1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who are The Lords and Serfs?

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ShinyTop, Sep 15, 2018.

  1. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Said by Mark in another thread: "Progressives are actually regressives, demanding that the common people reassume their roles as serfs to their Lords (namely, them). The proper term for a Progressive is actually Leftist."

    I started another thread since that thread had been pretty well derailed. But the more I thought about the comment above the more I was sure Mark was confused about his terms. Lords were the owners of property and serfs worked the property. The modern extension of lords and serfs could not be any clearer than the CEO's and the shareholders of corporations and the workers who provide the labor for the profit.

    Nothing could be more cementing of this relationship than the recent tax bill enacted at the behest of our president and his Republican majority. Max rates for corporations were nearly cut in half with no end date. Meanwhile the tax breaks for the middle class were minuscule in comparison and expire!

    The same administration has repeatedly said they would replace The ACA with a better plan and so far all they have done is tried their best to dismantle ACA and eliminate healthcare for millions of those least able to pay for it.

    The challenge approaching all economies is to keep people employed in the age of AI and computerization. Employment and pride of a good job is the key and the basis of our country.
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    1. You do not understand the taxation in this country on the corps here vs the rest of the world.
    2. The serfs are better off, and live longer in the US than most of the world which are "spread the wealth" model. This has been documented over and over again. Recent example, look over to Venezuela.
  3. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I would never press for socialism. But to not recognize the current government's push to help the rich at the expense of anybody is just plain myopic.
  4. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Two things to start with: First, one has to accept your premise that it is happening and secondly to what degree or how strong is that push? The latter issue me thinks is more relevant here.

    Comparing corporations to people certainly is relevant to a degree but it is distinctly not the same as comparing people to people as the wealthy to the poor. Nor are all for-profit corporations wealthy, profitable or successful in business--not by a long shot.

    Additionally, the government is made up of politicians that the citizens, (and then some), including the "poor" elected. Your topic and points also IMO link in part to my post in another thread that mentions the people get the government that they deserve.

    Sixty-Six percent of US Senators and forty-one percent of members of the House are millionaires. (2012 stats.) Each and every one of them voted in by citizens, (and then some), and a large percentage of the voters were poor. (Poor in more way than just economics IMO.) Trump is our first billionaire president.
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2018
  5. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    That's what we call Logical Fallacy. :)
  6. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Shiny, you are sadly misinformed about some things.

    Serfs were for all intents and purposes slaves. They worked 6 days a week until they dropped, then on Sunday went to Church (which ever one the Lord/King fancied at that moment) then practiced their Longbow skills. Most of the "benefits" they received were the food they grew and ate, and safety within the walls of the castle when Trouble came knocking. The pay (if there was any) was almost nothing. And the Lord had the option of the first night with the Bride when two serfs married.

    Today, workers are not forced to work any job and can leave whatever it at any time, plus they don't have to worry about the CEO screwing their newlywed spouse on the wedding night. I'd say we're better off today than back then.

    Second, the reason why the personal exemptions and tax cuts sunset after 5 years is because of the Democrats. There is a rule in the Senate that involves legal accounting maneuvering, the term . The Senate Dems threatened to Filibuster the tax cut bill. The only way the Republicans could get around that is this 5 year sunset.

    Now, the Congress is debating a bill to make the personal tax cuts and exemptions permanent. But you won't hear about this in any substantial form from the MSM.

    Just in case you didn't hear, the standard personal deduction (if you don't itemize) for singles jumps from $6,350 to $12,000. Married filing jointly goes from 12,700 to 24,000. Using last years numbers, this means I ought to get back about $1,100 more than I did last year in a tax refund. Considering my refund last year was $178, I don't think a raise in my return of 730% could be construed as "minuscule."
  7. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Regarding your first point, before the recent tax cut, U.S. Corporations had the highest corporate tax rate in the world. The highest in the world!

    One way, however, that US Corporations mitigated that high tax rate was stash large amounts of their monies outside the country. Given the high tax rate they faced and that it was legal to do what they were doing you could not fault them.

    With the new corporate tax rate if they continue their practice of stashing those funds overseas to avoid taxes then Congress would be irresponsible for not taking action to see that the corporations paid some substantial penalty for that. In fact, Congress should be criticized for not enacting that already along with the tax cuts.
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2018
    ethics likes this.
  8. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Agree with everything above 100%

Share This Page