedules became flatter and/or where tax expenditures mainly benefitted high-income groups). However, redistribution strategies based on government transfers and taxes alone would be neither effective nor financially sustainable. First, there may be counter- productive disincentive effects if benefit and tax reforms are not well designed. Second, most OECD countries currently operate under a reduced fiscal space which exerts strong 40 DIVIDED WE STAND: WHY INEQUALITY KEEPS RISING © OECD 2011 AN OVERVIEW OF GROWING INCOME INEQUALITIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: MAIN FINDINGS
pressure to curb public social spending and raise taxes. Growing employment may contribute to sustainable cuts in income inequality, provided the employment gains occur in jobs that offer career prospects. Policies for more and better jobs are more important than ever. A key challenge for policy, therefore, is to facilitate and encourage access to employment for under- represented groups, such as youths, older workers, women and migrants. This requires not only new jobs, but jobs that enable people to avoid and escape poverty. Recent trends towards higher rates of in-work poverty indicate that job quality has become a concern for a growing number of workers. Policy reforms that tackle inequalities in the labour market, such as those between standard and non-standard forms of employment, are needed to reduce income inequality. The lessons from the Restated Jobs Strategy
(OECD, 2006), adapted to recent experience, provide important guidelines in this respect, e.g. with regard to more balanced policy measures between temporary and permanent employment contracts. Finally, policies that invest in the human capital of the workforce are key. Over the past two decades, the trend to higher educational attainment has been one of the most important elements in counteracting the underlying increase in earnings inequality in the long run. Policies that promote the up-skilling of the workforce are therefore key factors for reversing the trend towards further growth in inequality. Human capital policies comprise two main strands. First, better job-related training and education for the low-skilled (on-the-job training) would help to boost their productivity
potential and future earnings. This requires measures to ensure that training markets perform better, as well as ensuring sufficient incentives for both workers and firms to invest more in on-the-job training (OECD, 2006). To compensate for mobility (staff turnover), corporate tax policies that encourage employers to make additional investments in the human capital of their employees are warranted (e.g. deduction of training expenses as business costs). The second strand is equal access to formal education over working life. Access to tertiary education is important for improving the prospects and living standards of lower-skilled people and giving individuals the opportunity to acquire the skills needed in the labour market. Educational or learning accounts can be a means to help achieve this objective (OECD, 2005), but tax incentives need to be designed in such a way that they do not disproportionally benefit higher-wage earners in high marginal tax rates. The new OECD work presented in this report shows that there is nothing inevitable about growing inequalities. Globalisation and technological changes offer opportunities but also raise challenges that can be tackled with effective and well-targeted policies. Regulatory reforms can be designed in such a way that they make markets more efficient
and encourage employment while reducing inequalities at the same time. Labour market and social policies also need to be adapted to changing household structures. Policies for inclusive growth are required in the current situation. Any policy strategy to reduce the
growing divide between the rich and poor should rest on three main pillars: more intensive human capital investment; inclusive employment promotion; and well-designed tax/ transfer redistribution policies.""

An extract from the OECD report LINK called "An Overview of Growing Income Inequalities in OECD Countries: Main Findings"

ReplyVote up (263)down (146)
Original comment

you must have missed this comment, or chose to ignore it so you can continue with your babble.

