Why Should The Wealthy Be Forced To Support The Poor?
- HuntersWhittposted 12 years ago
0We've been having a really great discussion on tax rates today, and I've been noticing an underlying theme throughout the thread, so I'll just ask the "tough question" directly.
This question has three parts:
A) Should the wealthy have to pay a larger percentage in taxes in order to provide assistance for the poor?
B) Should the Government provide assistance to the poor at all, or should that be the prevue of private charities and other NGOs?
C) At what point does personal responsibility replace government assistance (i.e. work requirements for welfare, limited unemployment, etc)?
Let's here what you think HubPages.A - No.
B - If it must, then there must be some very stringent, important rules to go along with it, and it should be for minimally necessary assistance. None of this 'I can buy $860 of junk food with my food stamps card'. That's garbage.
C - Personal responsibility should be the basis of everything. Retirement should be a personal issue. Healthcare should be a personal issue. Contracts should be a personal issue.Would you still allow for emergency medical care for someone who couldn't afford it?
If someone wants to provide it? Then yes.
I don't support government theft to provide unequal benefits.
The problem is, you coddle everyone, put in place so many safety nets that they can just live down there, dependent, and then wonder what is going wrong with your country.I can agree that many hand outs from the government get mis-used. Unfortunately, this is the way our society is constructed and would be very hard to change at this point without amending a ton of laws and doing some real soul searching.
Things could be worse, we could always just cut off the poor and watch our homes, stores and lives get breached while the hungry try to find a way to survive.LucidDreams I totally agree with you. This is an interesting topic. I cannot, by any means, say that the poor in this country should just be restricted from assistance. This is not a problem created by the poor…all this is created by the beauty of capitalism. We need to look at the poorest of the poor, and feel what they feel in order to know what means to receive the "trashy" help might receive from the richest people, or taxes or federal government. What? Each social group has rotten fruits in it…Each social group; and each one of them will have certain people who play around to get the best of everything without needing.
1. The richest should, must pay more taxes because they haven't done that yet…believe it, the biggest chunk of that money does not reach the ones with real necessities. They mostly pay the ones sitting behind a desk "working" in government offices and defending the unions.
2. The government should provide for the poor and all the ones who are responsible for the creation of this social status.
3. We are all responsible for our nation in some way or another. But the reality is that not everybody who can adjust the system would necessary want to change anything. (Ex. Many talk about legal drugs are misused by patients who are not responsible; Who are the ones giving these meds without proper supervision? The doctors who market certain brands in order to make them richer). At the end, the patient is the ones getting criticized, abandoned, mistreated, misunderstood. I studied,used to work hard for a very good salary, had my office, car, penthouse, etc; now I am disabled, and only now I can feel what many others feel when I am labeled as living from the government. Living from the government is getting the leftovers. Oh! and I paid over the years my taxes, SS, medicare, disability. Look at this: I need an apartment now and the options I have are:
a. getting a descent place for $800.00, but I can't because I do not meet the minimum requirement of a 2.5 earning over the rental price.
b. getting housing support; which means going to a 3-5 years waiting list, go to a shelter or sleep on the streets while my name comes up.
c. getting a low income apartment; great idea, but as I have read, I cannot have $2,000 in savings because then I am not poor.
What the heck, I need to have something saved in case of an emergency.
See how it works?So the US has set the poverty line at $2,000. Scary
When it time for you to meet your God, how are you going to justify that answer?
Meanwhile are there some spare rooms at home? or not?
Many people have no "at home"--they don't have family members with extra space and money to support them. Or, they have family but their family blames them entirely for their situation, as some in this overall discussion would, and would not shelter them or give them handouts. With the economy being what it is, they probably can barely get by as-is.
I agree, JaxsonRaine. If the Government wants to be Dad then it will have to go to work like the rest of us. Maybe the Government needs to create a business and generate its own income... it needs some other way to make money other than depending on The Industrious. Why make slaves out of them? Why punish THEM???
Many say they would be happy to pay "their share" so, why don't they figure out how to become wealthy and help out? They could make it their goal! People of like mind could get together and create businesses for the sake of helping out their fellow man! appropriate names would be: "Utopia INC." or " Utopian Goods" or "Utopias are Us!"Well stated...I love to ask people in the "provide for us/them" camp a simple question...Where is the origin of debt between someone who earns their money and the person to whom it is to be given to without a fair trade of goods or services?
I'm sorry for disagreeing, but that makes no sense to me for a number of reasons. Children make up the majority of our homeless/poor. Would you have them repeal the child labor laws and get those infants working in factories as soon as they could turn a crank? Many of the people who receive unemployment or disability (in my instance, all that I know) do their absolute best to get back on their feet and get a good job and not be shunned by society, such as yoursel,f and, once established, they unnecessarily repay the government for the disability or unemployment they have received. Disability and unemployment have been taken out of everyone's pockets for decades--it is a system of monetary sharing in which we all participate to help people who have fallen on hard times such as the loss of a job or their health/ability to work. A few people have taken more from the system than they have put in, but not many. I, too, disrespect people who take more than they have earned fairly.
What do you say to the elderly who collect their social security checks? They have been paying into that system their whole lives just like the rest of us, do they not deserve their share now that their careers are finished? They earned that money by working and paying taxes at an earlier age in life and it is now time for them to be treated to that money without looking down upon them or without expecting, "a fair trade of goods or services"--which they have ALREADY PROVIDED. Would you have them work until death or until they can repay what they're taking, thereby charging them twice?
Social security, disability, FICA, and social security are all taken out of our paychecks each time. As we work, we pay into the systems in proportion (determined by whom I do not know or care in this particuar case).
All of these groups of people have already contributed their portion of the "fair trade of goods and services" that you describe, often decades earlier than when they receive it. If we were to take it away, where would be the fair trade, on the government's end of the agreement?" A few people have taken more from the system than they have put in, but not many."
A few people
like what 10 12?A decade or two ago a couple of English guys did some research into this and came to the conclusion that about 1-2% of the unemployed did not want to work, the rest did.
I see no reason why these figures should have changed substantially over the years.Which Country? 1 to 2% of the United States is quite a few. And what do you mean research? Did they just ask everybody who was unemployed?
Not 1-2% of the total workforce, 1-2% of the unemployed.
And it was in the UK, not that that makes any difference, 1-2% is !-2% however big or small the sample.'fraid you didn't, you actually said " 1 to 2% of the United States is quite a few."
But I accept what you meant to say though stick to my argument that 1-2% is the same whatever the size of the sample.Is that your argument? Ok, 1 to 2% of either country is more than a few is it not?
Not really, if you came upon a group of 100 people all walking down the street in an orderly fashion apart from one or two who were not, would you claim that the whole or most of the group was out of control?
On second thoughts, you probably would
You probably should have let the entire thought go, no clue what you are babbling about.
Why doesn't that surprise me!
OK, I'll take pity on you. If you have a group of 100 people, one or two of them equals one or two percent, get it?Who knows why it doesn't surprise you, is it your assertion that there are only 100 unemployed people in your country?
Then instead of prattling on about 100 people walking just answer the question. In case you forgot the question, 1 to 2% of either country is more than a few is it not?
You still never said how the research was done, you never provided a link to prove it was ever done to begin with. Thats what is discountable.
Coates and Silburn, professors at the University of Nottingham, I was a bit out with my dates though,make that four rather than two decades.
1-2% of the UNemployed in the US is a significant number of individual people, but a very teeny number in terms of statistically being significant. I've met a number of homeless people, and known quite well 6 of them, and 1-2% sounds reasonable to me for the U.S. number, especially if it is the accepted number for the UK. Perhaps I'll go try to find some census data when I get a chance.
Like Mitt Romney and the great hedge fund inside trader Steve Cohen, two examples that come quickly to mind. There are plenty more.
I'll try to find some statistics on that for you, but it will probably take awhile. I stand by my statement that " A few people have taken more from the system than they have put in, but not many." This is a very safe statement to make because you are paid only in proportion to what you contributed to the system. If you have kids, their share comes out of what you have put it. So, as far as I can tell, only if the government made a mistake and paid somebody more than they had paid in, or if identity theft occurred, only in those cases would someone get paid more than they had put it. In the case of adult dependants on others (example: grandma never worked, but she collected Grandpa's social security money because she was his dependant), I suppose you could say that that was true, also. But the system has limits built-in: unless people cheat the system, those limits protect the person from getting more than they put in.
Hasn't anybody ever read their yearly social security statement? Have you ever actually even met a homeless person beyond paying him/her for cleaning your windshield? I can't understand, knowing that the situation is the same in the urban and rural areas, as it is in the suburbs where I live.
I keep asking... do the rich OWE the poor for some reason? Like did they borrow it from them? Do they owe them interest?
It really seems like the left thinks the poor are OWED it.
Why?This reflects our Judaeo-Christian moral heritage and the results of the laws passed by our duly elected representatives.
I don't believe Christianity has anything to do with the position we are in today. As stated in Profit over People, "...the richest one-quarter of one percent of the Americans make 80% of all individual political contributions and corporations outspend labor by a margin of 10-1. Under neoliberalism this all makes sense, as elections then reflect market principles, with contributions being equated with investments....Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless."
If individuals do not look beyond what the politicians are telling us, research and share information, we are doomed. I don't see anyone up in arms over Facebook receiving over 4 million in a tax refund. I was upset over my Senator, who stood her ground for a 150 million dollar tax deduction for NASCAR. Oh My God, and we have all talked about the poor as if they were leaches, asking for food, shelter, and a job!
Why anyone would worry about the rich, is beyond me. They certainly don't worry about the poor. They lay in bed at night and try to figure out how to increase their profits. Labor is a factor in the equation, not a person.
Very simplistic answers to a very complex situation. On the surface should one segment of society foot the bill for another. No. But if the ones who gained at the expense of the other are allowed to turn their faces from the problem because they don't "feel" a need to help because they used the system to better themselves then something should be done. The wealthiest are not all grouped in this situation but many of the most vocaly opposed are. The banks, stockbrokers and manufacturers who sold out the American worker to quickly line their pockets are the ones who are the most guilty. You may make the argument that they were smart and took the risk so therefore they should reap the rewards. But were they really smarter by buying politicians to promote their favorable laws governing their industries and what risk was involved in obtaining that?
No is too simple an answer and without any dialog to find a compromise the two sides in this debate will still polarize the solutions resolution.I reject the notion than someone gained at the expense of another, there are no longer slaves in America, if you work you are paid what you agreed to be paid at the time of employment. The banks buying politicians is a different matter.
You have that choice to reject what has become more and more evident as we move into this world mainstream. The simple fact is that we manufacture very little of our everyday products and have done so for many years. Globalization has been at the forefront of the political scene for over twenty years since NAFTA was enacted by Bill Clinton and congress. George "W" and even Obama have all added to the coutries we now trade at very relaxed tariffs. The American worker has been thrown into working at much lower wage jobs with little or no benefits and the poverty levels are rising. Is it that there are no hard working indivduals out there who rise to the occassion? No, but the opportunities are shrinking and the people at the top are gaining incredible wealth from it all. It is essentially a race to the bottom for the American worker. How low can it go?
Look at 2008 when the great reccession somewhat officially began. The banks failed, the government bailed them out and the foreclosures ensured that they would be getting our properties in return for their over zealous lending practices. Their sizes have swelled till now we really can't let them fail. In the meantime the market has rebounded at a staggering rate and the economy creeps along while it adjusts to the (some say doesn't exist) inflation.
Blanket rejection of the idea is not an argument but the reality is there if you just embrace it.Then you are deluding yourself if you think that nobody gains at the expense of somebody else. Nobody would ever set up in business if they didn't think they were going to make money.
As for being paid what you agreed to, ever heard of Hobson's choice?No haven't heard of it don't care to either. Move along, nothing to see.
Ah, isn't it great to go through life dreaming of how it should be and totally ignoring how it is?
Instead of fighting against unfairness why don't you create something you think is fair for you and do it?
Have done mate. That doesn't mean that I turn my back on everybody else.
Then share your secret with the poor downtrodden or are you greedy?
It's no secret, I've never made any secret of it!
It basically involves not getting caught up in the great capitalist endeavour to make all capitalists rich at the expense of people who have been deluded into thinking that they too are capitalists!Oh, must be quite the following, how did I miss your new economic system?
You haven't, you just ridicule it at every opportunity.
That's an unfair and quite childish response, and from an anonymous source, no less.
John, If you know people who are enslaved and not being compensated for thier labor at an agreed upon wage, then you should contact the authorities immediately. Explain to the police that you have discovered a slave trade in your town (or wherever) and you want them to be freed.
With respect, what a silly answer! The authorities are fully aware and complacent. The police (in the UK), have been since 1983 actively involved in forcing people back to work.
Mitch, people aren't "enslaved" in the classic fashion, they are simply salaried employees who are gradually given more and more work to do, requiring more and more hours without increase in pay (and often decrecase). When brought to court, nothing comes of it because the jury members are all in the same boat the plaintiff is in and are not sympathetic.
John, I'd like to hear about Hobson's choice... If you are willing to explain it.
Actually, it isn't true that the wealthy support the poor. Not at all. If all of us are taxed according to our earnings, those taxes pay for more than just programs for the poor. Those taxes pay subsidies to some of the wealthiest US corporations. Here's an example of why the wealthy do not support the poor. In 2001, billions of tax dollars were doled out to hire and create jobs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2004 reported only 1% who took that funding hire or created jobs. The 99% used that tax funding for high risk investments or to pay off venture capital debts. In 2005, the GAO reported that a single tax cut of 2004 earned an 11% increase in wealth for 1% in the upper income levels. Then, in 2008 and 2009, 2 more tax cuts were issued. Are we to believe that the taxes the Middle Class pay didn't contribute more to the loss of revenue caused by 3 tax cuts that benefitted the 1% more than the 99%? The wealthiest Americans do not always earn their wealth without help from employees who do the work that earns the profits, from consumers who buy goods and services and from taxpayers who make up the losses when businesses take advantage of numerous tax cuts and subsidies. In 2012, the US taxpayers paid over $150 billion to businesses in tax subsidies. CEOs do not need to earn billions in their race to become trillionaires. If you earn your wealth honestly and without any help, more power to you. If not, your wealth creates an obligation to reciprocate to those who help your wealth grow.
Who paid those taxes that the government spent on corporations?
Was it the people who got $5000 in free money for filing taxes?
Or was it the people who actually paid taxes?I know of no one who manages not to fill out a W-9 form to declare their tax status on the first day of hire. At present, the Dept. of Labor has the same 8 million unemployed as it reported in December 2008. These people paid state and federal unemployment taxes via their payroll deductions. Should they not get what they paid for?
Businesses also get $5,000 cut in taxes for every new hire they retain for 18 months. Businesses also get a tax cut for locating in municipalities. CEOs get tax breaks on their capital gains which at present is 15% and should be far higher. Do some research...A family of four on welfare lives on $12,000 a year. One US prisoner in our prison systems costs $26,000 a year. So..you are wrong about the wealthy only paying for the poor. They also pay taxes to keep prisons functioning. Should we allow the prisoners to be released to save the wealthy a few hundred thousand in taxes a year when they are earning billions?When an employee is hired there are three forms the employer is required to provide. The first is the W-9 form. This is the form that is an IRS Request for Taxpayer Identification and Certification. The form basically tells the IRS your SS#, the number of exemptions for withholding and the number of dependents you are claiming. This information then allows you to receive your W-2 (Tax withholding record of your payroll tax deductions) at the end of January of every year. The other 2 are your company's business policy manual and your healthcare (HMO) policy (if the company offers healthcare benefits). Employees should also receive a formal 401K policy guide as well as follow-up data when it becomes available. For those who are self-employed or hired as 1099 employees, the hiring source will provide a completed 1099 form at the end of employment or by January 31st of each year.
policy (if the company offers healthcare benefits). Employees should also receive a formal 401K policy guide as well as follow-up data when it becomes available. For those who are self-employed or hired as 1099 employees, the hiring source will provide a completed 1099 form at the end of employment or by January 31st of each year. sàn gỗ tự nhiên
You bring up an interesting point employers today want employees to forget. An employer who hires you has a legal and binding contract to the hired employee to provide work at a living wage. Somehow, over the last decade, employers have managed to gain an upper hand and it became an "employers' market" where employers could easily play bait and switch with hired employees. In the past, these employers were labeled "schlock" outfits and employees knew it wasn't a job that would in any way beneficial to their careers or their paychecks. At present, employers today are holding employees hostage to pay for benefits these employers advertise as "employer paid" to bait new hires and then they switch the game rules and stack the cards against the employees by announcing on the first day on the job "Oh by the way, you'll be paying a monthly premium for your healthcare and oh by the way, "you pay for your own 401K ..sorry the company makes NO match for your 401K contributions." This isn't the way for employers to earn their wealth. When it's easier to rip off employees than it is to rip off taxpayers for more tax cuts and subsidies, this requires a serious change in labor laws.
Please, show me where this legal, binding contract to provide a 'living wage' comes from.
Try the IRS, the US Dept. of Labor, the Dept. of Commerce and a "living wage" refers to employers providing minimum wage as required by state and federal law. Were you planning a return to pre-Civil War free slave labor that was the source of plantation owners wealth?
Sorry to disagree Ewent, but a minimum wage is rarely if ever a living wage.
It usually requires topping up by the taxpayer - another subsidy to big business.Sure it is. Any kid just starting out and without the work skills to get a decent job can live on minimum wage. Put 3 or 4 in together as roomies, eliminate luxuries such as satellite TV, expensive phones and high dollar cars and they'll do OK. Not good, but OK.
It's also good for seniors on SS - the added income can make a huge difference in the life of someone that doesn't want a high stress, 40 hour week.
After all, that's what it is for - those beginning in the job market that don't have the skills yet to earn them that "living" wage. If a person waits until they're 35 or 40 and THEN enters the world of work without skills, well, I'm sorry but their work isn't worth any more. Being middle aged doesn't automatically convey salable skills.Fine if the minimum wage was restricted to kids starting out and seniors - it isn't.
In this country the kids staring out get an even lower minimum wage!
In reality the minimum wage is paid to as many people as the employer thinks he can get away with, irrespective of age.So you think that if the cost of living in a state is too high, young people and the elderly should pick up and move from state to state till they find a state where the cost of living meets their low salaries? I'm far past middle age and I still receive job offers. Most of today's younger generation are living with parents until they are 40. Then, they marry and have kids.
