US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

It seems only reasonable that those who provide a service should have people willing to pay them for that service. The farmer, if he wants to damage the road with his cart, should be willing to pay for the service he uses. That's how the market works. You give something in order to get something.

 

Those are not usage fees. Usage fees for a particular service are based upon how much one chooses to use said service.

 

Any particular person can receive as much income as he is willing to make. Nobody else, well except maybe the government, can prevent a person from increasing his income and wealth.

 

Dont you know what you're using? That's a strange approach. It would account, mind you, for your repeated use of Marxist theory. Accident rather than design?

 

You have yet to demonstrate how I used it

 

So what you are saying is that We the People have the right to demand that the farmer pays higher taxes than everyone else because his use of the road causes the most wear and tear.

 

Don't fib now. I referred to your reference to divide and conquer, plus reference to class conflict. However, I reckon you have more to offer. When you get a chance, let me know how them there Marxists explain inflation

 

I pointed out the other poster's use of class conflict and his sinister application of the tax code and false labeling of people as rich.
But keep covering your statist tracks, statist

 

I love how you're trying to deny what you've said to hide from your Marxism. Very endearing

 

Silly boy.
Acknowledging that different levels of wealth exist is not marxist

 

Come now, you went much further than that. You shifted away from individualism without even realising it.

Just need a beret?

 

You wish I did.

 

Not really. I was just surprised you managed economic insight. That is why I've asked about Marxist inflation theory. Just to see if you could keep it going...

 

Marxist#1:You're rich
Me: that ain't rich
Marxist #2: you evoked Marxist class warfare.

Dumbest assertion yet!

 

Still with endearing effort to hide from your Marxism? That you have to make up an exchange to hide from the divide and conquer comment shows commitment!

 

Show my marxist divide and conquer comment.
Acknowledging that some people have many orders of magnitude greater wealth than others is acknowledging reality.
Your market managing corpiratist ilk sell the class warfare to the masses, pretending to punish themselves with the tax code, knowing all the while they are punishing those with much less wealth than themselves. Then the cutest little corporatist whores accuse those that would object of being marxists. How neat

 

Here it is: "Lumping in guys who've managed to make it up to a couple hundred grand in income with billion and trillionaires is stupidity".

I appreciate you didn't realise that is a standard divide and conquer comment (where focus on the middle class is used to shift emphasis from the ruling elite). But, fair's fair, it's early days for your new focus on economic insight!

 

obviously we want all products priced as close to their true cost as possible in the interest of economic efficiency and our standard of living. Price guides us to consume resources as slowly and efficiently as possible.

 

obviously a libertarian is not a Marxist and you have time to waste that would be used promoting libcommieism if
thought you had the IQ to do so.

 

Libertarianism, as you've already been informed, tends to be associated with anarchism (and therefore forms of socialism). When will you use political economy correctly?

 

It's a comment on his desire to tax the rich heavily, and wrongly label those who aren't rich as rich. It is his division of haves and have nots and he got it wrong. Now if I advocated taxing people more heavily based on wealth, I'd be guilty.
But then again, a kindergartener would know this. Sorry for your sub kindergarten understanding

 

Buckley and his white cultural supremacy? Friedman and his failed monetarism (which led to coercive monetary policy)?

As I said, you never get political economy right...

 

No, I'm not saying that. I'm not sure why you would think that I was.

I said that it seems reasonable for the road owner would set usage fees higher for those who impose more wear and tear on their road. Typically, the tolls for a semi are much higher than those for a passenger car.

 

Non sequitur!

 

The owner of the road is We the People AKA the government and the damage to the road is caused by those who move the heaviest payloads on them. Ergo those who are exploiting the public road for the purposes of lining their own pockets must pay higher taxes for their abuse of the infrastructure.