""Rising income inequality creates economic, social and political challenges. It can stifle upward social mobility, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve. Intergenerational earnings mobility is low in countries with high inequality such as Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and much higher in the Nordic countries, where income is distributed more evenly (OECD, 2008). The resulting inequality of opportunity will inevitably impact economic performance as a whole, even if the relationship is not straightforward. Inequality also raises political challenges because it breeds social resentment and generates political instability. It can also fuel populist, protectionist, and anti-globalisation sentiments. People will no longer support open trade and free markets if they feel that they are losing out while a small group of winners is getting richer and richer. Reforming tax and benefit policies is the most direct and powerful instrument for increasing redistributive effects. Large and persistent losses in low-income groups following recessions underline the importance of well-targeted income-support policies. Government transfers – both in cash and in-kind – have an important role to play in guaranteeing that low-income households do not fall further back in the income distribution. At the other end of the income spectrum, the relative stability of higher incomes – and their longer-term trends – are important to bear in mind in planning broader reforms of redistribution policies. It may be necessary to review whether existing tax provisions are still optimal in light of equity considerations and current revenue requirements. This is especially the case where the share of overall tax burdens borne by high-income groups has declined in recent years (e.g. where tax schedules became flatter and/or where tax expenditures mainly benefitted high-income groups). However, redistribution strategies based on government transfers and taxes alone would be neither effective nor financially sustainable. First, there may be counter- productive disincentive effects if benefit and tax reforms are not well designed. Second, most OECD countries currently operate under a reduced fiscal space which exerts strong 40 DIVIDED WE STAND: WHY INEQUALITY KEEPS RISING © OECD 2011 AN OVERVIEW OF GROWING INCOME INEQUALITIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: MAIN FINDINGS
pressure to curb public social spending and raise taxes. Growing employment may contribute to sustainable cuts in income inequality, provided the employment gains occur in jobs that offer career prospects. Policies for more and better jobs are more important than ever. A key challenge for policy, therefore, is to facilitate and encourage access to employment for under- represented groups, such as youths, older workers, women and migrants. This requires not only new jobs, but jobs that enable people to avoid and escape poverty. Recent trends towards higher rates of in-work poverty indicate that job quality has become a concern for a growing number of workers. Policy reforms that tackle inequalities in the labour market, such as those between standard and non-standard forms of employment, are needed to reduce income inequality. The lessons from the Restated Jobs Strategy
(OECD, 2006), adapted to recent experience, provide important guidelines in this respect, e.g. with regard to more balanced policy measures between temporary and permanent employment contracts. Finally, policies that invest in the human capital of the workforce are key. Over the past two decades, the trend to higher educational attainment has been one of the most important elements in counteracting the underlying increase in earnings inequality in the long run. Policies that promote the up-skilling of the workforce are therefore key factors for reversing the trend towards further growth in inequality. Human capital policies comprise two main strands. First, better job-related training and education for the low-skilled (on-the-job training) would help to boost their productivity
potential and future earnings. This requires measures to ensure that training markets perform better, as well as ensuring sufficient incentives for both workers and firms to invest more in on-the-job training (OECD, 2006). To compensate for mobility (staff turnover), corporate tax policies that encourage employers to make additional investments in the human capital of their employees are warranted (e.g. deduction of training expenses as business costs). The second strand is equal access to formal education over working life. Access to tertiary education is important for improving the prospects and living standards of lower-skilled people and giving individuals the opportunity to acquire the skills needed in the labour market. Educational or learning accounts can be a means to help achieve this objective (OECD, 2005), but tax incentives need to be designed in such a way that they do not disproportionally benefit higher-wage earners in high marginal tax rates. The new OECD work presented in this report shows that there is nothing inevitable about growing inequalities. Globalisation and technological changes offer opportunities but also raise challenges that can be tackled with effective and well-targeted policies. Regulatory reforms can be designed in such a way that they make markets more efficient
and encourage employment while reducing inequalities at the same time. Labour market and social policies also need to be adapted to changing household structures. Policies for inclusive growth are required in the current situation. Any policy strategy to reduce the
growing divide between the rich and poor should rest on three main pillars: more intensive human capital investment; inclusive employment promotion; and well-designed tax/ transfer redistribution policies.""

An extract from the OECD report LINK called "An Overview of Growing Income Inequalities in OECD Countries: Main Findings"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1397 days ago)

TL;DR

You didn't address the comment about the tax anyway. This means you don't like income inequality but have no real solution either.

ReplyVote up (248)down (216)
Original comment

TL;DR

You didn't address the comment about the tax anyway. This means you don't like income inequality but have no real solution either.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Puppy Dog (1397 days ago)

i did adress the coment, and there were several solutions proposed by the OECD in the comment, but you chose to ignore the comment by adding TLDR just like a teenage girl would. you failed.

ReplyVote up (155)down (143)
Original comment

i did adress the coment, and there were several solutions proposed by the OECD in the comment, but you chose to ignore the comment by adding TLDR just like a teenage girl would. you failed.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1397 days ago)

Then summarize it for me. Give me one solution in your own words without pasting a hundred pages from some random website. So far, all I heard was to tax the rich more and I debunked that. So try something else.

ReplyVote up (156)down (232)
Original comment

Then summarize it for me. Give me one solution in your own words without pasting a hundred pages from some random website. So far, all I heard was to tax the rich more and I debunked that. So try something else.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Puppy Dog (1397 days ago)

first off, it's not a random website, it's the official report from the OECD official website.

second, i happen to subscribe to the solution presented in the official OECD report, that was created by OECD experts.

third, i'm not going to try something else just because you refuse to acknowledge reality, so i am going to copy/paste a shorter paragraph in my own words, which also happen to be the words from the official OECD report:

"Globalisation and technological changes offer opportunities but also raise challenges that can be tackled with effective and well-targeted policies. Regulatory reforms can be designed in such a way that they make markets more efficient
and encourage employment while reducing inequalities at the same time. Labour market and social policies also need to be adapted to changing household structures. Policies for inclusive growth are required in the current situation. Any policy strategy to reduce the
growing divide between the rich and poor should rest on three main pillars: more intensive human capital investment; inclusive employment promotion; and well-designed tax/ transfer redistribution policies."

You have failed for a second time.

ReplyVote up (227)down (231)
Original comment

first off, it's not a random website, it's the official report from the OECD official website.

second, i happen to subscribe to the solution presented in the official OECD report, that was created by OECD experts.

third, i'm not going to try something else just because you refuse to acknowledge reality, so i am going to copy/paste a shorter paragraph in my own words, which also happen to be the words from the official OECD report:

"Globalisation and technological changes offer opportunities but also raise challenges that can be tackled with effective and well-targeted policies. Regulatory reforms can be designed in such a way that they make markets more efficient
and encourage employment while reducing inequalities at the same time. Labour market and social policies also need to be adapted to changing household structures. Policies for inclusive growth are required in the current situation. Any policy strategy to reduce the
growing divide between the rich and poor should rest on three main pillars: more intensive human capital investment; inclusive employment promotion; and well-designed tax/ transfer redistribution policies."