Excellent comment, wilderness. Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, but a beginning wage for new people in the job market with no or minimal work experience.
No adult by the age of 30 should be working for minimum wage. That is 11 to 12 years of time to get some education and work skills after high school.
John Holden...I didn't intend to imply anyone can live on $12,000. We both know that's certainly poverty level wages. I agree with you. Paying those kinds of wages puts huge tax breaks into businesses. Few employers I know or have been employeed by ever lived in ghettos or drove jalopies.
The few employers that I have known haven't even skipped a step when their businesses have folded, not one single change to their lifestyle!
Ewent, Could you define "living wage"? A business should decide what it's employees get paid for the work required AND people should decide whether they will/can work for those wages. It's really quite simple.
And, isn't it the prospective employees PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY to ask questions concerning wages, insurance etc? If you don't ask, then don't be surprised when you're surprised.
I agree that No One gains at the expense of another. We are free and there is no longer slavery of any kind in America. Of course, some do not live here, in this country and do not realize this fact, I guess.
?
We live in the land of free choice.
Don't like any of the jobs available?
Create your own! (Even if it means a cash only system to begin with. I agree we pretty much have to go back to the roots and foundations of money making, due to over regulation of commerce, business and now the expectation that employees must pay their workers insurance. I know many business owners who have to shut down due to this particular government mandate and unjust intrusion.)
But, there are always ways to serve and help our fellows!Yes, Kathryn, I agree: there are many ways to serve and help our fellows. For example, someone could start from scratch a car washing business by working the first 5 years on a popular street corner washing windshields for tips, living in shelters at night. Or, they could get a very small loan to set up a regular car wash on a busy street corner and actually have a chance of going back to an apartment of their own in which they can eat dinner they prepared themselves from food they could afford to buy themselves.
Kathryn, I missed this the first time through your post, "No One gains at the expense of another. We are free and there is no longer slavery of any kind in America" I'm sorry, but you are seriously mistaken and misinformed if you believe this is the case. I'm not sure what ivory tower you live in, but it is a fairy tale and not representative of real life in the majority of the USA (I've visited and done business in about 40-45 of the 50 states, so my comment is based on personal observation and painful experiences). Besides, we are a capitalist/democratic country: by definition whomsoever builds the best mousetrap wins and all competitors suffer or drop out of business. Yes, absolutely some people succeed at the expense of others: that's the definition of our economy.
Laura,
My middle name is Laura. I think it is a beautiful name. Why do you have to say things like "I don't know what Ivory tower you live in..." It hurts my feelings (which is ridiculous since I do not know you) and makes me dislike you. You have no Idea about my life and what I say does not reflect it. You seem angry and taking it out on strangers. We are just discussing and sharing view points. I would never say something like that to you...Unless of course you want tit for tat... I can do that very well... just let me know!
My view point is still valid even in the light of what you say! Don't like your job find another one... you even agreed with that! There is no slavery! We are all free Americans... It is legal fact. it cannot be argued. if people feel forced to stay in their jobs, I feel sorry for them, but it is self imposed!Many apologies, Kathryn, my anger for several certain companies was misdirected at you, and I did not mean to make this personal in any way. I should stop writing when I get angry like that, but I tend to get caught up in the moment. It is a failing on my part, and I sincerely apologize for hurting your feelings. (Your full name is beautiful--your parents named you well and must be very proud that they raised an intelligent, assertive--not aggressive--daughter who can hold a conversation like this without getting personally angry as I did..)
Besides, with my angry blinders on, I think I missed a key point in your argument. You said just now, "There is no slavery! We are all free Americans." I'm still not sure I agree with the fact that all Americans are free and not slaves, but I will accept that as a fact that is supposed to exist by law, regardless of practice.
I realized that what I was thinking about was people who were non-Americans working in America either illegally, such as Mexicans who snuck across the border to find work, or people who are here on work visas. In white-collar jobs, I have worked with both sorts of people, though more with people here on visas. For example, I know of one employer who paid a double-PhD visa scientist just above minimum wage to do a $6+ figure sort of job and then, upon finding out that this foreign employee's spouse was also a high-level scientist with 3 PhDs from good schools, he told the employee was that the company would no longer support his/her status here in the United States unless both husband and wife came to work for them--for free, no increased salary, no separate work visa, no separate paycheck, etc. They faced execution back in their home country should they ever return, because of their scientific knowledge, therefore the two both worked for almost no wages for a tyrant who threatened many times to fire one or both of them if they didn't do such-and-such, and reminded them what would happen if either of them was deported and sent back "home". That company had numerous employees there on work visas and used that status as a way of forcing them to do high-level work for something a grocery clerk would find unacceptably low: they could do whatever the company demanded for whatever wages the company imposed, or be sent back to their home countries to death or imprisonment due to political or religious differences or simply due to them being an escaped member of an ousted royal family who would be killed simply because of his/her blood lines. About 25-35% of this company's workforce consisted of these poor people, who understood about as little as I do about the visa and asylum processes in the US. Is this slavery? According to Merriam-Webster, a slave is "1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another 2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence 3: a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another 4: drudge, toiler" and slavery is, "1: drudgery, toil 2: submission to a dominating influence 3a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding." In both cases, the second definition seems to fit the examples I am talking about well. I also know people who, due to threat of death or severe bodily injury, are held in their positions. And then there is "white slavery": "enforced prostitution." I only know two people who escaped white slavery relatively intact. I know of one person whose spouse literally held a loaded gun to that person's head and told them what would happen should they leave their job and/or not change to a different one. To me, these situations are "forced" and examples of "slavery" in the U.S., and the definitions of slave and slavery tend to support that: if one's "choice" is death or to remain employed (under-employed in most every case, I would assume), I do not consider such cases to be a "choice", but "forced" i.e. slavery. Also you hear on the news about the conditions in the garment industries, primarily involving foreigners.
Would you agree that very serious death threats such as those constitute forced labor or slavery in the US? If not, what is your definition of slavery?(Thanks for the very nice compliment on my name. I have always had problems with my parents, so it was very touching to me. Also,
I am from a time of great peace and prosperity. Maybe I live with rose colored glasses more than in an ivory tower, for I have also known (mostly self imposed) hard times... I lived in a fixer upper for a year without electricity raising my two year old while relying on kerosine lanterns in very rainy Ft. Bragg Ca., alone. I had to chop my own firewood etc. My transportation was an old truck that would mostly not start. etc.)
The fact is that some people utilize loop holes or a gray areas and are evil enough to take advantage of them.
To isolate the difficulty :
We are supposed to have a moral nation. Democracies will not work without solid morals. Greed and power is at the root of all of our current problems and throughout history, this has been the case. In America the opportunities are so great that more power and greed occur on a greater scale... affecting a greater number of people.
But, As Jaxon Raine said, we have to keep our freedom. We must keep our freedom while, at the same time, attack these issues. We need to pinpoint where each injustice is and introduce legislation or more policing where ever needed! To tax the rich is not the solution because we need to give them the incentives to do what they do which is provide economic opportunities for others. When they take advantage and (as you have explained) enslave others they need to be held accountable. There are laws are already in place which should be called upon to address all these issues. if not, can we do anything about it? We have to! (without taxing the rich)... through catching them breaking the rules... If they are stretching the rules this too must be addressed. But, we must maintain the spirit of economic freedom.
It is really horrible that these things are occurring in the land of America. But many things are occurring today that I am sure have never occurred in the past. I am sorry you have had to witness these things. They must be dealt with!
More and more often, though, a person is NOT being paid for the work they agreed to do when they were hired. Suddenly a 40-hour-a-week, $50,000 becomes an 60-80-hour-a-week job for $30,000. And you can email me privately offline if you think that never happens in real life, because it does, again and again, and in my 20+ years of experience more often than not. In profession after profession, that is becoming the norm rather than the exception in the middle class.
Did the government contribute to this? How. I am sure it did but you can explain it better than me because you are willing to see this in the light of reality. I do not want to believe it because I like the idea that we (citizens) are still in control of things.
No?Rest assured, I don't believe the government contributed to this, except perhaps in its failure to enforce white-collar laws regarding work hours and break times and days off. I think the answer is that white-collar, salaried people need to stand up for themselves, unionize if necessary and strike if necessary. At the moment, we're all just pretending that this is normal and putting up with it, thereby making the richest people that much richer.
Maybe we need legislation to prevent this.
I am forced to disagree with you again on this same point: despite what is "agreed to" at the time a person is hired, more and more often they are required to work longer hours and for less pay than when they started with the company, else they lose their job. I don't know or care to argue what the tax or other legalities are, I'm just telling you that that's what's happening to more and more people I know across the USA, and it is definitely happening here in my city (Minneapolis/St. Paul), which I can say from personal experiences.
Ok. but it is self imposed. they could just as easily gather up all their stuff, and turn it in... and leave with or without giving two weeks notice! And if more people would get up and leave, the company might think twice before they pull all their unfair actions. (There should be laws against this unjust practice of changing everything, in all actuality. Aren't there?) Can't they find another company to work for, in another state or another country even?
The banks, stockbrokers and manufacturers who sold out the American worker to quickly line their pockets are the ones who are the most guilty. You may make the argument that they were smart and took the risk so therefore they should reap the rewards. (Rhansom)
They didn't actually take any risks. They gambled and won loads of money in the good times, and then passed their debts to the public when they got themselves into self-inflicted trouble. They are now trying to rebuild the bubble for another round of make believe.-not to mention the government benefits by bailing them out.
I totally agree. Most of the business policies are antagonistic towards the workers, or laborers and are solely aimed at wringing the maximum possible benefit out of them, while sprucing up their veil of being benevolent in nature. Equality is becoming UTOPIAN nowadays..
"Most of the business policies are antagonistic towards the workers, or laborers and are solely aimed at wringing the maximum possible benefit out of them"
If you swap the terms "workers or laborers" with "business" you get a statement that is just as true.
Business is seldom interested in paying one dime more that it has to and labor isn't interested in providing anything beyond minimum work for maximum pay and benefits. If the two can't learn to work together to make a company profitable for both there isn't going to be much change.
The government needs money from corporations to keep running. Where else is the government going to make its money? It can't keep borrowing from China.. it needs money from somewhere! You really think the money will go to the needy???
The quick fix of just going deeper into someones elses bank account to bail out the poor is flawed as it is the proverbial robbing Peter to pay Paul. All you do is make the taker flush again while making the one being taken poorer. Poorer being a relative term and not literal.
The Corporations enjoy using whatever labor in whatever country they please to be able to bring the product back into this country cleansed of the unions and regulationary restraints we have here. They charge whatever they want as they have effectively run the domestic competition out of business in the process. Americans buy cheaper and cheaper because they are being paid less and less in this scenario. We are told that competition will bring the best products for the best price to the consummer but as we are finding out the products are becoming lower in quality every year with the price rising nonetheless.
We need to have domestic manufacturing that pays a decent wage where we can afford to buy domestically made products and get the cycle back on course. Anything else is a race to the bottom where we can't afford anything because we have no jobs or work. And putting people back to work is a far better scenario than just taking somebody elses money and giving it to them.
A) Yes.
B) Yes.
C) The moment the government lifts all restrictions on how a person can earn their living. You can't have it both ways.Can you expand a little on the lifting all restrictions part? What, if anything, would you preclude?
All restrictions. You can't tell a guy he cannot slaughter a cow in his front garden, and at the same time tell him he gets no welfare.
How many Government Inc restrictions are there in place?
Can you drive a car without insurance and having paid Government Inc Taxes?
How much tax is on a gallon of gas?
Can I grow my own marijuana and sell it?
I could go on - but - all the time there are as many restrictions to earning money as there are - we are going to have to accept that we need to support part of the population.
Make sense? Can't have it both ways. Income taxes and welfare go together.
I would be more concerned with the government pig troughs if I were you.
"A) Yes. B) Yes. C) The moment the government lifts all restrictions on how a person can earn their living. You can't have it both ways." I agree with Mark. That's part of being in a society, like it or not. If you don't like it, then move to a government-free country like Somalia.
As long as you have a system that demands that some are unemployed and some are impoverished it is basic humanity to say that those who are profiting the most from this unemployment and poverty should do the most to lessen the effects of it.
Oh yes, capitalism forces people to be unemployed and impoverished...
...
whatever, maybe you'll learn to love freedom someday(freedom means freedom, not force, so there's always sad things happening).Yeah, wonderful freedom to worry about where your babies next meal is to come from, how you will pay your heating bill . . .
Why do those who don't even live in this country decide to throw in their two cents? What's in it for them, I wonder?
I throw in my two cents worth because I am a socialist and a part of the international brotherhood of man.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."-not making sense to me.
Why the inability to speak for Oneself, ever?
That's the solution: Each of us need to speak for OurSelves here, now and always.A fine sentiment, unfortunately many can not be heard.
Then they should stop associating with the deaf.
Ah, is that why the rich are rich - they're deaf?
Capitalism is an economic and political system based on private ownership of capital goods and the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit. When that profit becomes a source of greed and power, that is indeed bad news. What is the check on that?
Lucid Dreams can answer that question.Then why the need to keep putting me down?
It has become a source of power and greed, that is what this thread is all about, with some of the participants arguing that power and greed are right!- no one agrees that power and greed are right. But this is a moral issue. How can we get the banks and the corporations to care about individuals???????
One way is the get the government out of the way so that we can get back to creating business services and products... then people can stop working for them (corporations and greedy tyrannical rich bossmen. I know a guy who hates his corporate job. HATES how it is run and how he is treated. If he could find another job he would leave there tomorrow! )
If I were President I would tell everyone to stop buying Chinese products. I would make a conscious effort to bring back manufacturing jobs. I would instill a sense of national duty and care... Keep really strict guard over our borders. And make sure all the congressmen and senators relax on the weekends.
Unfortunately the government has been complicit with big business right up to the crash in 2007. The overseers and regulators did not have a clue of what was going on with the credit swaps and hedge funds and it was like the wild west. Everyman for himself. The competition was fierce. That is what happens when government gets out of the way and free enterprise is allowed to seek its own equalibrium. I am sorry but your solution is more of the same bad policy that has put this economy on its' knees.
Kathryn, how would getting the government out of the way reduce the power and greed of the corporations?
Agreed we need less government, but the government that I would do away with is that sector of government that quickly bails out the banks and corporations at the expense of the taxpayer.
In my argument for some government let me relate an ongoing case in the UK. A company was found to be operating a blacklist of building workers who had raised health and safety issues - care about peoples lives being put at risk and forfeit the right to work!
The only people with the authority and backing to prosecute the company are the government. With no government there would be no control over such blacklists.My badly transitioned ideas... I did not mean the government should get out of the way of corporations. No. Sorry. I guess there are laws and the crooked should go to jail. Law. not government. And for gosh sakes, I agree that bail outs are bad!
The less regard and goodwill for mankind (in general) and our neighbors, (specifically,) the less check on greed. Sigh... without some sort of moral code and a sense of humanitarian values...
there are no checks.
Perhaps we need to start there... on ground level.
So, keep the government out of it.
It is not their issue to deal with.Keep the government out if it. Do you agree with that, John? No. You want the government to help the poor. I want the family members to help the poor... or the concerned community.
Giving the Fed the power and responsibility to distribute wealth is the tricky part. (Wealth being what individuals have e a r n e d for themselves... even if some of them are corporations.)
Do you, John, get that? It is why we fought so hard against the tyranny of King George III...
Remember? LOLSo you'd do away with the tyranny of George III and replace it with the tyranny of the corporations?
-corporations have become a force to reckon with. It is a problem for the people who work for them.
But the reality is, that if you find the corporation unjust and horrible to work for you really don' t have to work for the corporation in question.
I mean. What is bad is that the government is not allowing, fostering or really even concerning itself with a percolating economy!
I am advocating a percolating economy with joy, good will, love of life and the love of doing it ourselves!
motivation depends on freedom.
Forcing is taboo.
John,
I found some interesting quotes. I thought you might find them interesting. I sure did.
Adolf Hitler said:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
Joseph Goebbels said:
"As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods."Without trying to impugn your motives or call into question your reasons for thinking these quotes "interesting," I feel obliged to point out the illogical absurdity of these quotes as a counter argument in the defense of capitalism or a valid point in the condemnation of socialism.
First of all, Hitler was a pathological bigot, and though the Nazis called themselves the party of "National Socialism," they were, in fact more accurately right-wing dogmatists who argued for a nationalist recasting of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and liberal capitalism.
The quotes of a couple of psychopaths aren't really very interesting and certainly not salient to a rational debate about capitalism or a society's obligations to it's people.
If you'd care to elaborate on why you think these quotes are so interesting, I most certainly would welcome it.Yes, Hitler was purely evil. On that, we can agree. Yes, he was a psychopathic butcher, a massive racist. He also claimed to be a socialist, and he described his reasons why he was a socialist.
There are many who would debate that Hitler was very leftist in many of his ideas. Yes, I fully understand that is not the typical belief. There is an argument, and it has been made by many people who possess the knowledge and education to make that good argument. A simple Google search will reveal some interesting results.
I'm just quoting the man, Hitler. He not only claimed he was a socialist, he specifically gave examples why. The problem is that his examples tend to match what many socialists believe to be true. One can claim that he wasn't a socialist, that he merely called himself a socialist. I could buy that if it weren't for these additional statements. ". . . we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." This clearly demonstrates an understanding of what many would deem modern socialism. Thus, the quote can't be completely discounted. Further, you try to discount the quote, because of the source. When the source is discussing his own beliefs, that's about as primary a source as possible. Hitler's own words, about himself, give a clear picture of what his beliefs were better than some Wikipedia interpretation. Hitler wasn't shy about speaking his mind, and he wasn't really known for being politically correct. His credibility, regarding his own views, should be considered pretty solid. Historians value primary sources the most. Hitler's quote and clear description of why he was a socialist can't be discounted as easily as you would like.
What is my motive? My motive is to undermine the socialist agenda to whatever minimal extent this may achieve, clearly. Yes, I have a bias. I am a conservative who despises socialism. Don't we all have an agenda on this site?Listen, I think it's great that you can admit your bias because many people with a conservative perspective can't or won't. And yes, everyone has their bias and opinions on society and culture.
However, if you admit that Hitler was a psychopath and a pathological liar, then anything he said about anything is a crock because his thoughts and his words were corroded by his actions. Moreover, it is no different with regards to any villainous leader —past or present—so nothing they say or have said is worthy ammunition in a debate on capitalism or socialism.
