I've never been in one, but I assume it exists.  Why have a 90M or 110M cap but not 70M?

A communist would want all one cap, everyone equal. 

Posted by boogerlips on 6/28/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Is there definitely a 70mil TOC?

Yes, I've sat in them for many months waiting for another team to show up. Eventually admin usually merges the $70m teams into an $80m TOC.

Likewise, the $50m TOC usually gets folded into a $60m and the $30m into the $40m (though that one still takes a few years to fill each time).

Thanks

Ok, so explain to me how the anti-communists on the site have calculated that people who SUPPORT multiple tax brackets (in other words that those making $150,000 pay more than those who make $100,000, who in turn pay more than those making $75,000 etc.) would want a single bracket for TOCs? 

Obviously what is needed instead is either separate TOCs for single season and double season progressives so they don't have to compete with the all-star teams from the OLs or some kind of handicap for lower salary cap teams that have to compete in higher level TOCs. 

But to be perfectly honest I could not care less about TOCs. They are a fake competition, totally meaningless. There is nothing above winning a world series in a baseball world in which all teams are playing by the same rules. The time and resources wasted on TOCs amazes me as it is usually totally pointless for most teams to play in them as again, most progs, those teams from lower salary caps etc. have no chance against multi-season, higher cap teams. 

Communists do support everyone who is able working, being guaranteed a job,  and contributing, enough income for everyone to live decently, no state bureaucracy of any kind since all workplaces are to be run by workers' self-management as cooperatives, turning finance into a public utility like water or electricity, at least until we can do away with money altogether thanks to the general level of productiveness of the workforce, technology and the economy, and they sujpport letting people get treated for illnesses instead of letting them die because they don't have as much money as their bosses who exploit them. Yeah awful group of people. 

Oh, and did I mention community ownership of teams. Like the Packers. Good thing they are so awful that no one would want that when they could have the team they love and cheer for as a symbol of civic pride and community feeling be treated as a mere source of profit or a tax write-off by the individual owner whose actual interest in the team or fans' well being is zilch. Not that anyone would ever wreck Brooklyn by moving the Dodgers out of town just cause there was more money to be made. 

This has been a public service announcement.  :-).     For more info see:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSDMCE_Y3YQ

Packers 'public stock' is unlike regular stock.  Shareholders get no dividends and hold no equity in the team.  Shares cannot be traded, and are not protected under securities laws.  Shareholders have no priority on seating or season tickets.  If the team is sold or moves, they get nothing.  Basically, the stock is a creative way to raise public funds: "Hey, buy this piece of paper.  It has the logo of the Packers on it."  Really, it's glorified NFL merchandise.

BL I read the "economic freedom of employers to exploit their workers without any interference or concerns for social justice" report every year. It is my job. Since it's definition of "freedom" is wholly from the point of view of investors and employers, and does ask questions like "am I free to go to the doctor if I am sick?" or "am I free to join a union to combat abuse by my boss?" or "am I free to earn the same pay as a colleague earns doing the same job regardless of gender and free of gender discrimination?" or "are we free to vote for whomever we want even if the United States and their corporations don't like us or will we be invaded, harassed, bombed etc.?" or "are the people of this country free to decide democratically on the social and economic policies they want or do they have to do what the IMF and the World Bank say they have to?" or "are members of the European Union free to democratically choose to keep their social safety nets or will the ruling investor class punish them for freeding, curing the illnesses of,  and housing their populations?" I do pretty much disregard it. 

 

I am aware that there are people who think that "freedom" means the "freedom" to hold slaves and secede from the Union, but I pretty much think that "violence" as you call it (eg the Civil War) or "patriotism" as it was better defined back in 1860-65 is a better option. 

Now please back to baseball and enough of the name-calling not to mention the pretending that one side in the debate stands for "freedom" when they mean "the market". 

You called the people at Fox Sports communists for having a $70 mil TOC, an insult to communists everywhere.