Genuinely think WSO is compensating Drumpfy to post here as the moronic alt left voice no one wants to be near. Guy comes in with the dumbest possible takes to every situation & everyone here by now well-recognizes how crappy his brand is after seeing his lat left take to every possible thing.
It genuinely seems like by principle he argues with anything that remotely different from what he believes (or is being paid for). Is he being paid by WSO?
| +113 | Bathroom War Crimes | 26 | 1d |
| +81 | We all should've gotten in tech | 38 | 5h |
| +32 | Stealth-Listening Devices | 8 | 3d |
| +15 | LinkedIn Shitposts | 7 | 2h |
| +13 | Totally random question | 6 | 4d |
| +13 | JPMorgan Exec Canned After Stealing Knicks Trash Can on Camera - How Bad Is This for Exit Opps? | 6 | 2d |
| +11 | Pickleball Manhattan | 4 | 3d |
| +9 | Ordering Valium Online: Key Considerations | 0 | 6d |
| +6 | My Plan For Generational Wealth | 7 | 3d |
| +6 | Pres Made 1B Off Pump and Dumps | 3 | 30m |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
check out my post man
wahh wahhh wahh
WSO is not a safe space, and you'll have to deal with opposing opinions. I am not "alt-left", (I guess it's the left wing version of the alt-right slimeballs?) I'm just not a fan of endless tax cuts for the rich since they pay a smaller fraction of their income than everyday Americans. I am also not a fan of the culture wars nonsense (Qanon, election fraud, COVID conspiracies, etc.) that the right uses as a cover since their actual policies are not popular enough to win elections on
When’s your wedding bro
How much should rich people pay in taxes then? 😂😂 Paying a lower percentage than you is not enough? You should let Jeff bang your wife too 😂
No one is saying it's illegal. Drumpfy is saying that the tax code should be amended to close those loopholes or otherwise effectively raise taxes on the wealthy. Your attempt to move the goalposts on this is incredibly clumsy and obvious.
Well, this is an interesting question, now isn't it. How many of those jobs are people who also require SNAP assistance, or qualify for a childcare credit, or anything like that? A "job" isn't a positive, necessarily. If you have to work a second job to make ends meet, than that first job isn't doing a ton for you, now is it? American business have been passing on costs to the taxpayer and rewarding shareholders (and more directly, executives) for years - this mindless glorification of "job creators" should have gone out the window with trickle down economics, and yet here we are.
That is all well and good, but that wasn't the argument I was seeing. What is legal and what is ethical are not the same. I can acknowledge that Mr Bezos is doing nothing illegal while still decrying the system that allows him to get away with paying what I consider to be less than his fair share. Jeff Bezos isn't immoral, it's a tax code that allows him to get away with paying exceptionally little in tax. I don't think a wealth tax is fair, either... but lets be frank - for all that most of Mr Bezos' wealth is tied up in hard-to-liquidate Amazon stock, he can always borrow against it as collateral, and pay no tax on millions if not billions of dollars of loans. Something is wrong in that system.
See, this is again you moving the goalposts again. You made the explicit point that we should give Mr Bezos credit for creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. I don't think he deserves any kind of thanks or credit, if the pay he offers is so low that it requires working class people to also either have a second job or government benefits. All that means is he's paying so little because he's being subsidized by the taxpayer.