I'm struggling to stay as objective and rational as I can and you seem not to care about objectivity. It's obvious that you have convinced yourself that all of the ideas in socialism are evil, and all the ideas in capitalism are good. I don't live in an either/or mindset so I have to take issue with your thinking.
There are such things as capitalism gone amuck and greed and corruption destroying civilizations.
All I know is that ideology and words are always trumped by actions when it comes to history and debate. In all candor, with your bias and your examples you are on very thin ice in this debate. Sorry, I don't mean to offend, I just want to express my opinion too.You haven't offended me. I understand your opinions and respect them.
Are you a socialist? You seem overly perturbed by the quotes or by the fact that I have posted them in this forum.
I didn't say everything behind socialism is evil. I said Hitler was evil. I don't consider the philosophy behind socialism to be evil. I don't even consider socialism to be evil. I consider it to be wrong.
Because Hitler was a psychopath, you want to discount his credibility. When he spoke of Jewish people and how he wanted "purification" of the Aryan race, should we have ignored him because he was a psychopath and thus had no credibility? To discount everything he said, because he was evil, is absurd. He clearly delineated his views. Again, Hitler was a primary source when it comes to Hitler. When it came to war strategy, Hitler concealed many thoughts and ideas. When it came to ideology, Hitler was an open book.
As for objectivity, you're the one who wants to quickly ignore Hitler's comments and accept a conventional view of him, because you say he was a psychopath and thus held no credibility. I'm trying to be objective enough to discuss the quotes.
Best wishes.As I have said countless times, ignore his words and look closely at his actions.
John Holden, you seem to be the only one seeing my point here. How exasperating it is to point to something and have the viewer dwell on your finger. Why bother?
Or maybe you're the only one seeing my point
Hail fellow traveller.Hail and farewell; I have better things to do than arguing with closed-minded dogmatists who are blind to objective facts and reasoning. But I wish you well!
"Closed-minded" appears to mean that we or I don't agree, so you simply want to say we or I aren't objective.
Well you certainly don't strike me as open-minded, especially with some of your comments here. I could easily see the futility of trying to get you to appreciate that every ideology and language is a system of ideas that have limitations—no matter which ideology you chose to identify with. Conservatism, Liberalism. Capitalism and Socialism all have some wonderful ideals , but more to the point, they have some significant limitations as well—chiefly when it comes to flawed human beings subjectively interpreting them to suit their own selfish interests and desires.
Nothing in your responses, (which are filled with speculation and musings based on the quotes of a madman) are relevent to the topic here regarding the wealthy and the poor.
And finally (I hope), I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me. It's tedious when you totally disregard all points of argumentation while assuming that others have any interest in your preoccupation with Hitler and your own ideology.Ha! Last week, another person claimed I was infatuated with Thomas Jefferson. I've slipped so much in one week, from Jefferson to Hitler! I have absolutely no preoccupation with Hitler; I find him repugnant. You presume too much.
I never once said that I believed any one system was perfect. Please provide ANY comment where I said that one system is perfect, either from this forum or any other.
My original "speculation" was to post two quotes that I said I found interesting. How was that speculation? While I might consider it a musing, I never once, in any of my posts, said that Hitler was a socialist, only that HE said he was one and that he described what he believed. I've even stated, to John, that I would research Hitler's monetary policy, because I am not familiar with it. How am I preoccupied with Hitler when I don't even know about his monetary policy?
Please correct me if I am wrong. You are likely a socialist who didn't like the fact that Hitler made some comments that coincide with your views. Right? Thus, you tried to completely discount the quote by saying Hitler was a Psychopath. I find that argument very weak. John, on the other hand, simply stated that Hitler may have said he was a socialist, but his policies didn't mirror a socialist's policies. Sorry, I buy John's argument more."The lady doth protest too much, methinks . . . "
I see you did not provide any quote. I did not say what you claimed. I see you did not answer my question.
Yes, I protest against people who fabricate quotes. Most of us here find it repugnant when we are purposefully misquoted or when somebody completely fabricates a quote.First of all, I've made no fabrications, and I didn't respond because nonsense should be discounted and ignored. Nor should you expect other people to address your questions when you refuse to speak to theirs. Your views are distorted by your own admitted bias, and your projected notions about my ideology (which you somehow need to presume is Socialist) is false. Labels may be convenient for feeling secure in one's own beliefs about others, but labels are always limiting and superficial. My only agenda is to share points of view and have informative discussions with people who are open to intelligent thought.
First, you never have answered the question I have asked repeatedly. Where, in any of my posts, did I say that there is a perfect system? You never have answered that question, because you can't provide any quote that shows this really is one of my beliefs; It is not one of my beliefs. You fabricated this, just as you fabricated my "preoccupation" with Hitler in an effort to imply something negative.
You say that my views of socialism are "distorted." Please tell me what my views are. I haven't expressed ANY views about socialism in this forum. I really haven't even spoken about socialism, within this forum. All I have said is that I am opposed to socialism, Hitler claimed to be a socialist, you can't discount historical quotes based on a psychosis, and I need to research Hitler's monetary policies before making my decision as to whether or not I personally believe that he was a socialist. Please name one "belief" that I have expressed regarding socialism. You are fabricating reality.
Please tell me what label I have used. I haven't used a single label. I didn't even say Hitler was a socialist, only that HE said he was one. Again, you are fabricating reality.
Plenty of people address my questions. Honestly, I have no problem finding places to debate. However, I do not enjoy debating when people make up quotes and claim I said something I did not say.
What we need is some fact checkers here on the HubPages forums, people who are willing to go back and look through the transcripts. So many of us, on all sides of the political spectrum, have had somebody purposefully misquote us in an effort to win a debate or smear our names.
Frankly, this thread is pointless; I'm tired of defending against total fiction.
We all see the points you are trying to make. John appears to be the only one who agrees.
John,
That's a better argument than ignore him, because he was a psychopath. Still, I'd have to know what his monetary policies were before I discounted the quote. I know a lot about his social policies and his war tactics, but I'll have to do a little research and get back to you.
Best wishes.Here's a starting point -
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htmHere's another one:
You might even like what it says about Britain.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1143131/postsNot written as a fair assessment of Hitler but as a condemnation of socialism!
Riddled with misinformation.
You must have had plenty of time to look into Hitler's financial policies by now.
I've worked a 60-hour week, so that hasn't really happened.
To be fair and honest, I did find some additional Hitler quotes where he was trashing socialism. Thus, he wasn't consistent with his statements about whether or not he was for or against it. The one consistency I found, as you might expect, is that he was extreme in his praise or criticism of socialism.
I'll look into his monetary policies and let you know what I find, but first, I have to get my head above water at work.Eek, sorry! My sympathies.
I'm in the process of moving so pretty busy too.
Pay attention to what Hitler did, not what he said.
And yet wages went down considerably under Hitler's rule. He supported the capitalist system giving far more power to the bosses than ever before and he bowed down to wealth and property.
Germans of the 1930s can be forgiven for believing Hitler, what is your excuse having seen the full impact of his policies?
Hitler's purge of the Jews was based on his belief that the Jews were Marxists.
Again, do you really favour propaganda over facts?
How do the wealthy make money? Who buys all of these products and services anyway? If you kill the ability of medium income and yes., poor people, you will lose a substantial amount of consumers who buy products and drive the economy. The solution is not as easy as just shutting down the system which supports those in financial need. Believe it or not, poor people are amongst the biggest purchasers of electronics and such. Think of Apple, imagine how much their stock would take a nose dive if poor people stopped buying their products. How big of a percentage is that? Do you know? My point is, each part of the economy plays a vital role. It's not as easy as saying "stop supplementing the poor"!
Social services and big business go hand in hand. You may not like giving poor people hand outs which might be mis-used, but the alternative of shutting down the well will be far worse.Jaxon, ever heard of business cycles, recessions, depressions?
Who is profiting from unemployment and poverty?
The employers basically. I could go on to add, and the bankers, and all capitalists generally.
Have a look at how unemployment is used to control wages and inflation, then come back and ask the same question if you still don't understand.
A) The wealthy should pay more because they have far more advantage of our infrastructure and should pay more to maintain said infrastructure
B)Yes, the government should have programs that allow the poor to climb from the ditch to the middle or higher and have the American Dream, otherwise we could have just stayed in England and been strapped to the station of life inwhich we were born...however, these systems do need tighter regulations
C) I am sick of this responsibility phrase being used in a way to look down your nose on those born into poverty. It is all of our responsibility to enhance this country, to provide education and opportunity, and to make sure NOBODY that lives in this great country ever goes to bed hungry!Actually, by the looks of things you would have been marginally better off if you'd stayed in England.
How do the wealthy have "far more advantage of our infrastructure"?
How many trucks does Walmart put out on the roads from the docks where the goods are imported to their stores? My guess is hundreds of thousands tearing up roads, tunnels and bridges every day of every year. How many US government owned railroads cart these goods across the country when truck transit isn't available? How many millions of US utilities do these stores use that deplete our natural resources?
It isn't just a matter a wealthy using our infrastructure for their huge corporations from which their wealth largely emanates. It's also the huge drain on government services for these wealthier individuals.They pay tax, lots of it, for their use of roads or other services. They pay FAR more taxes than poor people do, so in fact they are SUPPORTING the infrastructure more than anyone else.
Janon...NO. They don't. I'll prove it. When a Walmart moved into my town, they were tax rated at $11 a square foot. Small business a fraction of the size of the Walmart were taxed at a rate of $17 a sq. ft. This doesn't count the discount Walmart received for using the town's water supply, fire and emergency services and local police. The Waltons pay minimum wage to their workers, offer no benefits and they get huge tax cuts from the federal government. Do your research. You obviously have no idea what is involved in taxation.
Yeah, I'm totally ignorant when it comes to taxes...
Walmart is going to pay far more in dollars and percentages than the vast majority. They are not being supported by anyone, especially not the poor.
The poor CANNOT be supporting anyone, because they just don't pay taxes.Please try and convince me of poor old Walmarts tax burden being too much. The WALTON FAMILY MAKES $11,000.00 AN HOUR 24/7, 365 DAYS A YEAR AND IT IS INCREASING AS WE WRITE! That computes to over $137,000,000 a year. I feel so bad for them. All the while driving the small business' in the areas out of business selling their cheap crap.
Did you know that the poor pay sales tax, car registration tax, default on loan tax, unemployment benefit tax, welfare taxes etc........ just like everyone else. Because they cannot support themselves adequately does not mean they don't pay any taxes.Jaxon ...Yes...I do see the ignorance. So let's start at the beginning. The Waltons' began a business. They are widely known for hiring part-time workers and very low wages with no benefits. Do you deny this? So when a business only hires part-time workers at low salaries, do they lose profit?
You can keep telling yourself Walmart is not profiting immensely from paying low wages to their workers but it doesn't change the reputation Walmart has earned by becoming billionaires by exploiting people they know are either too young and ignorant of labor laws or too old to make a living from a lifetime of payments to Social Security and Medicare. For your information, anyone earning $12,000 a year pays both federal and state income taxes. $12,000 is the current threshhold for the requirement of paying taxes. Walmart IS supported by anyone who buys the imported junk they sell. Walmart buys its good from China. Chinese workers earn $11 a month and work 18 hour days. That's not employment. That's a prison sentence some rich Americans are drooling over to have workers in the US tolerate. Most of us are far too educated to be unable to know how to put a stop to the greed. The vast majority of Americans as you seem wont to imply are not poor. Nor do they intend to allow the wealthy to force that upon them. The only poor in the US who pay ZERO taxes are the homeless. Mostly because they have no address and no one will hire anyone who has not known address.I repeat- the poor do pay taxes! if they work -they pay!
Do you not have sales taxes and the like? Everybody who buys pays tax, working or not.
Ewent, So, based on your local tax rates paid on the sq/ft space of a business with Walmart paying $11 per and smaller businesses paying $17 per, you are saying that Walmart doesn't pay more in taxes. First, if the Walmart has 100,000 sq/ft (probably much more) and the small business has 7,500 sq/ft, then Walmart pays $1,100,000 and the small business pays $127,500. Walmart clearly pays more taxes. Now, if you want to agrue percentage, then that's a different story, but they also pay more overall taxes including the taxes on the increased number of employees. Furthermore, those figures probably represent lease per sq/ft prices and not the tax paid on those premises, as no business pays those figures in sq/ft taxes...
With all respect, Hunters, you need to be better with your questions.
A) Should the wealthy have to pay a larger percentage in taxes in order to provide assistance for the poor?
***If taxing is to be retained as the main source of governing money flow, then the idea needs a few tweeks to even be near functional. First, all BS aside...literally...No shelters, no credits, no laundering...it costs to live, period. Second, All states, on the same page & all taxing across-the-board, based in gross income. Third, a yearly Citizen Tax of 10% per person, irregardless of age, is sufficient...along with a 5% other-than-food Sales Tax...these funds should be an abundance of capital for a banking system to manage well the numbers. If not, then it would be obvious that the job was not being done by the right people, yes?
B) Should the Government provide assistance to the poor at all, or should that be the prevue of private charities and other NGOs?
***First, let's define the purpose of Government: 'The Hub of Human Mgmt.'...good def., yes? If the job was being done correctly, there would be no need of charities or NGOs. Let's go back to ?A...if such was the case, there would be little 'need', except by those who chose to behold the define of 'needy'...Even free-will allows for its extremists, yes?
C) At what point does personal responsibility replace government assistance (i.e. work requirements for welfare, limited unemployment, etc)?
***Wise Governance is not created to 'assist', but rather to 'guide/lead/manage'. Can't be repeated enough...If the job was being done effectively, the present need of assistance would not be a 'norm', now would it?
As far as Personal Responsibility: There are only 2 types of humans being on this planet...Those with brains, and those with brains that use them. The latter take all responsibility as personal...We are simply in a time of sorting this out.
Nice to See the conversations here...Good question, HW!A) No, I feel that being forced to have others live at your expense is a form of servitude.
I feel progressive taxation in general, violates the founding principles of self - government and equal protection under the law and is in violation of the US Constitution.
B) If the government gets involved at all in assisting the poor, it should be done at the local level as the Constitution dictates and where there is greater accountability. The vast majority of assistance should be done by individual citizens and charitable organizations, in keeping with the principles of self- government and limited government.
C) This is hard to pinpoint and why those providing assistance should have a substantial knowledge of those requesting assistance.Servitude is the unfortunate people who need a job and will work for minimum wage...(not enough to support yourself) to make large corporations wealthy. Could they pay more....yes....will they...no
Good for the folks who start these companies and put in the time and resources to build great businesses. Shame on them for not looking out for employees and then looking down on people who are poor. The same poor that work for them in order for them to be wealthy!Actually, that is part of the problem. Some of the wealthiest states in the US are wealthy as a result of a higher return on the dollar they pay in federal taxes. So you get states like Alaska who pays $1 in federal taxes for a return of $1.72 while a state like New York pays their $1 and gets a 62 cent return. There's a reason why these wealthier states get this kind of return. They insist their state taxes are low. Sure they are. Other states are supporting these states by getting back a lower ROI for the taxes they pay. These states refuse to touch their state tax revenues and end up depleting federal tax revenues looking for handouts their state taxes should pay for.
Perfect reason to stop sending money, that is not for funding those few things specifically enumerated in the Constitution, up to Washington. Your argument works better to argue against a bloated federal bureaucracy that to argue for more taxes on anyone.
Let's see, the wealthiest 400 have more wealth then the bottom 150 million. Mainly because of corporate welfare that all of us pay. If you don't see something wrong with that then you must be one of the 400 or you bought their BS.
Who pays what corporate welfare?
Also, the fact that Americans are so quick to put themselves into debt on their car, home, and credit cards has a LOT to do with the total wealth that the bottom half has. There are a lot of people, even people making 250k+, who have $0 net wealth, or negative.
If the working poor have to pay taxes why shouldn't the rich? A single guy with about 12k income has to pay a few hundred. A single edlerly person has to pay a few hundred in taxes when the income was less than 3k(only 1500 after deductions) and 5 k in social security.
Whats fair for one should be fair for all!Yes, those who Invest their money (which has already been taxed) are being taxed (again) at a lower rate.
This, however, is an incentive to invest.
Consider the fact of the matter: When these industrious and productive people invest in a working business or create a new business, they contribute to the amount of jobs and employees (taxpayers) in the land.
Q. Why should they be double or triple taxed??? ( Especially considering they already payed taxes on the original money they made, in the first place.)
Also consider when someone dies there is the death tax which takes 55% again... (after the person who died already paid taxes on what he did not spend during his life!)
Talk about double dipping times two or more!I'm not really sure I understand your point. What in the world ever gave you the impression that the "rich" don't pay taxes?
This idea that somehow the wealthy aren't paying their "fair share" is as insulting as it is misinformed. The top 25% of wage earners in this country pay for 80% of this country, yet it's easy, politically, to vilify them because we have a "one man, one vote" system and, as a voting block, they only represent a small percentage of registered voters. No politician has ever lost by attacking the wealthy.
As for your "single guy with about 12k income", under the 2012 Tax bracket, he would have paid an effective tax rate of just over 11%, or $1,365. However the standard deduction for a single individual for 2012 was $5,950. Just something to think about, the next time you're getting all "Marxed" up and want to bash the wealthy.
SourceAnd how much of the countries wealth does that top 25% hold?
As long as it's obtained legally, what difference would it make?
Any one would think you did not know who writes the laws.
Assuming that your clever, albeit cryptic, implication is that the rich write the laws, why would they pay taxes at all? If they're really in charge, stacking the odds in their favor, then why would they have the offshore accounts in the Caymans, or Switzerland? Why would they need to spend millions a year on Tax Attorneys and Accountants, why not simply legislate away all the ambiguity in the tax code and save themselves the trouble, and money.
The genuinely wealthy do not pay any taxes. Having it openly legal would cause an uproar, don't you think?
But you think they are not "in charge?And here all this time I thought you were a reasonable and intelligent individual... imagine my surprise.
A big difference, if that 25% held 85% of the countries wealth that would be proof enough that they weren't paying their fair share.
How would that be proof that they're not paying their fair share? They pay what's required by the current tax codes, and they take the deductions they're entitled to, just like everyone else does.
Who writes the current tax codes? Not the poor, that's for sure.
What was that? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of you spending over $60 million a year on the Royal Family.