You have failed for a second time.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1397 days ago)

Here are the key changes requested:

Globalisation, technology, regulatory reforms, labor market policies, social policies, require policies for inclusive growth.

None of those had any specifics on what to change. Let's use technology for example. What is it that you propose to change technologically that will fix this "problem"?

The only thing I see that was specific was the three main pillars to reduce the growing income inequality and that was:

1. More intensive human capital investment. What is that? Hire more people or train more people? You will not accomplish that task with a higher minimum wage.

2. Inclusive employment promotion. What in the world does that mean? Seems like a bunch of jargon to get people excited without actually meaning anything in real life. The way it currently sounds, we are excluding some people from being promoted. That might be true if you consider we don't like to hire or promote people with a criminal background, the uneducated, the lazy, non productive people, etc.

3. Well designed tax/transfer redistribution policy. Like I said before, taxing will not get rid of the poor. You will just be feeding the government who is known for not sticking to budgets without going into more and more debt. Our government cannot even stay under their own established debt ceilings. How can we trust them to manage even more tax dollars. Secondly, if the government did collect more taxes from the rich, do you want them to just give it freely to the poor? Does that mean you would raise taxes on the rich and then you wouldn't need to increase the minimum wage because the poor would then be supported by those tax dollars instead of their employers? How do you redistribute that wealth once it is collected? On a first come-first serve basis? Give it all to those that don't have a job? That would encourage people to quit their jobs so they could get a free ride in life without working for it. You would be creating a problem -- not fixing one.

ReplyVote up (166)down (138)
Original comment

Here are the key changes requested:

Globalisation, technology, regulatory reforms, labor market policies, social policies, require policies for inclusive growth.

None of those had any specifics on what to change. Let's use technology for example. What is it that you propose to change technologically that will fix this "problem"?

The only thing I see that was specific was the three main pillars to reduce the growing income inequality and that was:

1. More intensive human capital investment. What is that? Hire more people or train more people? You will not accomplish that task with a higher minimum wage.

2. Inclusive employment promotion. What in the world does that mean? Seems like a bunch of jargon to get people excited without actually meaning anything in real life. The way it currently sounds, we are excluding some people from being promoted. That might be true if you consider we don't like to hire or promote people with a criminal background, the uneducated, the lazy, non productive people, etc.

3. Well designed tax/transfer redistribution policy. Like I said before, taxing will not get rid of the poor. You will just be feeding the government who is known for not sticking to budgets without going into more and more debt. Our government cannot even stay under their own established debt ceilings. How can we trust them to manage even more tax dollars. Secondly, if the government did collect more taxes from the rich, do you want them to just give it freely to the poor? Does that mean you would raise taxes on the rich and then you wouldn't need to increase the minimum wage because the poor would then be supported by those tax dollars instead of their employers? How do you redistribute that wealth once it is collected? On a first come-first serve basis? Give it all to those that don't have a job? That would encourage people to quit their jobs so they could get a free ride in life without working for it. You would be creating a problem -- not fixing one.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Puppy Dog (1397 days ago)

i guess it is true what they say about you on this site, cengland-zero.

1."Growing employment may contribute to sustainable cuts in income inequality, provided the employment gains occur in jobs that offer career prospects. Policies for more and better jobs are more important than ever. A key challenge for policy, therefore, is to facilitate and encourage access to employment for under- represented groups, such as youths, older workers, women and migrants. This requires not only new jobs, but jobs that enable people to avoid and escape poverty. Recent trends towards higher rates of in-work poverty indicate that job quality has become a concern for a growing number of workers. Policy reforms that tackle inequalities in the labour market, such as those between standard and non-standard forms of employment, are needed to reduce income inequality "

that paragraph adresses your first point and partially the second. It's an extract from the comment which you " TL;DR"

2. policies that invest in the human capital of the workforce are key. Over the past two decades, the trend to higher educational attainment has been one of the most important elements in counteracting the underlying increase in earnings inequality in the long run. Policies that promote the up-skilling of the workforce are therefore key factors for reversing the trend towards further growth in inequality. Human capital policies comprise two main strands. First, better job-related training and education for the low-skilled (on-the-job training) would help to boost their productivity
potential and future earnings. This requires measures to ensure that training markets perform better, as well as ensuring sufficient incentives for both workers and firms to invest more in on-the-job training

Another snippet from that long comment which you didn't bother to read.

3. Progressive taxation and "an annual graduated tax on stocks and bonds, property and other assets that are customarily not taxed until they are sold. "

you have failed for a third time, so i won't be arguing with you anymore because you can't be bothered to actually read any of the proposed solutions and their argumentations.

I leave you with the following article LINK "Capitalism vs. Democracy - by Thomas B. Esall on Thomas Piketty’s new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” described by one French newspaper as a “a political and theoretical bulldozer,” defies left and right orthodoxy by arguing that worsening inequality is an inevitable outcome of free market capitalism.

ReplyVote up (156)down (153)
Original comment

i guess it is true what they say about you on this site, cengland-zero.