In an ideal world, anyone with a job would be able to support themselves by the value of their labor in some minimal amount of comfort and cleanliness without having to go on any kind of welfare or even have a second job. I'm well aware that ideal world doesn't and probably never will exist, but nor do I think we should be lauding the employers who pay so little that we can't get to that world. Perhaps it isn't "immoral" for Mr Bezos to keep wages low and use every loophole he can find to lower his tax bill, but the flip side to that is that he certainly shouldn't be lauded for either of those stances. Anyone doing the bare minimum deserves no praise, and that goes for the corporate tycoon paying subsistence wages as well as for the person earning $18/hour and doing nothing more than the bare minimum to keep their job
Right, but if I work 40 hours a week for Mr Bezos and I can't afford to feed my kids, then where does your argument go? I agree that someone refusing to work, or too proud to take a lower paying job, doesn't deserve to live high on the hog on government largesse, but at some point there is a reasonable argument to be made that we as a society have agreed that working 40 (or 50, or whatever the number is) hours a week should be sufficient to live without fear of losing your home or starving before the next paycheck. Human beings are not automatons, and both require and deserve some rest, some relaxation, some distraction. It shouldn't be that you work a 14 hour day, 7 days a week, only to come home, eat, and sleep before it's time to rise again. That isn't to say everyone should be driving a Ferrari, either, but there is a middle ground. I find it hard to stomach that Mr Bezos can be worth $100b or whatever and also make the argument that his employees should sack up and get a second or third job. If you don't like the fact that Amazon employees require government assistance because they're paid so little, the answer should be that we shouldn't allow that kind of wage slavery, not that they need to work a few more 8 hour shifts a week to make ends meet.
I guess that's your opinion, then. But there are more of them than there are of you, and it's equally reasonable for that person working 40 hours a week and still one injury away from homelessness to say "you know what, why should Jeff Bezos be worth $100b on the back of my labor, or why should @trustmeimanengineer make 10x what I do" and take it from you and Mr Bezos and me by force? Your right to low taxes or even to your property isn't sacred; they're part of a social contract which is only valid as long as it works for most people. The moment the majority of people in this country realize that the system doesn't work for them, and in fact is dehumanizing them, is the moment they'll take your stuff by force. It always baffles me how intelligent people straight up ignore the lessons of history.
Despising people for being unable to put food on the table despite working 40 hours a week is a good way to generate the kind of ill will that ends in violence. Meeting someone halfway, and saying that working 40 hours a week should allow you to raise a modest sized family in a modicum of comfort, and that society should build itself around that ideal (as it did in the early and middle parts of the last century) is maybe the way to strike a balance, but hey, just my opinion
The unfortunate reality that common folk on both sides don't realize is that the rich establishment have gamed the system to win on both sides.
Democrat in charge -> taxes go up across the board, regulations increase, min wage increase -> wealthy take advantage of international tax havens and loopholes and absorb regulations better than regional and small businesses, increasing barriers of entry and survival which kills small and regional businesses, leading to situations in which the big corporation is the dominant power allowing them to set the price for goods, wages, etc and we end up in an oligopoly state where prices and wages aren't in equilibrium. Jobs get shipped overseas crushing the working class.
Republicans in charge -> taxes go down across the board, regulations decrease, no min wage -> wealthy take advantage of lower taxes, and regional and small businesses can thrive, but wealthy take advantage of lack of regulation and pollute/destroy local environment, as well as continuing to pay workers low wages. Without any regulations on price discrimination, mergers, etc, big businesses use every tactic available to stifle out the competition gaining and upper hand. Jobs are still shipped oversees crushing the working class
The obvious solution is higher taxes, minimum wage, regulation and the elimination of loopholes above a certain business value threshold so that multibillionaires like Bezos don't get off the hook, but small businesses have the best environment to succeed in. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever get to this common sense solution.
How about Soros? According to right wingers he's the mastermind behind Antifa and BLM and the only jobs he creates are a few hedge fund analysts.
Is he one of those glorious job creators whose boots we must lick? Should he pay nothing in taxes?
I highly doubt WSO is compensating him. I've previously thought maybe he was being paid to shill all the Covid/vaccine bs but he seems to have calmed down on that too so probably not. No, I think he's genuinely just as dumb as he appears.
He needs to go
Why? Every time he comments he hurts his own causes, which are causes I personally hate or strongly disagree with because I have common sense and/or an intact moral compass. He's doing everyone who dislikes him a favor every time he opens his mouth.