How about you guys get your own house in order "comrade", before you start spouting off on the plight of the American worker.It's all in the word "comrade" I'm an internationalist, not a nationalist!
A) The won't and never will so its a moot point
B) YesA) I would say yes. The wealthy who make a million dollars or more each year should have to pay 10 % in taxes across the board. No loopholes that the poor get. Those who are in the $500,000 range and higher should have to pay 8% and no one should pay more than 5 % for anyone making below $500,000. There is already taxes for gas, clothes and liquor. Do you feel taxed to death yet?
B) The only assistance government should provide is for the people like in Storm Sandy or Newtown. All americans should have access to private and government health care. The cost of living grows and with the folks who are undereducated don't stand a chance! Maybe some laws should be in place to train the under educated in exchange for any support that they need to get back on their feet.
C) Personal responsibility can only go so far. Then I see how a 14 yr old girl who knows nothing about farming. She gets her grandmother to help her buy some chickens to raise and she sells the eggs! This young girl helped to save their family of three. It was a very smart idea and thank goodness she will keep a roof over her families heads. When the global warming begins to get worse. This is when the government should of stepped in with regulations. Governement can't be *the end all be all" to the human race. The funds need to be there to build, create jobs. The skills are needed with proper programs and training. The rest is up to the individual.
Thank you for letting me share my five cents. inflation you know?If everyone with the means to really do something substantial about the poor insists on adhering to a system no one asked to be born into, then vast swaths of peripheries worldwide must be reclaimed for the common heritage of all life, human or not. The system obviously does not work for the poor; to the poor the system could be a bad idea so why should they be forced to adhere to it? The free natural abundance that existed in these swaths of land prior to the rise of this system must be restored. Whatever infrastructure and housing that remains in these lands must be left to be maintained by those who choose to live there with local materials as they see fit. Furthermore, the poor must be taught to survive in these lands; the people of pre-colonized nature based cultures were proficient in every skill necessary to their ways of life, most in the modern world are only adept at one or a handful. It only makes sense that since the modern world removed these traits from humans, the modern world should restore them. People must be allowed to choose not to play the money game.
If there is to be a system at all, it should work for the people, not the other way around. There is a system that has done this. It's called nature and whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not, we are a part of this system.Or we could live like Native Americans used to... in teepees, huts or cliffs. We could trade shells, and decorative arts, and kill game and cook it over communal fires. And the women could spend their days making reed baskets, and cleaning the game their husbands manage to kill. Children would run free and become extremely intelligent without having to read or write. The bother of school would be eliminated and all that goes with it, immunizations, indoctrinations, bullies, school shootings, grades, pharmaceuticals, teachers molesting students, mothers working outside the home... hmmm maybe he is right.
Those who chose to live there would not have to live in tee-pees or huts. There is much more know-how now than there was then. Surely there are those among the poor who know how to build houses. They could organize and teach the rest. Certainly there would be some house building specialists who would decide to forfeit the rat race too. (People from all professions and walks of life would defect from this system in droves if given the option.) People can repurpose the remnants of the housing projects, slums and dumpy houses on postage stamp lots; they can incorporate local materials into their designs. They should also be free to mine the landfills for materials. Have you ever heard of an earthship? The cities could then turn these once bad neighborhoods into golf courses or dog parks. With all the money businesses will save on paying janitors and burger flippers they could buy self cleaning toilets and automate fast food chains. Seriously, no one really wants to do these things anyway. They do them because if they do not, they would starve or be forced into welfare, charity or crime.
All I am saying is if people decide they do not want to participate in this ancient idea they should not have to. If the poor are such a burden, teaching them to take care of their selves and giving them the means to do would unencumber system.But the poor aren't really a burden they are an essential part of the capitalist system - a constant threat to those who might express dissatisfaction with their lot, "Look you aren't as badly off as him"
Well, what if the conservationists take over all beautiful natural areas, and charge us to go in to it... In the name of environmental protection.
“What if the point of life has nothing to do with the creation of an ever-expanding region of control? What if the point is not to keep at bay all those people, beings, objects and emotions that we so needlessly fear? What if the point instead is to let go of that control? What if the point of life, the primary reason for existence, is to lie naked with your lover in a shady grove of trees? What if the point is to taste each other's sweat and feel the delicate pressure of finger on chest, thigh on thigh, lip on cheek? What if the point is to stop, then, in your slow movements together, and listen to the birdsong, to watch the dragonflies hover, to look at your lover's face, then up at the undersides of leaves moving together in the breeze? What if the point is to invite these others into your movement, to bring trees, wind, grass, dragonflies into your family and in so doing abandon any attempt to control them? What if the point all along has been to get along, to relate, to experience things on their own terms? What if the point is to feel joy when joyous, love when loving, anger when angry, thoughtful when full of thought? What if the point from the beginning has been to simply be?” ~ Derrick Jensen
no! I agree. Sorry it took so long to find this. If you do not roll your eyes neither do I! Some one told me that the UN article 21 would absolutely eventually take this kind of control over us. I know it sounds like ridiculous conspiracy theory.
But can the one world government push lead us to this?
We have to fight the ones on the internet who would have us buy into BS. I hate to sound trite, but only the truth will keep us free.
Should supporting the poor or illegal immigrants be voluntarily by taxpayers?
I mean; at least it should be considered! In very society, some people are not motivated to succeed.
Citizens should be afforded the option to designate taxable income to the poor or illegals immigrants--instead of being forced to pay and allow our
politicians to decide who can them to get elected at the expense of taxpayers.In reply only to your original, simple question, "Why Should The Wealthy Be Forced To Support The Poor?" I say, because the poor are being forced to support the wealthy. We are approaching a flashpoint with this divided nation of super-rich and super-poor, where neither side can relate to the other nor can they think for themselves beyond what they hear. No good can come of this growing divide. We are not a "super power" like we used to be if people are freezing to death in the streets or dying for want of a bottle of antibiotics. Mr. Lincoln has seen much from his Memorial in D.C. at the end of the reflecting pool. His eyes are hollow and he almost weeps for the U.S.A. he gave his life to hand down to our generation. We should be ashamed to even ask such questions.
-poetry like this is hard to handle. What is your concrete solution to the great divide?
I don't have one, other than people who know about such things and have the power to make the right decisions should make the right decisions--the hard decisions. To quote Spiderman (stop laughing), "With great power comes great responsibility." An economy like we're in only came about because those with great power did not use their responsibility honestly and justly and fairly. Somehow they need to make the hard decisions to undo their messes, and hopefully things will return to stability.
The basic question here is this: "Why Should The Wealthy Be Forced To Support The Poor?"
There are five main reasons.
Reason #1: National stability, a hungry man is a dangerous man, and when things get tough desperate people turn to dangerous political radicalism for help, that is the cause of movements that ended disastrously be it from the French Revolution, the rise of the Nazi movement and the Khmer Rouge. It's in EVERYONE'S best interest to prevent such conditions, the tragedy is many are too short sighted to realize. One should also note that the wealthy have a strong element of self preservation in this situation most radical movements driven by hunger are not kind to the rich.
Reason #2: Ties into the first in that a hungry man is a dangerous man, poverty and desperation foster crime and violence and those things damage the economy and are harmful all around it's in everyone's best interest to reduce it.
Reason #3: Patriotic sacrifice and belief in democracy, taxation is the sacrifice that one makes for his country from his personal wealth to aid his country, patriots pay it willingly, they do so not as a gift or because it's the law but because it is a duty and a debt for the protection and aid this nation and it's sons offer, in our democratic system the voter decides the course of the country and if the voter in his wisdom decides that the poor should be supported then it is the duty of those who can afford to to sacrifice for that decision.
Reason #4: Poor people without help statistically by and large stay poor, poorly educated and do not contribute as much to the economy, helping them allows for much faster growth and is beneficial to the nation's economy, I might add particularly beneficial to the wealthy, it's the rise of the poor from peasants to more educated and participatory that has made the technological and scientific advances we see possible and in turn their entrepreneurial wealth.
Reason #5: Because it is the right thing to do and thus the law, democratic societies dictate by law what conduct is legal and illegal by it's accepted moral guide, in the same way that failing to come to the assistance of a sinking ship is a crime in maritime law failing to aid the needy when one can afford to is a crime under tax law.
There is a reason every first world nation in the world has figured this one out, welfare is what has made our relative stability possible. The self interested and short sighted just have not caught up yet.Social Contract Theory. Interdependence - that is how society rolls and progresses.
A. I believe the wealthy should pay their share of taxes and not contiuously pass it on to the middle class. The uber wealthy people always try to find loopoles not to pay their rightful taxes and it's gone on for way too long. And will continue to go on until something changes.
B.the government should help out with the poor only if they truly can't help themselves. If they truly are disabled physically or mentally otherwise they should get their butts off the couch and get a job whether it's at a gas station or a waiter or whatever. It really does irk me to no end that some people live off the system and don't even try, when other hard working people hold down 2 or 3 jobs to stay ahead and pay bills and pay taxes that provide for these moochers. But i do beileive for vetrans and people who truly are disabled that they should be provided for. But their should definitely be more policing of welfare and people just living off the system. That's just not right.
C.Yes one should be responsible for themselves but when they can't there should be a plan for that.
In a dream case senerio everyone would have skills that could help them live and exist and thrive until their end. The middle class shouldn't have to pay for the wealthy and visa versa. Everyone should have a sense of self worth and have certain standard of morals and values. But they don't and that's why we are where we are. The extreme wealthy and poor and a struggling hard working middle class just trying to make it by the skin of their teeth. It's a very sad situation indeed. I don't know the answer. Good questions and dialog. Thanks!What is 'their share'?
If the wealthiest pay 24%, and half of Americans pay 2%, are the wealthiest not paying their share?If the wealthiest possess more than 24% of the countries wealth then no, they are not paying their share.
That's the problem some of the wealthiest don't pay their percentage (coorporate loopoles, oil companies etc....) then the middle class end up paying way more than 2% and some of the uber wealthy pay $0.
24% is the average of the top 1%. Yes, some pay less. Some pay more too. The average is 24%.
The bottom 50% of Americans pay under 2%. Some pay more, some pay less. The average is 2%.
Are the ones paying 24% not paying their fair share?
For all the talk about loopholes, I rarely find anyone able to point out examples. Do you think that large corporations aren't paying any taxes? I'll be happy to show you just how much they are actually paying.Would you agree that Starbucks is a large corporation?
For many years they have avoided paying corporation tax in the UK. If you doubt it, google it.I know nothing about the UK tax code, and I honestly don't care about it.
If there's a problem, fix it. In the US, people talk about 'loopholes' and 'tax shelters' all the time, but they have no actual data to support what they are saying. They can't explain how those loopholes or shelters are supposed to work, or give examples.
Do some dodgy things happen? I'm sure they do, but those who group the wealthy and corporations together into these evil tax-avoiding conglomerates are really no better than illuminati conspiracy theorists.Er, not much point in dodging taxes if you aren't wealthy or a corporation is there?
Also, care to show me examples of people who pay 0%?
it's common sense that if you make more you pay more ,if you make less you pay less. but it doesn't work that way.
Hi Guys,
I always find these questions interesting. It assumes that each of us is an island, unconnected to the main... Now, don't get me wrong. I was raised as a rugged individualist in a State that has a honey bee (One of the only places where real communism is found and practiced on our planet) and the slogan "industry" stamped on it's State Flag.
So the real question should be: How can we provide the greates good to the greatest number of both groups of producers, and consumers?
The problem I find with the "Rich" is that there really are two categories of them: There are those who don't have, or beleive in the maximum utilization of everyone in a population, and those that do. In a perfect world, those that see unused potential in population as being evil, or even criminal would be the leading elite. But sadly what we have seen is the opting out of these people of the economy, and the hoarding of resources such that what passes for Capitalism in our society begins to look more like Mercantilism, which of course led to where we are today.
It seems apparent that those asking the three questions simply do not understand the problem enough to see the big picture. To demonstrate, if you ask this group what is the gravest threat to humanity is well let's hear them respond.Before I read anyone's response I will give mine.
The questions are:
A) Should the wealthy have to pay a larger percentage in taxes in order to provide assistance for the poor?
B) Should the Government provide assistance to the poor at all, or should that be the prevue of private charities and other NGOs? [b][What are NGOs?]
C) At what point does personal responsibility replace government assistance (i.e. work requirements for welfare, limited unemployment, etc)?[/b] ... but I believe all 3 questions are answered in my one reply.
As the Zeroverse -- {commonly called universe} -- is designed man deviate from our true nature of living parallel to the rest of the self-reproducing environment for the purpose of recognizing every trait we have within ourselves. The different personalities we see in others we will incarnate to perform them for imprinting them on our lifeforces which, once our earthen time is over, we will be able to use any one alone or them all altogether.
Some of those personalities make us selfish, feel superior to others of our and other species and wanting to control others, to name a few of the traits. It's our being in those states which require us to be civilized -- interdependent man on other man -- and also makes us dependent on things such as money, heat processed foods and clothes, become beings of habit rather than knowledge as our specie's name, man, means -- mind able to comprehend all things[/b] -- .and easily controlled by others.
If greed wasn't a personality there would not be rich and poor but since we have it we should look at the land's Supreme Law, the Constitution, to see what it say. In Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1 reads in part "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States and concerning income taxes Amendment 16 in part reads to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived. When we combine those 2 phrases they suggest all taxes from whatever source, income, property or whatever, to be taxed they should be the same.
When a nation such as this one deliberately disallow some people from earning the same as others, be it because of ethnic, gender, religion, fraternity or sorority, when the Constitution's Preamble reads in part "in Order to form a more perfect Union ... promote the general Welfare ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" the government should take steps to see that there are no discrepancies in earnings. However, the people who are lazy and unwilling to put forth the effort to provide for themselves and the nation should be required to fend for themselves like the other animals and not live civilized.Hi Natureboy, et al.
Pretty cruel, Yule. "let the bastards freeze in the dark" would be a pretty tough analogy to the on-going conversation,but President Truman did it during a coal strike, and guess what, he got pretty quick agreement between management and labor.
So there are some things we can do to mitigate the harsh effects of 'Natural Selection. Civilization, as we have come to understanding it, is all about limiting the effects of Natural Selection. The fact that we are asking the question means that two and a half thousand years on we still are talking about Sparta and Athens.
So beyond the arguements of just who should, or should not be granted immunity from natural selection; death and taxes, assumes that human beings somehow can make themselves immune from the effects of 'Natural Selection'
So once again, I'll ask what is the biggest threat to our human existance, or to put it another way: Life as we know it, doesn't necessarily have go on.
As of now, All the people of Planet Earth, are all still subject to Natural Selection because, as of this moment, we could not protect ourselves from a natural mutant strain of some rapidly moving disease, man-made or otherwise, or from other effects of nature.
Within two months according to some projections, only a tiny fraction of our Human species might survive a bilogical calamity, by the sheer accident of genetic mutation. So that is one route to extinction. Disease.
Another route to extiinction, of course, is assuming, as we always seem to do, that future generations will conquer the common cold, fix Social Security and do all of those other necessary things of the Preamble of our Constitution.
Somehow, I think reality belies all of that. Right now, IF we saw it coming, two or three years into the future, we could not defend ourselves from an intermideiate sized asteroid several times larger than the Aseroid Apophis. We simply could not get out quick enough, and far enough to deflect it from a collision course with earth.
All of Hollywood's psychology conditioning aside, at present, and for the foreseeable future, we realy don't have a Planetary Defence System built or deloyed as of yet.
I would suggest that our species wojuld be better served if our conversation was about how we could protect ourselves from this type of 'natural selection' . An 'natural selection event' where Nature shrugs, and starts out again trying to evolve a species that is truely smarter than the Dinosaurs, and Homo not so Sapiens.
If one wishes to ask the important questions, one must understand the so called 'givens' in a situation. One 'given' is that Astronomers have observed an Asteroid out there that does have a collision course with earth that will be an Extinction Level Event. they have made the calculations over and over again with the same result. Impact. It's the kind of event that creates a 'remodeled' ill-shapened earth.
Does it make sense putting off building and deploying a Planetary Defence System because we don't know who will pay for it?
1. Why should the wealthy be allowed to underpay workers and overcharge products?
2. Why should the wealthy be allowed to get wealthy at all? Many of the stuides indicate that they're not cleverer, just less honest. http://www.cracked.com/article_18777_5- … -suck.html and http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-2 … -find.html
3. The Libertarian view is completely out of touch with reality. Human beings are a social species and have always relied on each other. http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/ … -cold.html
4. The rich do not work harder. They just cheat more and they tend to be luckier. That's about all there is to it. http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/do- … ork-harder
5. Besides the rich are NOT paying for the people that don't work. They are contributing to society, of which they are a part, and to which they have a social obligation because they're just as human as the next guy. The fact that they are rich does not mean that they are excluded from the social contract. When people are in trouble, people help each other .
6. In my opinion, the only reason rich people don't want to pay taxes and the onlyr reason they won't pay a living wage is because they're sociopaths - not because they work harder, but because they take advantage of people who aren't sociopaths.
7. Only the uninformed buy into the myth that the rich are rich because they did something remarkable or work harder, etc. Every bit of research indicates that this is NOT so.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-ri … op-saying/
http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_b … nyway.html
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02 … finds?liteLet's just talk about that point. You said that the rich already over-charge for products. How much should a company with 10,000 workers pay them? Let's say the average worker is being paid $13/hr, how much should that worker get paid? 2000 hours a year times 10,000 workers = $20 million to increase the wage of every employee by $1/hr.
So, should a company with 10,000 workers who earn $13/hr and has $2 million a year in profit raise its 'overcharged' prices?
The wealthy have always exploited the poor.They should be taxed at the highest rate.Ordinary people should not have to rely on charity.
Exploited them, by creating products and services they want, giving them money in exchange for work, etc?
These last two posts are quite debatable.
Lets force the poor to work and for others to give them jobs. That would solve everything.
What... you don't believe in
Mandatory
work and employment expectations??
Well, I don't believe in Mandatory funding of the poor by taxing the wealthy.... just because they are wealthy...
-as though they are ALL guilty of something or they for some reason OWE it to the poor. They do not.
Instead, we need to change the conditions which allow the illegal acquisition of wealth and implement policies within the system which would check greed. And voters need to identify and vote out career politicians.
Repeating: Forcing is Taboo. The business of the wealthy are needed for jobs, products, and investments that lead to more jobs, and products. It is the unchecked greed which must be stopped.