1."Growing employment may contribute to sustainable cuts in income inequality, provided the employment gains occur in jobs that offer career prospects. Policies for more and better jobs are more important than ever. A key challenge for policy, therefore, is to facilitate and encourage access to employment for under- represented groups, such as youths, older workers, women and migrants. This requires not only new jobs, but jobs that enable people to avoid and escape poverty. Recent trends towards higher rates of in-work poverty indicate that job quality has become a concern for a growing number of workers. Policy reforms that tackle inequalities in the labour market, such as those between standard and non-standard forms of employment, are needed to reduce income inequality "

that paragraph adresses your first point and partially the second. It's an extract from the comment which you " TL;DR"

2. policies that invest in the human capital of the workforce are key. Over the past two decades, the trend to higher educational attainment has been one of the most important elements in counteracting the underlying increase in earnings inequality in the long run. Policies that promote the up-skilling of the workforce are therefore key factors for reversing the trend towards further growth in inequality. Human capital policies comprise two main strands. First, better job-related training and education for the low-skilled (on-the-job training) would help to boost their productivity
potential and future earnings. This requires measures to ensure that training markets perform better, as well as ensuring sufficient incentives for both workers and firms to invest more in on-the-job training

Another snippet from that long comment which you didn't bother to read.

3. Progressive taxation and "an annual graduated tax on stocks and bonds, property and other assets that are customarily not taxed until they are sold. "

you have failed for a third time, so i won't be arguing with you anymore because you can't be bothered to actually read any of the proposed solutions and their argumentations.

I leave you with the following article LINK "Capitalism vs. Democracy - by Thomas B. Esall on Thomas Piketty’s new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” described by one French newspaper as a “a political and theoretical bulldozer,” defies left and right orthodoxy by arguing that worsening inequality is an inevitable outcome of free market capitalism.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1397 days ago)

#1. So you're advocating that we hire people based on their age, gender, or migrant status even though this is expressly forbidden in our constitution. Besides, as an employer, I would rather higher someone that is qualified for the job not because they fit in any other category. When you become an employer in your country, you can hire unqualified people just because they fit into groups but I refuse to do that in the USA because it's illegal.

#2. Education is not the most important element in counteracting the underlying increase in wealth inequality. Many of the richest people in the world, including the example of Bill Gates that I keep using, were college dropouts. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Ted Turner, Ralph Lauren, and Michael Dell are some other billionaire dropouts. Do you want me to provide you with a list of local college graduates that I know that are poor?

#3. You want to tax stocks and bonds. Do you realize that people lose money in the stock market already and this is a risky investment? You now want to tax that too? Imagine how many people will pull out of the market causing a huge market crash and then a resession turning into another depression. Regarding bonds, those generate income based on a percentage set by the issuer. We already pay taxes on the interest portion of the bond. There used to be an intangible tax we had to pay in Florida for any money you had in accounts even if they did not earn any money. It was determined to be unconstitutional so the state had to stop collecting it. It doesn't make sense anyway. Take this example. I work hard for a corporation and when I get my paycheck, the taxes are already deducted. What I bring home is after taxes have been paid. So then I take $1,000 of that money and buy a bond that pays 2% interest. You are proposing that I should pay tax on that $1,000 again even though I've already paid taxes on it? If that's the case, don't you think it would encourage people to invest outside the country to avoid those silly double taxations?

Regarding you not arguing with me anymore, thank goodness. I finally did it. I was able to get you to shut up.

ReplyVote up (146)down (149)
Original comment

#1. So you're advocating that we hire people based on their age, gender, or migrant status even though this is expressly forbidden in our constitution. Besides, as an employer, I would rather higher someone that is qualified for the job not because they fit in any other category. When you become an employer in your country, you can hire unqualified people just because they fit into groups but I refuse to do that in the USA because it's illegal.

#2. Education is not the most important element in counteracting the underlying increase in wealth inequality. Many of the richest people in the world, including the example of Bill Gates that I keep using, were college dropouts. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Ted Turner, Ralph Lauren, and Michael Dell are some other billionaire dropouts. Do you want me to provide you with a list of local college graduates that I know that are poor?

#3. You want to tax stocks and bonds. Do you realize that people lose money in the stock market already and this is a risky investment? You now want to tax that too? Imagine how many people will pull out of the market causing a huge market crash and then a resession turning into another depression. Regarding bonds, those generate income based on a percentage set by the issuer. We already pay taxes on the interest portion of the bond. There used to be an intangible tax we had to pay in Florida for any money you had in accounts even if they did not earn any money. It was determined to be unconstitutional so the state had to stop collecting it. It doesn't make sense anyway. Take this example. I work hard for a corporation and when I get my paycheck, the taxes are already deducted. What I bring home is after taxes have been paid. So then I take $1,000 of that money and buy a bond that pays 2% interest. You are proposing that I should pay tax on that $1,000 again even though I've already paid taxes on it? If that's the case, don't you think it would encourage people to invest outside the country to avoid those silly double taxations?

Regarding you not arguing with me anymore, thank goodness. I finally did it. I was able to get you to shut up.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Puppy Dog (1397 days ago)

1. NO

2. i disagree.

3.yes, if it's done at a global level.

4. it's not just me who want's this, it's also the OECD.

5.reinstate the glass steagall act on a global level, would be another measure worth implementing.