No, I don't think he's being paid. A group of college liberals think that all conservatives are uneducated and illiterate rubes (have heard many ivy league grads say this to my face) so he probably feels the need to "educate" us and gets a kick out of it. A small fraction of the time his points are interesting, most of it though is the same memes he recycles despite being pointed out numerous times the flaws which can get extremely exhausting.
The ironic thing about all of this is that his soon to be bride is an Eastern European virgin who didn't take the vaccine, about as far from liberal as you can get. Women reading this, take notes accordingly. Even the finance guy who you think is liberal will most likely not find your new wave feminism to be attractive.
This is on the money. If even Drumpfy doesn't 'walk the walk' on new wave feminism, there's no hope for you
And yet, a large percentage of conservatives are uneducated rubes. So are some liberals, of course, but academic achievement is positively correlated with liberalism in this country (USA). I've heard you, or someone else on this site with similar political leanings and who also isn't an out-and-out troll, make the case that somehow not going to college makes you more intelligent, or "street smart" because you didn't go to some ivory tower institute of higher education and get "indoctrinated". As if the entire American university system was somehow capable of colluding to indoctrinate millions of people a year, instead of the simpler explanation - that being more educated leads to being more politically liberal.
I think for this one we need to step outside of the Wall Street bubble for a moment. 30% of the US holds a bachelor's degree or higher. Which means that assuming a 2:1 ratio (true ratio is a bit closer) 60% of Democrats don't hold a bachelor's. That's not "some". That's a majority. If we stick to the 2:1 split, it also means that there are conservatives who are educated, so that ad hominem can't be used to immediately discount conservative viewpoints. You're right that educations correlates with liberalism, but that's a much weaker claim than saying "all conservatives are uneducated and illiterate."
I don't really remember making this claim and as an right-leaning independent, I don't always agree in lockstep with Republican views so you can't automatically lump me with some other conservative user you may know. I definitely think the value of a traditional college degree if we define value to be knowledge or as you define it "smartness" is steadily deteriorating as the number of ways to learn topics is steadily increasing. College degrees don't teach many other topics like personal finance in the way that living alone would, and more importantly learning material abstractly doesn't translate as well as real world experience which is why this site repeatedly emphasizes the importance of getting good internships and good work experience. Another negative which you mention is the "ivory tower" which means that college graduates seem to lack the skills to understand or debate with people who think differently than them hence the original quote that "all conservatives are uneducated and illiterate rubes." College majors are valuable if you are already smart going into college and study a technical (STEM) or career-track discipline (nursing, finance, accounting, etc.). Whether it develops people to be smart is far more questionable.
If you believe that colleges are politically neutral and have no influence on minds that haven't fully developed yet (even though we say adulthood is 18 science suggests otherwise), I don't know what to tell you. Liberal arts literally has the term "liberal" in it and many fields within that such as poli sci, gender studies, humanties, etc. look at things through the liberal angle. The teacher's interpretation is what you need to get good grades or do well on exams. I've literally gotten lower grades on essays myself for espousing alternative viewpoints. To your other point, if you don't believe that signficant donors and board members don't have a say in curriculum, I don't really know what to say again. I don't think colleges are colluding with each other per se, but influential donors can easily influence a number of colleges.
How is this a counterargument to what I'm saying?
Aut autem similique saepe sit ipsa voluptatem ab. Omnis maiores totam unde ex sunt aut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Eos ullam nihil veniam corrupti voluptatem vel qui. Voluptas sed aut ad dolores rerum. Eius porro culpa est velit. Impedit qui qui est inventore debitis molestiae. Dignissimos consectetur qui et odio laborum vitae voluptatem.
Odio maiores expedita voluptatem totam sequi. Expedita rerum libero eius quo sunt libero et. Animi quisquam quam velit doloribus enim necessitatibus quisquam. Rem nesciunt dolores nulla laborum quas.
Ipsum ullam provident eius ex est optio. Autem accusamus enim corporis et. Consectetur incidunt consequatur iure quae sit quidem.