Also, You people are being fooled. 78 cents of every dollar goes to bureaucracies, the rest goes to those in temporary or permanent need.
I personally do not receive any benefits but I know several people that cant find work no matter how hard they try. I dont mind paying tax as I am just happy to have a job. There is nothing wrong with getting help from the government. That is why we pay taxes! How else do we get free healthcare in the UK? Anyone that believes everyone on benefits is somehow a scrounger had better look in the mirror. It could be any of us one day so stop complaining about paying your dues. You might rely on it one day.
TrevorWell said!! Thank you, Trevor, Voice of Reason!
A) The Rich currently pay a lower tax rate - It is an undisputed fact that the rich currently pay a lower, not higher tax rate than the middle class. Warren Buffet acknowledges that he pays a lower tax rate than his personal secretary. In fact, we currently have the lowest tax rates for the rich in 30-60 years depending on the organization and the measurements used to define tax rates. And because the super wealthy make so much money that they can never spend, they hoard it in off-shore bank accounts - to the tune of 14 Trillion US Dollars sent off-shore accounts to evade taxes, a figure that is more than our national deficit. There is no "Trickle down" effect from these funds stashed in Switzerland, the Caymens etc.
B) Our paychecks fund many so-called entitlement programs for good reason - Food stamp recipients receive debit cars that only pay for items deemed to be foods stamp eligible; these products are limited to foods that have nutritional value as deemed by the FDA.
Regarding Social Security and Medicare payments, which the Republicans are eager to cut, these are currently funded by US workers paychecks. Money from your paycheck is earmarked specifically for each program. And each program is fully funded via the specific payroll tax. It is an insurance fund that all working Americans pay into, and expect to receive benefits from when that need arises for them. This is not an entitlement, anymore than receiving health insurance benefits from the health insurance company you pay premiums to or a pension plan that you contribute to. The real entitlements recipients are the military industrial complex and politicians.
Every industrial national provides healthcare and a safety net to their population. We become a third world nation when we allow children to starve in regional famines, victims of hurricanes to remain without heat and power in the winter, because congress can not agree to provide national disaster relief... I see the Republicans dragging this nation down with a lowered credit rating etc.. by refusing to do the hard work of compromise. That is what they get paid well to do - and they receive life long pensions and healthcare that the rest of the nation is denied.If I might be so bold - which home insurance companies refused to pay for a new heating system to replace one damaged by a hurricane?
According to the New York Times, as of January 21st, 2013, 300 homes in Staten Island alone were still without power or heat 3 months after the hurricane. Of the 2400 homes on the city's Rapid Repair program, 600 homes had not even been touched yet. In Long Beach, 40% of the residents are unable to return to their homes as they are water damaged and molding and no repairs have been made to those homes.Many of those that have returned to Long Beach still rely on community food banks for their meals as their kitchens are still out of order...
No. No no no. No. Absolutely not. The rich pay the highest tax rates, bar none.
In any income bracket, there are variances. Just as poor people are allowed to deduct certain expenses, so are wealthy people.
The top 1% of earners pay 24% federal income tax. The middle class pays around 15%. It's a fact, cannot be disputed(unless you want to claim that the IRS lies in its reporting, and unless you want to claim that math is invalid in dealing with the rich).Jaxson, I worked for an attorney, within an investment co. You really don't have any idea how the rich can afford to hire an accountant who can work out a tax code that brings a rich persons taxes down. Open a co. and then open another co. Before your tax month ends you pay your other co. a large fee for services, or supplies. You are simply transferring your money from one of your companies to another. When it's time to do your taxes for the other company, you transfer the money back. You can have a failed business that shows no income for 5 years, before you close the doors and open a new business under a new name. I had an accounting class, two to be exact... if you'd like to talk about criminal intent... let's talk about what the CPA''s job really entails. Many incorporated business' come from a Maine because the states requirements are less than any other state.
Jaxson, did you see Facebook filed their taxes, earned 1 billion, and received over 4 million, in their refund.
You're correct. As I recall, Romney's federal tax rate was 13.9 percent on $1.9 million income. Hedge fund operators have the most unjustifiable loophole--carried interest which gets them the capital gains rate on what would be ordinary income for anybody else.
You don't believe some of the loopholes are set up by design?
Show us the links to your sources of 'those facts that are not to be disputed', Jaxson, and then we'll stop disputing them. (I owe you guys some links, too. Sorry about that, I've been really busy lately.)
Your question assumes the issue is with individuals. IMHO a better question is why is there a poor? What is it about the current financial system that results in some having lots, others having nothing, even though there are enough resources to meet the needs of everyone? What is it about the current system that forces most people to sell their labour to the highest bidder? What is it about the current system that makes debt inevitable?
By focussing on individuals you are playing into the hands of a privileged few who are more than happy for us to be divided. That division distracts us from asking the real questions: Does the current system work? Is there another way to live which is more beneficial to human beings?Thank You Don W! If we really want to solve these problems, shouldn’t we be questioning the system which facilitated their fruition in the first place? The system is not a force of nature; it’s only an idea. Just because it works for some does not mean it can work for everyone. I understand why people defend it, they think their lives depend on it, but it’s really only their lifestyle that might be at stake. Is all the comfort and convenience worth all the suffering it perpetuates? Is it ethical? Is it wise?
A few answers, on the simplistic side. The system sees us selling our labor to the highest bidder because that's how we've set it up. The alternative is a commune based society, with the fruits of labor being put into a pile for everyone to grab from, but that doesn't work at all. We're all selfish and want the highest price for whatever it is we're selling - we're not willing to give it away to Bob for $1 when Bill is eager to gives us $2 for it.
Debt is only inevitable when we want more than we can afford, or want it right [/i]now[/i] instead of a few years. Tone down the greed, lose the debt.
While small communities have successfully used other systems (primarily communes) they don't work for larger groups. So no, no one has ever figured out to convince Bob that although he is willing to work harder and produce twice as much as Bill he should only receive the compensation that Bill does. Nothing is free, everything requires effort and work, and people are not equal somehow in their ability or willingness to put out that effort or even have the same levels of effort produce the same amount. Bill wants "equality" in what he has with Bob, but Bob certainly doesn't agree and that will never change. Nor should it; communism does not work.
Well crap, the poorer folks have been busting their asses to make the rich richer!
Well crap, I thought they were just trying to make their own way in life!
Ha!?
What sort of Ha! Would that be?
Never mind I think I know it's a socialist Ha! Isn't it........."Never mind I think I know it's a socialist Ha! Isn't it........."
Which translates into "I don't know exactly what the word "socialist" actually means.I know exactly what it means Paul, it means unworkable, that's why its never been taken up by any country as its politics via the electorate.
Because a civilized country should not let people die of starvation, exposure or preventable disease.
I still don't know what you mean by that.
Really? It took me a second but I did get it. Think about it and you will too.
I must have stopped watching that thread.
I still don't get it. People can't just sit by the side of the road and eat berries if they lose all their money and have no place to live.Why not? It won't be a problem for long, they'll soon die! <sarcasm>
They will if they just sit around and do nothing.
Get a job! I have never known any person who was unable to get a job doing something to support themselves, ever.
And for a moment I believed you when you said you understood.
How do they get a job when there are no jobs available?Much less a job that can support a family. Jobs are being replaced by machines. Go into a manufacturing plant and what do you see? Less people and more machines doing the work that people worked at for 20 years and retired from! Ma and Pa stores that "Used" to employ many have been replaced by online sales machines eliminating those jobs! So I like "John Holden" ask the same question? What jobs?
There are always jobs available for those who really want one.
And new types of jobs. We can get creative!
Some of the most notorious wealthy men no longer have jobs and likely won't leave their prison cells long enough to be hired legally ever again..Madoff, Kozlowski, Ebbers, the Enron Boys...need more? The prisons are full of wealthy men who "worked hard for their wealth."
Google is your friend!
"The Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, serves two purposes. First, it is used by third parties to collect identifying information to help file information returns with the IRS.[10] It requests the name, address, and taxpayer identification information of a taxpayer (in the form of a Social Security Number or Employer Identification Number). The form is never actually sent to the IRS, but is maintained by the person who files the information return for verification purposes. The information on the Form W-9 and the payment made are reported on a Form 1099.[11] The second purpose is to help the payee avoid backup withholding. The payer must collect withholding taxes on certain reportable payments for the IRS. However, if the payee certifies on the W-9 they are not subject to backup withholding they generally receive the full payment due them from the payer.[10] This is similar to the withholding exemptions certifications found on Form W-4 for employees."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_tax_forms#W-9
It's definitely time for you to expand your circle of friends and acquaintences if you (capitallization is mine) "have never known ANY person who was UNABLE to get a job doing SOMETHING to support THEMSELVES, EVER." Not only are people facing a lack of jobs--any jobs let alone suitable ones--they are facing hiring discrimination--especially coming off a period of unemployment. Many people have to support multiple people who are too young (babies, children) or too infirm (the elderly or the disabled) to support themselves. Unless you're proposing child labor, of course: that would solve part of your logical dilemma--though I'm not suggesting you are, of course.
My wife, upon being laid off several years ago, went back to school and learned a new trade. When she could not find work within a couple of months of the end of school, she began to apply for any job at all. Wally World greeter, for instance.
After over a year of filing a minimum of 2 job apps every single day she finally gave up. Her efforts had generated exactly one interview; a headhunter outfit wanting to fill their list, but having no jobs available in any field. Having no white collar skills, being female and being over 55 pretty much shuts the door on job opportunities.That's very true. I've worked nearly 10 years in the field of unemployment compensation, and I've met very few who would not prefer to be working and who have become discouraged at the difficulty they've encountered in searching for a job.
Totally agree. So many people make so many excuses regarding their dire socioeconomic situation instead of getting a job and do better for themselves and families. They'd rather have HANDOUTS!
Well...let's see now...This year the handouts to which you refer totaled $50 billion to Big Businesses in the US. I'm sick of the liars of the right always demonizing the Middle Class when they are the biggest freeloaders today. How many gentlemen farmers live on multi-billion incomes and then get tax cuts because they sell 5 bales of hay and claim they are farmers? You want to talk phonies? How about the fact that the righties lie through their expensive dental work about how much the 1% pays in income taxes compared to anyone in the Middle Class? McRomney admits to paying 16%...but the actual amount is 18.5% according to the IRS. Handouts? YOu must be speaking of the handouts to Alaskans $1200 for every man, woman and child living in that Big Oil State. For the $1 they pay in federal taxes? They are Number one in ROI...$1.72. Texas is 2nd at $1.67. KY is 3rd at $1.57...Porker states always live off the blue states. It's why NJ, NY, CT, PA, MA, RI, VT and NH all get back 61 to 65 cents in ROI for the dollar they pay in federal taxes. Enough with your right wing Handout ...Time for you to man up...Two Americans Buffet and Gates earned in one year what 120 million Americans of the low to middle income classes earned en masse. You got an explanation for that one? You want them to find jobs? Then tell your corporate cronies to stop shifting jobs to India, Mexico, Thailand and China. 72% of Steel imported here comes from China....it was that 72% that the US steel companies formerly produced here. And, no the corporate taxes in the US are not higher than the rest of the world. That's the free marketer greedhead excuse...It's actually lower by .7% than Europe or other developed countries of the world. So..you want them to get a job? At McDonald"s? Part-time which the DOL would tell you is all that are hiring and gee...I can't imagine why. Can you? No healthcare benefits to pay for part-timers and forget retirements. Go sell your right wing BS to someone naive enough to buy it.
A true Conservative would be against a federal welfare state and corporate bailouts. I am on of those. The argument isn't between Dems and Repubs, as for the most part, the majority of the main parties only argue over which can run the corporatist model, not whether it should exist in the first place. As to the jobs issue...If you can't find work, then you find a way to meet a need in the workforce and start your own business or work multiple jobs. I lost a 6 figure job at the beginning of this year (2013) and have done any and everything to try to make ends meet. I am behind on bills etc, but am determined to get back to where I was. I will not take money that was confiscated, by force, from someone else who earned it. That is not charity. I have not taken any charity at this point, because i know there are those worse off than me and my family.
Overbearing taxation, regulations and artificial minimum wages (which I've written about) are pushing business out of the U.S. as well as Obamacare. People say bring the business back to the U.S. (which I'd love to see), but then want to increase costs to businesses and STILL expect the low prices on the shelves. Economy and business do not work that way."A true Conservative would be against a federal welfare state and corporate bailouts."
You are absolutely right when you say this. I didn't favor corporate bailouts either.People too often confuse Republican and Conservative. Although they occasionally overlap in individual politicians, they are not the same.
The problem with most upper income Americans is the idea that just because they earned a 6-figure salary, they are now entitled to remain in the 6-figure salary income bracket for life. Sorry if life on planet earth is soooo difficult. The reality is that most of those earning 6-figures are incompetent to learn to manage the money they earn. Then, the minute a single link in the upper income chain is broken by unemployment, the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. It's a fine platitude to spout gospels when you already lived high on the hog and now you can't. Your post is a huge indication of why greed in this country is so rampant that the only way to salvage the sudden shift to austerity and hardship by the 6-figure earners is to demonize those they view as living off them...Wake up and smell the coffee. Most of us at the lower end of income brackets work just like you do. We do not live off your taxes. We pay more taxes than most of those at the highest end of the income range. Mitt Romney admitted to 16%. Warren Buffet admitted his secretary pays more in income taxes than he doe. What does that tell you? That the secretary lives off Buffet's taxes? Enough with the Poor Lil Rich routine. Taxes in the US are not nearly as high as in a single one of the Scandinavian countries or Europe. And, CEO salaries are not automatically expected to be in the billions for no reason other than job title. Obamacare is the result of the greed of HMOs who pushed pushed pushed pushed US healthcare to the point where 1 in 5 Americans is in medical bankruptcy for a single emergency surgery. When do you plan to face that fact? It was never necessary for the right wing Middle Men to get involved in US healthcare. When you consider the daily reports of billions extorted by HMOs and Big Insurance in general, you need to wake up to facts for a change. How many more Madoffings will it take for you to admit that greed is the single unifying factor among the 1% who live off the 99%. Two men in the US, Buffet and Gates, are earning in a single year what it takes 120 million Americans of the lower salary ranges to earn. Is that fair? Is that equitable? Is that what conservatives believe is entitlement to wealth? To create mass unemployment? To avoid responsibility for employees who create wealth? Being wealthy is not without its responsibilities to our society. If you earn your wealth in the US, you had help...You didn't do it without employees, consumers and billions a year in tax cuts, exemptions and subsidies. I'm as fed up as I can be with conservatives always looking over their shoulders the minute hardship strikes them. Hardship...what a laugh...They don't get rid of their frou frou ostentatious accountrements of wealth but then, they have the gall to expect the poor to be even poorer so the rich can be even richer. Sorry...not anymore.
There are plenty of respectable people right now looking for jobs and would be willing to work for peanuts even though they have degrees from major universities and a acommplished work history. Many come from great backgrounds in finance and other fields but end up at Mcdonalds flipping burgers and trying to stay positive. Shame on the idiots who have been fortunate enough to keep their jobs but talk smack in a forum.
Good thing you currently have a job, karma is a killer!Hear hear! <applause> Only I would still feel bad if karma was "a killer".
The problem is, you can't save everyone! I would like to, but it cannot be done. Then you have to decide if you want to let the drowning person go down by themselves or take you with them? Which would you do?
"Then you have to decide if you want to let the drowning person go down by themselves or take you with them? Which would you do?"
The 2 percenters aren't in danger of being "taken down with them." They are getting richer and richer. [You must live in a different world from me.]exactly... a good lifeguard knows how to swim really really well. He/She must be able to keep him/herself from drowning in order to save the victim. In the end, One drowning is better than Two.
If the drowning person was a wife or a child? You'd save yourself first? I get it...It's not women and children first anymore...It's every man for himself and ONLY himself.
Got it! It would be better to attempt to save that drowning child and have both rescuer AND victim drown together than to not make the attempt and have at least one live person. It looks better.
That's exactly what the US is doing now; destroying the country economically in order to save some. That we all go down eventually into the same poverty we're dragging a few out of is immaterial; it looks good for now.But you aren't dragging a few out of poverty, you are dragging millions into poverty!
Every wage cut, every job lost, every tax rise is pushing people into poverty.Aren't we though? In the guise of "helping" the poor we are cementing them in solidly right where they are by ever expanding entitlement programs. It looks good, though, and sounds good. It stops the cries of "We can't let them starve", so we'll keep right on giving out free cellphones and support the unemployed that have decided not to work unless they can have their old job back.
The largest single reason, by far, for our current recession was trying to make houses available to those that can't afford them. Pushed by seemingly intelligent politicians onto those evil banksters that knew it wouldn't work (heck, anyone not a far left liberal knew it wouldn't work) but went along anyway because they were told to and are now vilified for doing so.
How many has that "help" drug into poverty again? How many that couldn't afford a house but got one anyway has actually kept it (rich) vs how many have lost their homes that could afford them before the recession (poor)?http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy … ass-994834
Wilderness, this is a sobering article on the situations you describe."Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will pay a total of $557 million in cash and other assistance to troubled borrowers to end a case-by-case review of past foreclosures required by U.S. regulators. "
"The U.S. Federal Reserve said on Wednesday that the two banks will pay $232 million to eligible borrowers and $325 million in loan modifications and forgiveness."
Linked on the same page, scroll down, lots of good reading on the economy..glad the banksters have to pay for their part.Once again a drop in the bucket compared to the carnage they have caused.They made billions, yeah with a B and they make good with peanuts. That's why these things keep happening. It's just the cost of doing business.
The banksters have paid billions in fines to settle charges without admitting nor denying guilt. Hardly anybody ever goes to jail.
Great article. America is a shell of what it used to be. Manufacturing made this country what is was. We are now a service economy. Reports, fraud, usery and peddle wares made somewhere else. God bless the corporation. Ross Perot said,"Do you hear that sucking sound? That will be all of your jobs" People said he was a kook. Well, how do you like me now? Manufacturing things is what produces wealth and that's why China owns us now. It's ok, we are winning the "Race to the Bottom"
Amen, We are in the unchartered territory of what is beyond the industrial age and not fairing too well...We need a modern Renassaince(sp) if we are to move forward...We must build SOMETHING that others do not...
Pride in America, for real. not just yeah yeah yeah yeah. If you see something Made in America , buy it . You can swing the extra dollar or two.....