6. this was your 4th strike (a bonus) and you're out. You're only interested in trolling. you finally got me to shut up with your constant and relentless trolling, you should be proud.

ReplyVote up (168)down (141)
Original comment

1. NO

2. i disagree.

3.yes, if it's done at a global level.

4. it's not just me who want's this, it's also the OECD.

5.reinstate the glass steagall act on a global level, would be another measure worth implementing.

6. this was your 4th strike (a bonus) and you're out. You're only interested in trolling. you finally got me to shut up with your constant and relentless trolling, you should be proud.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1397 days ago)

The Glass Steagall act was repealed for a reason. Senator Glass himself attempted to repeal the act in 1935 but it wasn't until the 80's that congress started to debate the repeal and it was finally repealed in 1999 with the Gramm–Leach–B liley Act. Obviously this was a great move and supported by the majority of congress.

You are a liar, just to let you know. You said you were done arguing with me about this but you continued to argue about it. I was so hopeful that you would keep your word so it's now obvious you cannot be trusted.

ReplyVote up (228)down (139)
Original comment

The Glass Steagall act was repealed for a reason. Senator Glass himself attempted to repeal the act in 1935 but it wasn't until the 80's that congress started to debate the repeal and it was finally repealed in 1999 with the Gramm–Leach–B liley Act. Obviously this was a great move and supported by the majority of congress.

You are a liar, just to let you know. You said you were done arguing with me about this but you continued to argue about it. I was so hopeful that you would keep your word so it's now obvious you cannot be trusted.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Carter Glass (1397 days ago)

Your strategy must be to overpower and exhaust the reader with a never ending avalanche of bull****.

The thinking behind the Glass-Steagall act was that separating the powers of commercial and investment banks would protect depositors' money and it did until the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed along party lines by a Republican vote in the Senate. The banking industry had been lobbying for the repeal since the 1980s.

One of the arguments for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was that the banking industry was losing market share to securities firms. Another was that the securities activities the banks were seeking were low risk by their nature and could provide diversification for the banks. Obviously, the types of risky, exotic securities like credit default swaps had not been thought of at that time.

In 1935 Senator Glass attempted to repeal the Glass–Steagall prohibition on commercial banks underwriting corporate securities. Glass stated Glass–Steagall had unduly damaged securities markets by prohibiting commercial bank underwriting of corporate securities. The first Senate passed version of the Banking Act of 1935 included Glass’s revision to Section 16 of the Glass–Steagall Act to permit bank underwriting of corporate securities subject to limitations and regulations.

President Roosevelt opposed this revision to Section 16 and wrote Glass that “the old abuses would come back if underwriting were restored in any shape, manner, or form.” In the conference committee that reconciled differences between the House and Senate passed versions of the Banking Act of 1935, Glass’s language amending Section 16 was removed.

ReplyVote up (138)down (135)
Original comment

Your strategy must be to overpower and exhaust the reader with a never ending avalanche of bull****.

The thinking behind the Glass-Steagall act was that separating the powers of commercial and investment banks would protect depositors' money and it did until the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed along party lines by a Republican vote in the Senate. The banking industry had been lobbying for the repeal since the 1980s.

One of the arguments for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was that the banking industry was losing market share to securities firms. Another was that the securities activities the banks were seeking were low risk by their nature and could provide diversification for the banks. Obviously, the types of risky, exotic securities like credit default swaps had not been thought of at that time.

In 1935 Senator Glass attempted to repeal the Glass–Steagall prohibition on commercial banks underwriting corporate securities. Glass stated Glass–Steagall had unduly damaged securities markets by prohibiting commercial bank underwriting of corporate securities. The first Senate passed version of the Banking Act of 1935 included Glass’s revision to Section 16 of the Glass–Steagall Act to permit bank underwriting of corporate securities subject to limitations and regulations.

President Roosevelt opposed this revision to Section 16 and wrote Glass that “the old abuses would come back if underwriting were restored in any shape, manner, or form.” In the conference committee that reconciled differences between the House and Senate passed versions of the Banking Act of 1935, Glass’s language amending Section 16 was removed.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1397 days ago)

Impressive feat. You know how to copy and paste from Wikipedia. You should be so proud of yourself and go far in life. LINK

ReplyVote up (136)down (117)
Original comment

Impressive feat. You know how to copy and paste from Wikipedia. You should be so proud of yourself and go far in life. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Yer Mum (1397 days ago)

At least i'm not making stuff up and blowing smoke in people's faces, unlike other people.

ReplyVote up (138)down (111)
Original comment

At least i'm not making stuff up and blowing smoke in people's faces, unlike other people.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1396 days ago)

What is it that you think I'm making up and I will then post my source for it (none of which are from Wikipedia).

ReplyVote up (212)down (115)
Original comment

What is it that you think I'm making up and I will then post my source for it (none of which are from Wikipedia).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Yer Mum (1396 days ago)

...said cengland0 after posting a link from wikipedia... you're trolling is starting to... BoreMe (how ironic)

ReplyVote up (112)down (92)
Original comment

...said cengland0 after posting a link from wikipedia... you're trolling is starting to... BoreMe (how ironic)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1396 days ago)

Hardy, har, har. I posted that Wikipedia link to show others reading this your source for your copy and paste. It is not a source for my information.

ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment

Hardy, har, har. I posted that Wikipedia link to show others reading this your source for your copy and paste. It is not a source for my information.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Yer Mum (1396 days ago)

yeah, you just make shit up and pass it for apples

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

yeah, you just make shit up and pass it for apples

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1396 days ago)

Like I said, either accept what I said as facts or ask me for references. I offered to give you sources for anything you believe I made up but it doesn't seem like you're taking me up on the offer so you must really believe that it's true.

ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment

Like I said, either accept what I said as facts or ask me for references. I offered to give you sources for anything you believe I made up but it doesn't seem like you're taking me up on the offer so you must really believe that it's true.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Yer Mum (1396 days ago)

there's that manipulation again, so how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when all you seem to do is try to cheat?? there's a third option you know, but you conveniantly left it out:

3) take into consideration your reputation and disconsider everything you say without providing references from credible sources at the time you make the claims, because it's a complete waste of time. You're a waste of time. You and the "smoke screen" aberant questions you ask in a futile attempt to stear people away from the main topic.

I'm going to go for the third option, because doing otherwise would be pointless and stupid. You can't just argue with anybody you know... you have to filter out people by their reputation and their way of arguing, and you cengland-zero... are starting to get boring.

ReplyVote up (85)down (173)
Original comment

there's that manipulation again, so how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when all you seem to do is try to cheat?? there's a third option you know, but you conveniantly left it out:

3) take into consideration your reputation and disconsider everything you say without providing references from credible sources at the time you make the claims, because it's a complete waste of time. You're a waste of time. You and the "smoke screen" aberant questions you ask in a futile attempt to stear people away from the main topic.

I'm going to go for the third option, because doing otherwise would be pointless and stupid. You can't just argue with anybody you know... you have to filter out people by their reputation and their way of arguing, and you cengland-zero... are starting to get boring.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1397 days ago)

Regarding #2 and you disagreeing with me, just look up the biography of those billionaires that I listed. Educate yourself on this matter. Also, 20% of millionaires never attended college. So it is up to you to prove that education will help with the wealth inequality because the facts prove otherwise.

ReplyVote up (167)down (81)
Original comment

Regarding #2 and you disagreeing with me, just look up the biography of those billionaires that I listed. Educate yourself on this matter. Also, 20% of millionaires never attended college. So it is up to you to prove that education will help with the wealth inequality because the facts prove otherwise.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Steven Strauss (1397 days ago)

Errr, myself and others allready proved that lack of education leads to income inequality and unemployment, you're examples are anecdotal and can't be taken seriously by any selfrespecting high-school graduate. You should read this article i wrote on the topic LINK

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Errr, myself and others allready proved that lack of education leads to income inequality and unemployment, you're examples are anecdotal and can't be taken seriously by any selfrespecting high-school graduate. You should read this article i wrote on the topic LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1397 days ago)

Ha, now that's funny. According to the document you linked, a Doctorate has a mean earning of 103K wheras a professional eductional level (lower level) has 128K. You also failed to address how 20% of millionaires never attended college since those people were excluded from your linked page.

The conversation was about income inequality with the super rich. Those Doctorate people making 103K a year make nothing in comparison to the top richest people. If you divide 65 Billion for Bill Gates by 30 years and then 365 days, he earned nearly 6 million a day. Not bad for a college dropout.

Like I said above, it is wrong to say that education is the most important contributing factor to income inequality because there are so many stats that prove that statement wrong. I've listed several top billionaires that were college dropouts and I've quoted that 20% of millionaires never attended college at all. This means it's possible to have a high level of earnings without the advanced schooling.

I don't want to be quoted as not being a supporter of higher education. I do admit that you can earn more with a degree if you get a job that uses that degree. However, and this is a very important statement, getting that degree will not turn you into a billionaire unless you also work hard, create something innovative, and/or take risks -- all of which you can do without a college degree.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

Ha, now that's funny. According to the document you linked, a Doctorate has a mean earning of 103K wheras a professional eductional level (lower level) has 128K. You also failed to address how 20% of millionaires never attended college since those people were excluded from your linked page.

The conversation was about income inequality with the super rich. Those Doctorate people making 103K a year make nothing in comparison to the top richest people. If you divide 65 Billion for Bill Gates by 30 years and then 365 days, he earned nearly 6 million a day. Not bad for a college dropout.

Like I said above, it is wrong to say that education is the most important contributing factor to income inequality because there are so many stats that prove that statement wrong. I've listed several top billionaires that were college dropouts and I've quoted that 20% of millionaires never attended college at all. This means it's possible to have a high level of earnings without the advanced schooling.

I don't want to be quoted as not being a supporter of higher education. I do admit that you can earn more with a degree if you get a job that uses that degree. However, and this is a very important statement, getting that degree will not turn you into a billionaire unless you also work hard, create something innovative, and/or take risks -- all of which you can do without a college degree.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Yer Mum (1396 days ago)

"20% of millionaires never attended college at all. This means it's possible to have a high level of earnings without the advanced schooling. "

doesn't this also mean that 80% of millionaires went to college???

The math's has convinced me, education is directly corelated to income inequality and unemployment and it increases your chances of success in any field you should choose to earn a living by a factor of 4.

ReplyVote up (180)down (85)
Original comment

"20% of millionaires never attended college at all. This means it's possible to have a high level of earnings without the advanced schooling. "

doesn't this also mean that 80% of millionaires went to college???

The math's has convinced me, education is directly corelated to income inequality and unemployment and it increases your chances of success in any field you should choose to earn a living by a factor of 4.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1396 days ago)

Yes, that does mean 80% of millionaires went to college. It does not mean they graduated from college. It does not mean the ones that did graduate ended up with the highest degree -- could have been an associates degree.

Additionally, just because they have a degree, that does not mean they are working for someone else using the degree they earned. The chances are, they started their own business and are not worried about what job they can get with their degree.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Yes, that does mean 80% of millionaires went to college. It does not mean they graduated from college. It does not mean the ones that did graduate ended up with the highest degree -- could have been an associates degree.

Additionally, just because they have a degree, that does not mean they are working for someone else using the degree they earned. The chances are, they started their own business and are not worried about what job they can get with their degree.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Yer Mum (1396 days ago)

it also mean that higher education and education in general increases one's chances of success by a factor of 4. Math is against you on this one. Anecdotal evidence is not worth much considering 20% of the 1% of 7 billion people... kinda proves my point and not yours. Not to mention the 0.001%

ReplyVote up (174)down (93)
Original comment

it also mean that higher education and education in general increases one's chances of success by a factor of 4. Math is against you on this one. Anecdotal evidence is not worth much considering 20% of the 1% of 7 billion people... kinda proves my point and not yours. Not to mention the 0.001%

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1396 days ago)

I will admit that higher education can make a normal worker that works for someone else, instead of starting their own business, can make a difference on their income potential.

You're trying to get on another tangent here. Please try to follow along with the conversation if you're able. Perhaps it is your reading comprehension that is preventing you from getting a good paying job.

I'm talking about the income inequality you socialists hate so much. The super rich did not need those degrees. So that's why I said it's not the formal education that is causing the income gap. There's not much difference between someone without a high school diploma and someone with a doctorate. That's only about 83K per year and that's from the worst education to the higest.

There is a much bigger gap between the higest educated with doctorate degrees making 103K a year and the super rich that makes 6 million a day.

Did you follow along with this now?

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

I will admit that higher education can make a normal worker that works for someone else, instead of starting their own business, can make a difference on their income potential.

You're trying to get on another tangent here. Please try to follow along with the conversation if you're able. Perhaps it is your reading comprehension that is preventing you from getting a good paying job.

I'm talking about the income inequality you socialists hate so much. The super rich did not need those degrees. So that's why I said it's not the formal education that is causing the income gap. There's not much difference between someone without a high school diploma and someone with a doctorate. That's only about 83K per year and that's from the worst education to the higest.

There is a much bigger gap between the higest educated with doctorate degrees making 103K a year and the super rich that makes 6 million a day.

Did you follow along with this now?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Yer Mum (1396 days ago)

weren't we talking about how 80% of millionaires have a higher education? what? no mention of the 20% millionaires? is that arrogance i detect in your smoke screen, frustrated, assumption filled, comment? you must be pissed because mathematics is destroying your case, oh well. You can't win them all can you?

i think that any mentally sain human being would agree with me when i say that education, and higher education in particular makes a difference in anyone's life on multiple levels, and in a 7 billion people world, it's that small difference in education that weighs a lot, becuase competition is high and the price of a human life is low.

Of course, i don't expect a pertinent answer from you, but tell me this:

tell me if you are able to have a normal conversation with AT LEAST your misses. Are you capable of having a normal conversation with anyone cengland-zero??

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

weren't we talking about how 80% of millionaires have a higher education? what? no mention of the 20% millionaires? is that arrogance i detect in your smoke screen, frustrated, assumption filled, comment? you must be pissed because mathematics is destroying your case, oh well. You can't win them all can you?

i think that any mentally sain human being would agree with me when i say that education, and higher education in particular makes a difference in anyone's life on multiple levels, and in a 7 billion people world, it's that small difference in education that weighs a lot, becuase competition is high and the price of a human life is low.

Of course, i don't expect a pertinent answer from you, but tell me this:

tell me if you are able to have a normal conversation with AT LEAST your misses. Are you capable of having a normal conversation with anyone cengland-zero??

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: leisuresuitbruce (1391 days ago)
Latest comment:

I want to see how small the comments can get

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
Latest comment:

I want to see how small the comments can get

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1397 days ago)

Hold on thar, Musky.

1) When did I say to tax Bill Gates at 100%?

2) What will the government do? I would hope they implement the policies they were elected on. Though obviously if it's the US government, they'll spend a lot of it on drone strikes and imprisoning innocent people indefinitely without trial while ignoring the Geneva Convention.

ReplyVote up (181)down (156)
Original comment

Hold on thar, Musky.

1) When did I say to tax Bill Gates at 100%?