It's made better anyway.Yes it is, you get what you pay for...across the board
It is sobering, but as I look around there may be some good come from it and I do have hope for the future of the country.
One of the biggest problems I think (hindsight is wonderful), is that Americans live paycheck to paycheck. We went decades with no real trouble outside of a little inflation. Well, the hammer dropped and those millions living at the edge of their ability to pay (or beyond it) felt the blow the worst. My parents generation knew better, but ours didn't. If we learn (IF) it need not happen like this again.
You have a two earner family? Fine - save one of them. Buy a smaller house, one car, and do away with satellite TV and fancy phones. Pay cash, not credit. When the economy stumbles again, and it will one day, you'll make it through without losing everything. Learn from this, don't ignore it.Good points Wilderness, I grew up very poor, I am very good with money because of that...We live frugal and have been able to weather the storm on my husbands salary as I have stayed home to raise my youngest. I will be going to work, or starting my own business soon enough and we have discussed exactly that...saving most of my new income, doubling up on house payment, etc...We have not been a frugal society to be sure...
You weathered it, I weathered it. It wasn't easy for us - we lost 2/3 of our income for the past 6 or 7 years and the IRA will never be what it should have been as it simply did not have time to recover, but we kept our home and never went hungry.
A large proportion of those made homeless could have done it, too, had they just been willing to suck it up when the early signs appeared on the horizon. Instead they signed mortgage papers for something they couldn't afford in good times and bought a new Mercedes.
"The largest single reason, by far, for our current recession was trying to make houses available to those that can't afford them. Pushed by seemingly intelligent politicians onto those evil banksters that knew it wouldn't work (heck, anyone not a far left liberal knew it wouldn't work) but went along anyway because they were told to and are now vilified for doing so."
I have a different take. Although our government did encourage Fannie and Freddie to allow subprime loans, the biggest factor was our government's failure to regulate the Wall Street banks and the risky, dishonest subprime mortgage derivatives that they sold to unsuspecting customers all over the world. Here's an item from yesterday's paper about how Morgan Stanley sold what their own employees privately termed "bags of shit" mortgages to a Chinese and a Taiwanese bank and then promptly shorted the mortgages. In addition to the bankers, others responsible were brokers who wrote "no doc" loans, appraisers who provided accommodating appraisals. There's no shortage of people to blame, but the bankers were at the center of the bubble.
"On March 16, 2007, Morgan Stanley employees working on one of the toxic assets that helped blow up the world economy discussed what to name it. Among the team members’ suggestions: “Subprime Meltdown,” “Hitman,” “Nuclear Holocaust” and “Mike Tyson’s Punchout,” as well a simple yet direct reference to a bag of excrement...
"The results are explosive. Hundreds of pages of internal Morgan Stanley documents, released publicly last week, shed much new light on what bankers knew at the height of the housing bubble and what they did with that secret knowledge...
"In the end, of the $500 million of assets backing the deal, $415 million ended up worthless.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/ … d=tw-share
Watch this YouTube video on "The Subprime Banking Mess." It's the best explanation of what happened that I've seen!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC31Oudc5BgWell, this becomes a matter of opinion more than anything, but I don't blame the bankers nearly as much as Fannie, Freddie, politicians and greedy idiots in the public.
When bankers are virtually ordered to sell mortgages that absolutely will fail, when those mortgages are guaranteed no loss loans to the banks, when greedy idiots buy them, you can't put all the blame on the banks.
And at the very bottom is the public. The public itself played a major part. I'm no financial genius, but I am smart enough to educate myself on a loan offering before I sign it and I'm smart enough not to sell my future on the forlorn hopes that I can make mortgage payments that I know I can't. I've had at least a dozen mortgages in my life and if push came to shove I could always make the payments if my income was cut in half. Very few people will go a lifetime without ever seeing drastic cuts in income, but when they look at a beautiful new home it doesn't seem to matter. Only desire.
People - foolish, ignorant, greedy, and yes stupid people - played as big a part in the bubble as anyone else. Add in stupid and self serving politicians buying votes with loan guarantees and most of the blame goes to those two sources.There is plenty of blame to go around. Countrywide Bank was one of the worst offenders--making thousands of no doc mortgage loans followed by the investment banks that packaged the shaky loans and sold them all over the world. Fannie and Freddy also deserve their share of the blame.
That there's blame to go around is irrefutable.
We're drifting here, though. Going far back up the thread, the point I was trying to make was that in a misguided effort to force the rich to support the poor (by providing loans the poor cannot afford) they (politicians) put the country into the worst recession (Depression to me) we've seen in many decades.
That's what inevitably happens when we go too far with entitlements. It's wonderful to help the disabled, those temporarily down on their luck, etc. but when we take all responsibility for supporting themselves away and put it on the "rich" it will always fail. just as it did with the "homes for everyone" idea.Some are calling Social Security an entitlement and beneficiaries "takers" and proposing cuts in order to make up for the Bush tax cuts for the 2 percenters. (Not to mention two unnecessary wars and an unfunded Medicare drug program written by Big Pharma. I'm a Social Security beneficiary, and I resent being called a "taker." And, in my opinion, it would be a big mistake for Obama to allow SS to become a part of deficit discussions. Any adjustments to SS should be handled as a separate matter, considering ALL options including removing or raising the cap on earnings subject to FICA. Needed changes to 401k regulations should be discussed at the same time.
I, too, resent any indication that SS recipients (which I am as well) are "takers" or that it is an entitlement program. I put the money in - the people used it for 40 years nearly interest free, and I damn well want it back now!
I would say, though, that removing the earnings cap on the tax (without removing the payment cap) will turn it into an entitlement. By doing so you are asking someone to fund SS with no chance of ever getting their contribution back. See, I don't view SS so much as a tax as a forced IRA. One the govt. regularly taps without paying for the priviledge, but still a retirement account. I understand it is also an "insurance" program of sorts in that benefits can be increased and the funds come from those that die early without getting benefits. (I'm ignoring the medicaid part here - speaking only of the SS half)."I would say, though, that removing the earnings cap on the tax (without removing the payment cap) will turn it into an entitlement. By doing so you are asking someone to fund SS with no chance of ever getting their contribution back."
True. That's a downside of removing the earnings cap. Perhaps a better option would be to just increase the tax rate on everybody. Or have a flexible retirement age with additional incentives for people to continue working longer, perhaps at reduced hours. I heard on the radio about a 99 year old barmaid in a pub in the UK. She's down to three days a week but still going strong. There is no magic retirement age that suits everybody.There's another option for the future as well - do away with that vast pile of money for congress to steal from and then whine when it runs out.
I did a study of what would have happened had I invested both employer and employee contributions over the years. At 10% return (not unreasonable for a long term stock market investment) I would be a multi-millionaire, drawing something like $10,000 per month and watching the principal grow.
The ONLY reason SS is going broke is that congress has stolen from it for decades, returning "interest" rates far, far below anything reasonable. So let people choose from an approved list where they want their forced contributions to go, and keep the politicians away from it.
We don't need (long term) to tax people to death to provide for their retirement; we just need to keep the politicians away from that stash of "free" money.Ten percent is a little high in my estimation. Moreover, Social Security is more properly considered a social insurance program rather than evaluated as an investment program. Some who die early get little or nothing. Others who become disabled start collecting early. Orphans collect upon the death of their parents.
WILDERNESS.......agreed,
unfortunately, bankers, as usual play a big role in how things get done in Washington. I do have to admit, home owners and buyers need to use more sense when taking on a loan. It's a little late now for that lesson!
Hopefully we could put a few sage guards in place to avoid this type of finacial-mishandling in the future. My guess is big business will always find a way to make a buck and greed and mis-educated buyers will continue to impoverish our country. I hope I.m wrong!True, we could put guards in place so that people cannot sign for mortgages they can't afford. We used to have that until politicians decided they could buy votes by declaring everyone should be able to have a house and removing the guards.
We can also make it illegal to buy a giant soda or to drive a car without using a seat belt. We can declare it illegal to smoke weed. We can enforce non-smoking policies with the tax code.
We can coddle our stupid citizenry from cradle to grave, making all decisions for them because they don't want the responsibility of doing it for themselves or are too stupid to understand that a $2,000 house payment can't be made from a $1,500 income.
My guess is that our country will continue down the road of total control over every personal decision with the misguided idea that a few know better how people should live and should enforce that knowledge on everyone. I hope I'm wrong. No sarcasm intended - that's where we're heading, IMHO, but I vehemently deny that control wherever possible.
Banks were not only "allowed" to make those types of loans, but were actually mandated to. The Bubble was not by default, but by design. Cloward & Piven, just like the Obamacare...overwhelm the system so that the federal government can "reluctantly" take over more and more of the private sector.
The government encouraged banks to loan money to people that would have never been able to get that kind of credit years ago. Politicians, both republican and democrat, talked about how we had record levels of homeownership. Why wouldn't we when the government was doing everything it could to ensure that banks would loan money to just about anybody? People often didn't have to have good credit, money for a down payment, or even a salary that could support the loan for which they were applying. The government signed off on these loans, securing and guaranteeing them. When people starting defaulting on loans, the government had to pay, or should I say, the taxpayer had to pay.
No, the largest single reason for the current recession is the exporting of work and the side-lining of workers. Every job that is lost reduces the countries tax income but increases its spending.
Housing was pushed onto those who couldn't afford it by the very bankers that you would exonerate. Turn everybody into little "capitalists" and discourage them from voting for any party that was not run by and for capitalists. Tell me, how do the banks lose by lending people money they can't afford?
The banks couldn't give a toss about people in poverty, if the worst comes to the worst and the bank loses profit then they can always rely on the tax payer to bail them out again.You live in England. Why is our predicament of interest to you?
Because when the US sneezes, the UK catches a cold.
You don't live in a bubble, you claim to be a global power and as such you affect every country that you deal with.
American companies feel the pinch and retract, but not in America, in other countries like the UK.I guess Katherine didn't notice when the Euro struggled we struggled and our stock market went down. This is what happens when you believe that what happens in our country, effects our country and what happens around the world, should not effect us. Hmm....reality hasn't set in yet. She will need some time...maybe a long wait, I'd schedule an appointment for some time in the future.
Exactly why we need to end corporatism. The banks were not only allowed to make those loans, they were mandated to make them. A purposeful collapse.
But what is the difference between corporatism and capitalism?
Capitalism is one entity, like an individual or business, making a transaction with another entity with a mutually agreed upon rate of exchange. This would include me hiring you for an hourly or salaried wage, me purchasing your goods or services for a mutually agreed upon price. There is no coercion, especially from a third party such as a government agency. This would include either the coercion in a mandate to purchase or the government playing "favorites" by way of taxes, regulations etc that favor one business/individual over another...it is free market capitalism.
Corporatism is not true free-market capitalism, in that the government distorts the market through mandates, taxes, regulations etc. that promote one business over another. These mandates also make some transaction not voluntary. Whether it be taxes or tax breaks, regulations that hinder small businesses from competing against "favored" business or simply mandating that people must purchase certain goods or services, we all are hurt by corporatism.Capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and items are brought to market for profit. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged. Central elements of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor.
Commerce or capitalism?Capitalism vs. Capitalism Run Wild . . .
http://www.truth-out.org/video/item/181 … m-run-wildJohns argument is not about capitalism but what he see's as capitalism, the raving out of control greed he see's as capitalism has nothing to do with the facts of capitalism the same as communism isn't anything to do with socialism although it may be the pit stop on the way to it.
People in general enter into the capitalist ideology freely, they work, earn and buy the goods they need or want. In the socialist system they would be controlled, own nothing and work for the government/people as a whole and not for themselves, somehow this system as never caught on.My argument is entirely about capitalism.
People don't enter into the capitalist ideology freely, they have to be mislead and lied to about it. Just as they have to lie about socialism so that it doesn't appeal to too many people.How have they lied about socialism?
Can someone own property under socialism then John?
Will they have control over their destiny?
What will happen to those who wish to have more?
How many will have to give up what they have to equalize the wealth with the poor?
Who will decide how much wealth you can obtain?
How will you suppress the human desire to do better for oneself and family?
And just how much control will the state need to make it all work?
If I grow apples in my garden will they belong to me or the state?Easy, just read the rest of the post this response quotes.
Not lies John, facts. That's why no country in the world follows the socialist dream.
And you've taken them hook.line and sinker.
Not facts given to you by any socialist.Well why don't you give them to me then John? And then miraculously I might turn into a socialist!
So which sort of socialism are you in favour of John?
Anarchism
Libertarian socialism
Democratic socialism
Social democracy
Religious socialism
Syndicalism
Bit smug of you john really, not prepared to teach me because you don't think I will change my opinion!No, a bit smug of you to think I wouldn't change your mind.
I know you wouldn't change it John because its already been changed.
Your post assumes total helplessness of the rescuer and the victim. Do tell? How does someone proficient in rescue end up drowning with a victim? The problem today in the US is a generation of Middle Aged people who choose victimhood instead of life battles they can actually win. So they sit back, accept whatever comes their way and then whine till the cows come home about their sorry plight in life. Sorry. Doom and gloom is not for me. I'm the ultimate optimist. Anyone who doesn't know that what goes up must come down is a total drain on the ability for the US to cope with day to day ups and downs. The problem with some Middle Agers is they want only and ALL up...never down. That's nice for an ideal but it isn't realistic in the business world or in life.
I quite agree, psycheskinner. The "Haves" are only defined by the "Have nots". We should all work together to help each other. At a work function, we set up a gathering to collect donations for a local charity. Do you know? The people who made the lowest salaries gave TWICE as much as those with the highest of salaries. Explain why, all things being otherwise equal, that happened? Greed and ignorance of what it's really like at the bottom of the ladder, I think.
A mind-set with being careful with their money! which is why they are high dollar earners. It is not necessarily greed. You are merely surmising. (Now, I am reminding myself of an atheist. LOL)
How far would one have to look to see we don't live in a perfect world?
The intent and subsequent effort is what matters.Not really. Remember when them Christian "ministers" went out amongst the heathen to spread the word and infected them with small pox and killed them by mistake?
Your lazy approach and inability to care about consequences is actually what matters.Yes, I see. This is practically the same thing. I stand corrected. Have a nice day.
Not the same thing at all. Sorry you choose to pretend not to understand what I said. Intent is worthless. Try re-reading what I said.
Governments have intent and show considerable effort in their desire to obtain a perfect world. One mans idea of a perfect world could be seen by another as his worst nightmare about hell.
A: Two way street. Worker needs the job and the wealthy needs the worker to get wealthier. Therefore, why shouldn't they be willing to help those who need help?
B: Yes, the government should assist the poor. For that matter, I feel everyone should help their fellow American if they can. Individuals, private organization, churches, charities and the like.
C: Personal responsibility begins and ends with an even playing field. Not everyone, no fault of their own have the same advantages. Whether that be education or financial. Why should only the elite have access to say Harvard or Yale caliber educators? Why should only the wealthier Americans have health insurance and the poor none?
This forum is a baited question. It shouldn't be about the wealthy. It should be what can we as Americans do to help everyone reach the American Dream!I've been enjoying playing moderator today, but I have to jump in on this one for just a moment...
Not to get too in depth on my life story, I was raised by a very hard working, blue collar family. My father was an auto mechanic and my mom worked in retail. We weren't poor, but we certainly weren't well off, not by any stretch of the imagination. The point to this, and the reason I wanted to respond, is that I went to Yale. I busted my butt in High School while my friends were partying. I took extra classes, studied hard, and got in.
Once I got there, I had to work twice as hard as a lot of my friends there, because I had to work to help cover my tuition. So the notion that only the "elite" have access to a Yale caliber education is just simply not true, anyone willing to actually do the work required to get into a school like Yale (or even that glorified community college in MA) can attend.Yes...We have two presidents from single parent Moms who prove that hard work paid off...William Jefferson Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar and Barack Obama, a Nobel Prize winner. However, one size doesn't fit all. Some have advantages while others have none. Does that mean they should be demonized for their lack of opportunities? What's with the people in this country who turn poverty into an evil? Have they become so money hungry they've lost all sense of humanity? Does everything in these peoples' live begin with a dollar sign?
Perhaps it's that the people who don't follow, like sheep, the herd of ignorants that can't see that a path of hard work could very well pay off and the herd of wealthy whose grip on their money is so tight they donate NOTHING to those less fortunate, regardless of whether the less fortunate worked just as hard but had a horrible incident in their lives, like tragedy or illness, that made them poor, through no lack of hard work on their part. Get out of the herd, everyone, and think for yourselves for once! This is important!
Whether someone worked hard and is still poor or not, whether someone will die if they don't get help is immaterial.
You nor anyone else has the moral right to play Robin Hood. Other people's money does not belong to you and you cannot arbitrarily take it no matter how good you think the cause is.
I, for instance, agree that we have an obligation to help the poor and I do so. I do not have the right to put that obligation on someone that doesn't agree with me, though.
(you might research how much Bill Gates has donated in the past few years as well - it just might shock you).Could you please come out of the wilderness and run for President? Unfortunately, you haven't built up the necessary capital. Maybe we could all pitch in and send you a couple dollars.
Wishful thinking?...
At some point in time this might have to work...You know that wouldn't work, right?
You have to promise people lots of free stuff to be president. Like Romney said 'If you want free education, vote for the other guy. If you want lots of free stuff, vote for the other guy'... and America did vote for the other guy.
We'll keep kicking the can down the road as long as we can...Thanks, but no thanks. I have been involved in politics just once, at the very bottom of the barrel. Board of Directors of a Home Owners Association.
The amount of total fabrication and lies, back stabbing and outright refusal to carry out the fiduciary duties of the job was incredible. Never again.
I'm glad someone brought up morality. How moral is capitalism or the monetary system for that matter?
Quite moral.
Monetary systems allow people to barter efficiently, which is one requirement for a civilization to move past the 'everyone works all day to hopefully have enough flour to eat' stage.
Capitalism is mostly just an extension of that.Roaring my head off with laughter at that one!
Monetary systems do not allow people to barter effectively, that is my whole point.
Civilisation hasn't moved past the "everybody works all day to hopefully have enough flour to eat' stage"!
What the heck is the alternative, Rod?
Please explain without poetry please.Exactly! There is no alternative, but there could be if we came together instead of fighting amongst ourselves while slapping band-aids on this cumbersome severed head of an ancient idea. A system that has created global scarcity, turned us all against our interdependent nature, turned the relationship into the service and the cooperative into the competitive. How does it make any sense that we have to pay to eat in a world we did not ask to be born into? Maybe the monetary system isn't immoral, but forcing people to participate in it is.
No one is forced to participate; they are completely free to grow their own food.
The biggest problem is that people want capitalism. At least the producers do - somehow it's always the non-producers that are claiming the workers have an obligation to feed them, too.
To see what happens when a society goes too far down that "take care of the poor" road, we have only to look at much of Europe, at Russia or at the other countries that have done so. They're bankrupt and now asking other nations to support their poor.
As far as paying to eat, sorry. That's how nature works. You either live with it or die; there is no other choice and all the wishing in the world won't change it. TANSTAAFL.Why is there no free lunch? Because food doesn't jump out of the ground and onto your plate. Somebody, somewhere, worked to make that food available. Someone paid the price for the food on your table, whether in terms or work or money, and that will never change.
Unless you live in the desert or or on the icy tundra, food will just jump out of the ground, at its own pace of course, but it will if we let it.
If you believe that you are always welcome to do just that and depend on it for your food supply.
Me, I've gardened before and know better. It takes a good deal of work and effort to produce enough to live on.
But why should the people that grow that food have to struggle to put it on their own table?
Ever heard of the Irish potato famine when thousands of Irish died of hunger and millions emigrated? There was no shortage of food in Ireland at the time but the English landlords wanted all the food to sell to their fellow English for lots of money.
Pure capitalism.@John Holden: But to heartwarming people like whoisit and Jaxson Raine, that's just gooooood, clean business.
I find it very easy to follow Jaxons arguments, there are simple truths that get cluttered in the minds of those who don't want to see truth.
This is what is sometimes called truthyness (Stephen Colbert coined it I believe) just because you can grasp something simple doesn't mean it's true, it's an important lesson from history. The truth is politics, ethics and economics (all three involved here) are complex and if your answer is simple chances are it requires a lot more thought.
I used a word he coined thus obviously the argument is "comedy channel" that was a well reasoned reply my friend
I just found the smiley faces how do you do pictures?
One mans truths are another mans folly as the saying goes. There is always a bias in any argument. Those that can real in theirs can argue on a clean slate. The type of individual that profers only their opinion and grasps at any straws to defend it are egocentrically motivated and thereby compromise their right to be believed. The way to tell is when they group people together under a name completely opposite of their own beliefs.
That is pretty much a poem. A nice poem... but a poem.
In my estimation.
just mine.
peaceI'll try to keep it straight. Oh and thank you. I am just a simple guy calling it how I see it. Most people want a world without all this nonsense, but we don't have it. What does this say about us? It is us; not us and them. I think this is why people "elect" "representatives". So when things go to pot we can all point fingers at each other instead of looking in the mirror. I'm guilty too.
Well, the world is full of crazy people, except for me and you...
and I'm not so sure about you.
That always cracks me up!Knee slapper, gosh, but seriously most the people I know are quite sane, we're just all divided up. We must stop throwing up our hands and saying "that's the nature of the beast, it'll never change". The beast is unnatural and hideous! And really, why do we defend it? Is it REALLY working for anyone here? Or are we all just working our lives away for it?
Compare the work you do and the results of that work to what people did 150 years ago and what it got them then.
In many ways the system is working, and working very well.What about people 6000 years ago? Or 11,000 years ago?
The more man has specialized the more gets done. That specialization, however, means that there must be an economy, that there must be a way to trade goods, or everyone not a farmer starves.
6,000 years ago we were even less specialized and had even less than 150 years ago.
Less in the way of a home, food, electronics, clothing, education, luxuries. About everything you can think of that you have or use in other words.
Do we owe all these things to the monetary system? Could we not have accomplished these things without money?
Not the monetary system so much as the specialization we see. A man builds houses; he is very good at it and can build a nice one very quickly that will last a long time. BUT. In order to do so he must specialize in building houses; he doesn't have the time to also learn to farm and he doesn't have the tools for both, either.
As the house builder can't farm he needs a method of trading his houses for food, but the farmer can only use one house. Barter doesn't work very well as soon as there are more than two parties, and that means an economy.
In a sense, then, the economy is responsible, but only peripherally so. It is a side effect more than anything, but is no less necessary for being that.
I see what you mean about specialization producing things on a massive scale, but people did live in houses before money and before gardening. Perhaps if our ancestors weren't so encumbered and consumed with the travail for profit, we would be out in the garage building our own i pods or pads or whatever.
Have you ever considered that not everybody is cut out for academia?
Then they better play on their strengths, we need burger flippers too.
Well that might solve the work problem but it will only exacerbate the poverty problem.
Doubt it, I guess not working would be a much better option?
Quite frankly, if it was a case of having, say, a $100 a week to live off or $75 a week to live off then yes not working would be the better option.
Are you not just a little ashamed that about 50% of your fellow Americans don't earn enough to pay tax?Only lazy people would rather not work and I really don't care if they eat or not. I'm not ashamed that people who fall into certain income brackets don't pay income tax. Why would I be?
Educate yourself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … in-charts/You might not care if people eat or not but I bet you would if it were you who had to decide whether to eat or heat.
And you'd happily blame those who don't earn enough to pay tax without even the basic understanding of why they don't pay tax.
Educate yourself!You act as if I have not been in that position, been poor a lot in my life. I always managed to find a job or two to get back in the game. I did it right in the middle of this horrible economy as have many others. If you want to work you can, doesn't sound like you believe that.
I work with a lot of unemployed people.
Are you telling me that their tears of desperation are crocodile tears.
That the hundreds of job applications they send off are not real?
John Holden: There is no such thing as not making enough to pay tax! Anyone who works , whether freelance or w-2 pays taxes! And I can prove that!
Yes it is, and there lies the problem, if you want people off welfare then let them earn a living flippping burgers, not just merely exist to struggle for what? The bottom jobs paying $7.25 an hour will not allow for a couple to pay bills and raise children. We used to be able to count on industry, where those ble collar workers COULD make a decent living, but now those jobs are being shipped to Chinese sweat shops in order for big businesses to pay a lower wage, lower taxes and ahhh yes, increase their profit margins...Do you see the circular dance and blame game, or is it just me.
I'm done explaining to people that not working isn't going to solve the problem. If you are able to work and refuse to then I have no sympathy and I hope you have a very hard time in life.
Don't you ever listen? There are millions out there who want to work but aren't allowed to by the system that is more intent on keeping wages down for those in work.
It has nothing to do with refusing to work and everything to do with refusing to employ.
Stop passing the blame.If were able to set a new minimum wage, what would you set it at?
The problem is with a minimum wage is that it isn't always a living wage.
A person need to earn enough to be able to hold their head up amongst their peers.Okay, but if you increase wages, you increase costs; that's going to do one of two things: cause an increase in prices, or cause more jobs to be relocated overseas. In that vein:
A) How would you combat the rising prices?
B) How would you combat the shipping of jobs overseas?Well it depends if you're asking me as a capitalist or a socialist.
As a capitalist I would say keep plenty of people out of work so that the ones who are in work are so grateful that they don't demand too much in the way of wages.
By the way, how does an increase in wages automatically lead to an increase in prices? Never thought about increased demand leading to a reduction in prices?Are you serious?
Widget A costs 10 hours and $50 to make. If you pay the worker $10/hr, then that's $100 in labor costs, plus $50 for material. Throw in $10 for owner profit, and a widget costs $160.
Increase the wages to $15/hr, and you have $150+$50+$10 = $210. Wages went up, which means the cost of whatever that worker is doing went up, which means the costs of the final product goes up.
It's pretty simple, really.Is that really how much the Chinese earn from all those outsourced American jobs?
My post had nothing to do with price competition for inputs. It simply showed that when you increase the cost of labor, you increase the cost of the final good. Can you understand that?
Henry Ford wan't it, who wanted his workforce to earn enough to be able to afford the cars that they made.
But by your reckoning he was wrong? Strange that.
No. Did I say that? I dare you to quote me if you think I did.
I'm spoilt for choice. Your constant theme is pay them less, not more.
And slave labour increases profits. Can you understand that?
Yeah, it can. And that has precisely nothing to do with what I said.
No, I think it's everything to do with what you said. You are constantly saying that higher profits are more important than the people who earn those profits.
OK, here "You do know that higher wages don't mean more money in the economy... right?"
And where in that sentence did I say higher profits are more important than the people who earn those profits?
I didn't. I said that higher wages don't mean more money in the economy. Your reading comprehension is very poor.That was one example out of many, it's midnight here and frankly I don't have the energy to trawl through fining multiple examples to show you.
You reckon that higher wages don't mean more money in the economy, and you dare to criticise my comprehension skills! Look, pay a man $100 and he goes out and spends $100. Pay a man $200 and he goes out and spends $200, but you reckon that doesn't put more money into the economy!He is giving you the answer and you still don't get it.
No, he's not giving me the answer and it is not me who doesn't get it.
He has since explained it for you, but I bet you still don't get it.
John, be told! You are being given the answer and you MUST accept. These are freedom loving people apparently.
Come on Holly, be honest.
Carl works for John. John pays Carl $200. Did that create money, or transfer the money from one person to another?What work does Carl do for John? I assume that he does something and that something probably creates income for John. If John is paying Carl for doing absolutely nothing then John is either a fool or . . .
It doesn't matter what Carl does. Carl isn't making money. Whether John pays him $100 or $200, the amount of money between the two of them is the same. I hope you'll answer my previous question.
So if Carl takes $100 of raw materials and turns them into goods with a sale price of $200. where did that extra $100 come from? The money fairies perhaps?
You're making the mistake of confusing cost with value. The $100 of raw materials is still only $100 of raw materials no matter what you turn it in to. Likewise, the value of those materials was always $200, even before the final product was created.
No, I think you are making that mistake.
How can something be worth more than its value before it is created?Because we, as a society, agree that it is.
All wealth(and money) is simply an agreement that stuff is worth other stuff.
If I buy a log for $10, the log is considered to be worth $10. If I create a chair and sell it for $50, then it is considered worth $50. That $40 difference is created wealth, which essentially comes from the worth of my human labor. If my skill is great, more value will be created. If my skill isn't great, then I might actually destroy value by creating a worthless chair.But the argument was that that $10 log was worth $50 before you'd even made it into a chair.
And how wold you feel if after taking that $10 log and turning it into a $50 chair you got paid $10 for your labour and your boss pocketed $30?It wasn't worth $50 before though. If it was worth $50, then it would have sold for $50.
If I agreed to work for someone for $10 per chair, I would be happy with getting my $10 per chair, no matter how much he pockets. His business, his right to set the compensation. If I'm not happy, I'll save up, or go elsewhere, or start my own business. I could make chairs and sell them for $30, and still make double the money.
Because the cost of the item is intrinsic, the value is subjective based on the needs of the market.
You're confused. He's not creating $100 of new money. He's adding $100 of value to an object.
Before the sale, during the sale, and after the sale, there is still the exact same amount of money.
John has $500.
Supplier has $500
Carl has $500.
Customer has $500
Total = $2000
John pays $100 to the supplier.
John has $400.
Supplier has $600.
Carl has $500.
Customer has $500
Total = $2000
Customer pays $200 for the product.
John has $600.
Supplier has $600.
Carl has $500.
Customer has $300.
Total = $2000
John pays $200 to Carl.
John has $400
Supplier has $600
Carl has $700
Customer has $200
Total = $2000
You are confusing wealth with money. They aren't the same thing. Creating wealth doesn't add to the money supply, as you can CLEARLY see in my example. There is $2000 between all parties through the whole transaction.Creating wealth does add to the money supply. Very few people actually create wealth, they redistribute money which isn't the same thing at all.
The creation of money is only EVER about transference of funds from one to another- the real questions are; how can said funds be inflated without statutory losses, and when said funds are subject to statutory losses who will pay the bill? Them or us? Any rhetoric above and beyond that is nothing more than BS.
One example, out of many, that doesn't say anything like you claim it says.
Pay a man $100, and the employer has $100 less. Pay that man $200, and the employer has $200 less. The money comes from somewhere, it isn't created.
$200 in the hands of EmployeeJoe or $200 in the hands of BossJoe, it's the same amount of money.So if instead of working for that employer, bossJoe, employeeJoe sits at home, where then does BossJoe get the $200 that he miight have paid EmployeeJoe had he worked?
Then he employs someone else. BossJoe gets the money from CustomerJoe. The money transfers hands, it isn't created, and it especially isn't created by EmployeeJoe.
Tell me John, BossJoe has $500. EmployeeJoe has $100. BossJoe gives $100 to EmployeeJoe. How much money do they have between them? How much money did they have before?
Widget a costs $1 to produce however due to lack of demand the factory is only running at 75% capacity. Increase wages generally and increase demand to 100% of capacity, no increase in labour costs and a very slight increase in material costs.
When you go from 75% to 100% capacity, you are adding labor costs, not increasing wages. That's different. You're going to have to add labor costs to increase production.
If you can't understand that increasing wages increases prices... I really don't know what to say John. That's not a concept that can be contested. It's simply fact, and anyone who can listen to reason, or example, or look at cases, will understand that.An increase of wages doesn't necessarily translate to increased demand. The premise of your example is a little off.
Then I'll throw back at you what is so often thrown at me in similar arguments - typewriter makers and buggy whip manufacturers.
Where are you getting an increase in demand from? As far as higher wages leading to an increase in prices, it will come from the increased production costs.
But how would paying a burger flipper more lead to an increase in prices for a loaf of bread?
It won't. It will lead to an increase in the price of the burger.
Material costs and production costs are separate.But if it increased demand for burgers then the price wouldn't have to rise to yield the same profit.
Profit is measured on percentages. You can't aim for a fixed $XXX profit as you increase production. That will lead your company to smaller and smaller margins, which are dangerous to the health of the company.
You're trying to make up all these strange arguments. Do you, or do you not, understand that increased wages at least *can* lead to increased prices? Assume the factory is already running at 100%.That is why a factory running at 100% will often increase prices to reduce demand. Likewise, a factory running at below capacity will reduce prices to stimulate demand.
But this is all getting away from the basic argument which is that the more money you have circulating in an economy the healthier that economy is.I was only explaining to you how increased wages increase prices.
You do know that higher wages don't mean more money in the economy... right?How on earth do you work out that higher wages do not mean more money in the economy?
Answer my question John. Where do wages come from?
Does the money that an employee gets paid come out of thin air?WHAT???
So, Carl flipping burgers is creating money? Lol.I thought burger flipping was an essential part of the process.
How long would any burger place stay in business selling burgers that were only cooked on one side, or not even cooked at all?That's different. Burger flipping is important for a burger joint. Yes.
Burger flipping doesn't create new money. I still have no clue where you got that idea.Very little of anything we do actually creates new money. The key is to get the existing money changing hands more quickly.
Someone actually purchasing the burger is much more important.
"So the notion that only the "elite" have access to a Yale caliber education is just simply not true [....]"
The notion that only the elite have access to Yale caliber education is just simply not true FOR YOU and from your point of view and experience...
Not everyone has your same skills, connections with other people, access to Yale (even if you paved some of your own way to such elite facilities)... you are one among hundreds of thousands of people who found a way "despite," however, if you say that it's simply NOT TRUE that people have limited or no access to YALE, you imply others need to what you did to get where you are - you may impose your pathway onto others (just one more form of oppression on someone else). You can turn around and find fault with others for not doing what YOU did in order to get to an elite facility or education...
Perhaps you should NOT have had to suffer/toil in gaining access to what the elite access without much of a thought or care. Perhaps, if you toiled to get there and stay there, you should have instead had the opportunity to spend more of your time studying vs working for tuition, etc...
You managed - others may not and there will be others who DO NOT have your same essential make up, skills for working, etc., so they shouldn't, in my opinion, be told, "these things are available to you like they are available to everyone else."
I'm not saying that working to gain and appreciate access to education or even material gain isn't worthwhile or that nobody should ever have an obstacle in the way of trying to attain anything - just that we have to be careful that we don't blame others for limitations and for legitimately limited access they might face when they try to gain access to knowledge and materials. It might not be enough to say, "I did it - therefore it's available to all/anyone can get it like I did."Hi Mythbuster (love the username by the way),
I just wanted to touch on a couple things from your comment because I think it deserves a response.
First, I reject the notion that what I did to get into Yale was, in any way, special, As with most anything in life, going to Yale had a cost, and it was much more than just the financial aspects. I understood that getting into one of the best schools, not only in the country, but in the world, was going to require hard work and sacrifice on my part. I knew this going in and, to paraphrase Churchill "I did what was necessary to achieve that which was great".
I could have had a much easier experience in High School (and certainly a much more "fun" one), had I chosen a school with "less stringent" requirements, but that's not what I wanted. Now I'm I saying that everyone can, or should go to an Ivy League school? No, of course not. I will say, emphatically however, that anyone who is willing to put forth the effort required, most definitely has the ability to get such an education.
As to your second point...
To this, first let me say that schools like Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, have some of the most stringent academic requirements in the world. While it is without question that some families are given special consideration in the application process, these schools simply do not accept mediocre students- no matter who they happen to be. To imply otherwise is to diminish everyone who has ever worked hard to, not only get there, but stay there.
Yes, as I said above, I could have had a much easier time in college had my goals not been as high. As a byproduct of my efforts to get into my first choice school, I was offered scholarships at both the University of Central Florida, and the University of Florida. Now both of these are great schools, and I'm sure I would have received a great education at either one of them, but they were simply not what I wanted.
To borrow from another of my heroes, the great Vince Lombardi: "The dictionary is the only place that success comes before work. work is the key to success, and hard work can help you accomplish anything."