2) What will the government do? I would hope they implement the policies they were elected on. Though obviously if it's the US government, they'll spend a lot of it on drone strikes and imprisoning innocent people indefinitely without trial while ignoring the Geneva Convention.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1397 days ago)

You did say "more tax" so exactly how much more tax do you propose they pay? Let's use Bill Gates as an example. What percentage of his income do you believe should be tax and what percentage should he be allowed to keep?

Regarding your #2, that's the whole point I was trying to make. Taxation will not result in redistribution of wealth like some people expect it to. It will just cause the rich to stop hiring people and buying things (which puts people to work).

ReplyVote up (181)down (87)
Original comment

You did say "more tax" so exactly how much more tax do you propose they pay? Let's use Bill Gates as an example. What percentage of his income do you believe should be tax and what percentage should he be allowed to keep?

Regarding your #2, that's the whole point I was trying to make. Taxation will not result in redistribution of wealth like some people expect it to. It will just cause the rich to stop hiring people and buying things (which puts people to work).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1397 days ago)

Let Bill keep all his money at the starting end of the scale, pay a little tax on the next tranch, a bit more on the next, most on the upper reaches. That means he'll have enough to live on and (as he makes so much more than anyone else) he can afford to pay more tax.

I really do not think he would ever have thought, "You know, because I might pay too much tax, I'm not going to write that operating system."

To give your technique back to you: are you saying nobody should pay any tax?

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

Let Bill keep all his money at the starting end of the scale, pay a little tax on the next tranch, a bit more on the next, most on the upper reaches. That means he'll have enough to live on and (as he makes so much more than anyone else) he can afford to pay more tax.

I really do not think he would ever have thought, "You know, because I might pay too much tax, I'm not going to write that operating system."

To give your technique back to you: are you saying nobody should pay any tax?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1397 days ago)

I'm a libertarian so my view is that there should be less government control; therefore, less tax. I'm not saying no tax -- just less. Our government should provide for defense of our country, create laws, have a judicial branch, and that's pretty much it.

We should not collect taxes just to redistribute that wealth to the poor or subsidize wheat and corn farmers. That's what I am saying. Besides, Bill Gates has voluntarily given to the poor much more than anyone else and you still think he needs to be taxed even more? That's being silly.

If you consider that Bill Gates only needs about $30,000 a year to live on comfortably, you're advocating that we take 99.999% of his net worth away. It also appears that you are proposing a maximum salary for people. If you make more than what you need to live, the rest is taken away from you in taxes. That's also silly because it removes the incentives to work hard.

Regarding him not writing the operating system because of taxes, I doubt that would have changed. It's my understanding that he paid 100K to a friend for the OS and then turned around and licensed it to IBM and immediately made millions. Gates rarely wrote his own software. From what I read, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, the only software he wrote himself was the program to flash the CRT at a particular rate to send data to a Microsoft watch.

Can you give me a percentage of income that you believe is fair to charge Bill Gates for taxes?

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

I'm a libertarian so my view is that there should be less government control; therefore, less tax. I'm not saying no tax -- just less. Our government should provide for defense of our country, create laws, have a judicial branch, and that's pretty much it.

We should not collect taxes just to redistribute that wealth to the poor or subsidize wheat and corn farmers. That's what I am saying. Besides, Bill Gates has voluntarily given to the poor much more than anyone else and you still think he needs to be taxed even more? That's being silly.

If you consider that Bill Gates only needs about $30,000 a year to live on comfortably, you're advocating that we take 99.999% of his net worth away. It also appears that you are proposing a maximum salary for people. If you make more than what you need to live, the rest is taken away from you in taxes. That's also silly because it removes the incentives to work hard.

Regarding him not writing the operating system because of taxes, I doubt that would have changed. It's my understanding that he paid 100K to a friend for the OS and then turned around and licensed it to IBM and immediately made millions. Gates rarely wrote his own software. From what I read, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, the only software he wrote himself was the program to flash the CRT at a particular rate to send data to a Microsoft watch.

Can you give me a percentage of income that you believe is fair to charge Bill Gates for taxes?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1397 days ago)

1950's tax rate LINK

ReplyVote up (168)down (157)
Original comment

1950's tax rate LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: chin boy (1398 days ago)

is there any point in arguing with you? an appology for insulting all the bore me users would be in order.

ReplyVote up (132)down (128)
Original comment

is there any point in arguing with you? an appology for insulting all the bore me users would be in order.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: this is SPARTA (1398 days ago)

Matt was a close friend of the late Howard Zin. I have nothing but respect for him plus I love his films.

ReplyVote up (101)down (74)
Original comment

Matt was a close friend of the late Howard Zin. I have nothing but respect for him plus I love his films.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: GuestDC (1398 days ago)

Champ.

ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment

Champ.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
John Oliver grills Dustin Hoffman about sexual harassment allegations
John Oliver grills Dustin Hoffman about sexual harassment allegations
TYT - Ellen Page's statement on sexual abuse in Hollywood
TYT - Ellen Page's statement on sexual abuse in Hollywood
Keanu Reeves' custom motorcycle shop
Keanu Reeves' custom motorcycle shop
Inside Robert Downey Jr's home
Inside Robert Downey Jr's home
Buster Keaton's amazing stunts
Buster Keaton's amazing stunts