The American Dream is there for everyone... but not every one attempts to achieve it in the same way... with the same energy, intention, desire, luck intensity or with the same deck of cards.
are you serious! The cards are stacked against most individuals. You have got to know someone, who knows someone....The federal reserve used to be based on the gold we had in reserve, now we just print our money. Devaluing the dollar falls on the Republicans completely, when they failed to vote, showing their determination and all. Now we are facing the sequestering of the American middle class. The only ones that it will hurt are the poor and middle class. Look it up....I am so tired of those who worry about the rich. Give me a break, when I worked as a waitress in a small coney, my boss lived on the lake, had 3 cars (a single man), he never worried about where his next meal would come from, and had the gull to ask me to tip the cook, because he deserved a raise. He seriously, believed I should pay him to have my job. I made good tips, never as much as he made, but I was happy with my income each day. How much should I give up to satisfy the greed of another. You speak as if I should feel fortunate to be treated badly, poor wages, suffer the ills of a third world nation. You and Wilderness lived in another life. After WWII we could do nothing wrong and we did control the economy....we don't anymore... sorry about your luck. or wait is my luck... you lucky dog. Those who reaped the benefits of WWII should be quiet because they have no idea what the world is like today. If you are over 62, you don't know how it feels to have to figure out what job you might be able to do, to support yourself until you reach the age of 72. I am tired of those who had the benefit of a union to create a pension, and then look at me as though I am lazy. You really don't want to know how I feel at this point. I worked my butt off, so you and everyone older than me could retire and not have to feel as though you were thrown to the curb. What do the seniors expect from me..... more, and more, and more..... not just me, but my bothers who work to keep you roads and lights on, each and every night. How are they to do their jobs at age 71? Wait, you could pay them minimum wage and they could die before they become a burden to you.
Some people start the race 10 yards behind others, or even more.
A different world, eh?
I started my working life at 14, as a paper boy. As soon as I could drive out of town I graduated to farm labor - 12+ hours a day, 6 days a week in the summer and switching to a gas station 7 days a week in the winter. At 16 years old.
Entering college it became 3 jobs in the summer, as much as 100 hours a week to save for college; 40 hours per week plus school during the winter. "Home" was a single small bedroom and sharing a bathroom with 6 other people. No kitchen; cooking was a hotplate on the dresser. No phone, no TV and certainly no movies with a girl friend.
Decent job, nothing great, after graduation. Completely fed up with corporate policies, picked up the wife and 2 kids and moved across the country at the age of 46 to start over. No job, no home, just enough money to get by for a couple of months. Worked as much as 18 hour days 7 days a week at times while going back to trade school. Watched my younger son work full time while going to school and taking care of 3 kids when he came home at night.
So yes, a different life than what people are willing to do today. But don't try to tell me that it was easier - I've worked far longer and far harder than most people ever will. It wasn't a wonderful "opportunity" but a willingness to work that made it happen.(I just read that in south Korea the suicide rate for the elderly... well, past 65 has tripled. Why? Because the youth no longer want to foot the bill for them.( It was/ is the custom in S. Korea for parents to do everything for their children so they would take care of them in old age. The government pays the elderly aid if the children cannot help. The children are becoming less willing, though! So what can they do???
An 65 year old women committed suicide in front of a government building in protest to their policy of not helping the elderly! (She had just been denied aid since her child could afford to help her!) This is a very interesting topic, as well.)As extended family relationships deteriorate and families grow apart both emotionally and geographically we will see more of that type of thing in the US as well. Not, hopefully, to anywhere that degree, but definitely in that society will need to provide more care for the elderly.
The days of taking Mom into the child's home when she can no long care for herself are about over, and society is going to have to step up to care for her.Right, and our children have to realize that it is up to them to take care of themselves and be proactive as far as the (distant) future. THE GOVERNMENT needs to have a philosophy that facilitates its CITIZENS to be able to make as much money as THEY can. Ya KNOW???? (Not shouting... emphasizing.) The The Youth really need to get on board with this... write to your congressmen, twitter them, march in front of the government buildings, vote out career politicians. it is about OUR percolating economy.
Make the Govt. Get Out of the Way! And stop with the PPACABS already!
Wilderness, my statement regarding, "eaisier" maybe I miss spoke and should have said, "a simpler life." It was pretty basic, work hard, save as much as you could and everything would be fine. Honesty, well it don't count for much.
I don't believe the rich should support the poor. I don't believe the rich should take advantage of the poor or the middle class. I have worked my whole life, struggled to get by, worked 2 jobs, even when I went to college. I don't expect a hand out, but I don't think I should work for peanuts, either.
People are angry, because it's the powers that be, that got us in this mess. We bailed out the banks, the stock market, and the auto industry. I realize why the government did it, but no one was made to answer for how we got in this mess. Many people lost their jobs and their homes. The rich got richer, handing out bonuses to those who created the mess, was a slap in the face of the American worker.
Crisis after crisis we face because our politicians don't care. I don't really care if they are republican or democrat. To quote Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does." Facebook made a profit of over 1 billion dollars. They filed their taxes and received a refund of over 4 million dollars. Tell me this makes sense. Gas prices in Michigan have gone up 50 cents this week, can you tell me why. It is said that profits have increased for business' but wages have been stagnate. Does this seem fair?
We as Americans have more power than we give ourselves credit for, but the chink in the armor is we would have to stand together. The politician like it when we are afraid of our neighbor. If they can keep us in a state of fear, we will never rise up (peacefully) and fight for ourselves. Consumers could cripple any business if they refused to buy. It really is that simple. Politicians well that a whole issue in itself.
We can argue over whether you worked hard, whether I worked hard, this will get us no where. Life is not what it used to be, I think you would agree.
To misquote you slightly while agreeing with parts of what you're saying, "The American DREAM is there for everyone who is able-bodied throughout the greater chunk of life, born into a family that is moderately wealthy, and the way(s) they attempt to achieve it succeed, and they have enough, intention, desire, luck intensity, and are playing with the same deck of cards." In other words, really the American Dream is just a dream for all of the people who don't fit all of the criteria in your statement: all of the stars and planets need to align perfectly to make this dream come true for an individual.
I was raised with the philosphy that if you worked hard, saved your money and treated everybody fairly you would eventually reap the benefits of this plan. Unfortunatley I have found that as I get older my skills are compromised by my age in the workplace as having a negative healthcare strike against me. The skills I have attained for over fourty years are outweighed by the mechanized and illegal immigrant labor surplus to make the employer offer less than adequate services rather than continue in the high end production they once competed in. I can't save my money as the costs are rising far above the percentages of the wages I can use for living. My house is paid for but I can't afford to maintain it and the property taxes are going up on top of that. All of the utilities are rising so quickly that there is nothing I can do but to turn down the thermostat, pile on another blanket and watch network television on basic cable in the dark. The American Dream is out there but don't tell me it is for those that have worked hard to attain it. My retirement ceremony will be when they cart me off in a wooden box.
My apologies for offending you: I am actually in complete agreement with you: as I said at the end, everything needs to come together at once with everyone (the stars and planets all need to align) --including "luck" as Kathryn said--in order to get the American Dream. Meaning, even if you do everything right and work your butt off, as you have done, you STILL may not be able to achieve and maintain the American Dream (which is hard for me to imagine, but I've experienced it first-hand, too). Unfortunately, healthy wealthy people rarely understand these things from our perspective: having already achieved the American Dream, they can't understand why their method for doing it just doesn't work for everyone. And luck/fate/etc. definitely has something to do with it all, unfortunately. Good fortune doesn't smile on everyone, no matter what they do.
Actually Laura Schneider I was not offering critisism to your post as I was making an observation that seems to get lost in the mix of things here. Maybe my story is atypical for some and beyond reason for others but I believe you are correct in saying that luck has something to do with it. I have seen it for others who I have met along the way and scratched my head wondering how they got to where they are.
Keep the boundaries as put forth in the Constitution in place. They guarantee power for the people by limiting the power of government. Too many commerce and business regulations, overprinting and devaluing the dollar by a for-profit private central bank, (Federal Reserve) vote-buying politicians, the "fining" of those who cannot afford to pay for health insurance, etc.
All this must stop.
Let us have the freedom to pursue our interests and dreams.
Let the economy percolate through the love of work and independence that is inherent in human nature!By keeping interest rates low the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing program has singlehandedly prevented a second recession.
temporarily and falsely. Let the market work naturally.
I think we're asking the wrong question. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask why the poor should support the wealthy?
Can you expand on that one? In what ways do the poor support the wealthy?
Can you expand on the bit where I said "always" ?
The poor support "some" of the wealthy by paying taxes which are not proportionate to their earnings. "Some" of the wealthiest in society choose to dodge and evade paying their fare share of taxes, yet still obtain the services which, for the most part, are actually paid by the poor and middle classes. A talented accountant can work wonders.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Lol, this is funny to watch.
Cheap labor and parts means more wealth for a country. The problem is, we have government making some things too expensive for most, and we have people who aren't content unless they can 'keep up', no matter how much they have.No, cheap labour means more people unable to afford the goods you make.
That's not what Henry Ford thought.
http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/p … llar-a-dayI meant trying to debate economic principles with John. He spends half his time making up stuff that I supposedly said, and the other half ignoring what I do say.
plus, he is sitting across the ocean somewhere in Britain.
A/ The rich shouldn't pay more, but as much as the other social categories. No more loopholes. When we know that the oil companies are exempt of taxes, why?
B/ A government is by, for, with the people therefore it is exclusively its responsibility. In every action, production, the government takes its share. The economy without the people (as a producer, as a buyer) doesn't function. The government exists through the people.
C/ When an economy reaches a high level of inflation, when unemployment rate increases, in what way A, B or C are responsible?I think Yes. For a simple reason that rich people have/gets higher salary/income versus poor people who have/gets less and can't even afford what rich people can - computation wise it's reasonable. Personal responsibility should not keep us from helping out others. Not because we have so much it would make us think of our own interest alone.
Interesting scenario, completely devoid of any rational argument, but extremely interesting! I dunno, maybe I've just got the whole thing upside down. So, perhaps you can explain to me A) What is the point of investment in enterprise if not the ability to create funds (our $500) B) Do banks really buy and sell bonds in the knowledge that the exchange of debts is not a profit maker? And C) Why would an organisation, for example Google, Amazon, Vodaphone- actually decide that funds paid by their customers should actually be diverted to other countries, whereby they bypass countries which have more, well, not more stringent but some tax laws at least, if not to inflate the profits that they have made?
I was simply asking you to demonstrate how transferring money from one person to another creates new money. Can't do it? Showing an example of a money transfer is 'devoid of rational argument'?
Right.
I didn't say money isn't created, but that's not how it is created. Everything you are talking about is the pursuit of profit. Not creating money.Come on Holly, be honest.
Carl works for John. John pays Carl $200. Did that create money, or transfer the money from one person to another?
No, Jaxson, you asked me a question. I'd actually answered prior to that, perhaps you did not read the post. Transferring money always creates new money- that's a given or societies and monetary systems would not function the way that they do. I GAVE examples of how the transference of money creates new money. Look to your beloved tax dodgers and those who exploit the most vulnerable people for the answers- It's all there on a plate if you are only prepared to open your eyes. Come on Jaxson, what's wrong, can't prove otherwise?Then show me an example of how transferring money creates new money. I showed you several examples of money transfer, and no new money was created.
Your examples aren't about creating new money. You're talking about maximizing profits, not creating new money.Then show me an example of how transferring money creates new money. I showed you several examples of money transfer, and no new money was created.
Your examples aren't about creating new money. You're talking about maximizing profits, not creating new money.
No you didn't. You gave me some ludicrous example of how you gave me money ( I did also notice that you didn't mention in exchange for labour) in a completely unrealistic scenario.
Easy, maximising profits involves the work of others, recent graduates for example (particularly those that are offay with tax law) recent graduate buys new house, new furniture, spends his disposable income, in part at least, on new clothes, iphone, holidays- and then has some to invest in new business. If he decides to invest in ethical business, he wont make too much too quickly- but he's contributing to wealth creation. If he decides that he wants to get rich quick, he wont create new wealth. He'll probably just get mugged.I gave an example of a transfer of money. There was X amount of dollars before the transfer, and X amount of dollars after the transfer.
None of the examples you listed show how new money is created by transferring hands.
If I have $500, and you have $500, and I give you my $500, did we create new money? No, there was $1000 before, and $1000 after. Hard to understand, I know...Methinks you've moved the goal posts. The argument was about giving more money to poorer people to stimulate the economy and get more money circulating in it.
You seemed to be arguing that this was a bad idea.
Again, like John, you're confusing "money" with "value".
Again, like Jaxson, you always decline to give a proper and reasoned response.
Allow me to explain then. Your point is that transferring money creates money...
That's just simply not the case. The only thing that "creates new money" is a fluctuation in value- period. It's the most basic economic principle, you've heard about it all your life, it's called "supply and demand".
When supply = demand, no "new money" can be created, no matter how much you transfer, it will always have the same value.
When supply < demand, then "new money" can be created because there is and imbalance in the equation, in this case, the value of the supply raises because the demand for it has increased.
When supply > demand, new money can be created because the low demand creates a surplus, forcing prices down.
Again, fluctuations in value are the only thing that creates new money.That is a circular argument. New money is created when employment is created. Higher levels of employment equates to higher incomes (the value of the worker peaks when there is a shortage of labour or it is not as abundant as it has previously been)
Innovation and scientific/technological advances are a prime example when it comes to the creation of new money. There was no demand for an iphone before it's invention, or the internet, or a microwave for that matter. There was of course a potential market, but not demand. Demand was created by offering choice over an above what the consumer already had. New products/services require new/additional skills leads to the development of new business. New business leads to the creation of new money.New money is not created when new employment is created.
If I hire someone, and pay him to do nothing, is money being created, or is it transferring from me to him?Why, or who on earth would create jobs and then pay the new employee to do nothing?
You miss the point. Creating a job does not create new money. It transfers money from employer to employee.
I have a feeling he is arguing for Keynesian economics. This system does not take human nature into consideration. Basic Economics is based on the ability to predict markets, to see trends, to determine the future. Consider how the stock market works.
Hey, George Soros et all!
*You Cannot Inject Money Into The Population And Fix All Fluctuations*
Just won't work.
Mr. Holden probably thinks it would.
And Why does he care whether we have Keynesian economics or not...
Pray tell? Does our economy affect England s o m e h o w? (if not currently, in the future?)
Maybe.Keynesian economics is pretty standard. Wall Street understands that stimulus and low interest rates are needed in recessions. Have you noticed that every time Bernanke announces another round of monetary easing the stock market and the bond market go up? The banksters don't like Democratic efforts to regulate them, but they sure like fiscal stimulus and low interest rates.
It certainly won't work in a welfare state.
no gold, no naturally percolating economic activity.
the result is devalued money.
because there is nothing to back it up with.
so we borrow from China
and what happens when we run out of money
to pay back-
just the interest??
?
Strong militia, get ready.
Yes, very much. Your sub-prime mortgage fiasco burnt a lot of British people and institutions too you know! Your recession pulled a lot of US businesses out of the UK.
You can't set yourself up as world leaders and then disclaim all responsibility when you are followed.
The government does it all day long. been there -done that.
You wouldn't hire someone and pay them to do nothing unless you were daft- you'd pay them to do something because you need their skills/labour, your business needs their skills in order to survive. The disposable income that the worker ploughs into his local economy generates new money/jobs/wealth.
This is an extract from studies undertaken by the New Economics Foundation. It relates to agriculture but should give you some indication of how the transference of money creates new money.
"A study of the job dividend through localized food was conducted by the New Economics Foundation. This found that £10 spent on a local organic box scheme in Cornwall generates £25 for the local economy (a radius of 24 km from the farm), compared with £14 if spent in a supermarket. The research suggested that if every person, tourist and business switched only 1% of their current spending to local goods and services, an additional £52 million would be put into the local economy annually.[46]"It doesn't matter, a new job doesn't create new money. Transferring money from employer to employee doesn't create new money. The employee buying things doesn't create new money.
The study is talking about circulation(velocity of circulation) of existing money, not generating new money. It's still the same amount. They are just saying that the money spent at a local place will be spent again more quickly.That is your fundamental error, work does not transfer money from the employer to the employee, it transfers money from the employee to the employer.
No it doesn't. Why continue to argue a point you lost long ago?
No.
Show an example, and I"ll show one.
I have $500. You have $100. You work for a day, and I pay you $100.
Now I have $400, and you have $200. Money was transferred between us, from the employer to the employee. I've never seen an employee pay his employer to work!But, but its the fruit of their labor that was transferred to the employer. Not really, the workspace and material was provided by the employer at some cost.
I work for a day and you pay me $100, however in that day I produce goods that you sell for $500, therefore you start the day with $500, I work for a day and you pay me $100, that means that at the end of the day you don't have $400 you have $900.
That money didn't come from you. You didn't transfer money to me.
I pay you $100, in exchange for your labor. The only money transfer there is the money you are getting from me. I then sell something for whatever, and get money from a customer. You are not creating money. Money is only created when it is printed or coined.
Do you understand the difference between money, and wealth/value?I don't think you do!
Tell me, do you think the ivory towers of industry are filled with philanthropists handing out their own personal money to workers with absolutely no return from the workers?
Where do they get this money from? Do they have part time jobs flipping burgers to pay the wage bill?Do you, or do you not understand the difference?
Where does money ultimately come from?
Where does wealth ultimately come from?Money is a token system used to represent labour.
Wealth comes from the product of that labour.They aren't the same thing. Money is a physical thing, where does it come from?
Hint: The Fed and Mint.And no, money doesn't represent labor. It represents value.
I can do the exact same physical labor and end up with different value.. if the money just represents labor, I should get the same money for the same labor.No, the fact that labour has different values doesn't alter the basic premise that money represents labour.
Lol, fine. You guys are impossible to talk to, you won't explain yourselves, won't listen to reason or logic. Lol, transferring money creates money!
I'm impossible to talk to and won't listen to reason or logic!
No, it is you that won't listen to reason or logic, you believe that employers pay their workers out of their own pockets without any input from their workers. You are totally confused about value.
Oh and |BTW, Hi Hollie.Hi John,
To disagree is to not understand, apparently! But what would I know, I'm out of my depth.Yeah, I know, how have I managed to get this far through life without Jaxson to explain it all to me.
I must be really thick!You guys are so funny. Can't show a SINGLE example where new money(except in John's head where money and currency are different) is created through a transfer.
Hollie is confusing money with money transfers. John is confusing money with value.No, I've never even suggested that money and currency are different, how ridiculous!
You have John. You said a worker creates new money. I've never seen that(except for a worker at the Fed/Mint, lol). Have you EVER seen a worker create new dollar bills, or quarters, or any other currency at work?
That's a crime, don't you know?OK, my bad, a worker creates new value. Better?
Holy cow.
Yes, much better.
That's what I've said from the start.No you haven't! If you had have done this whole thread would have been dead in the water.
Yes I have. This started when you claimed that higher wages = more money.
I said no.
You then confused money and value. You used the example of taking $100 product and working to make a $200 product as creating $100 of money. It doesn't, it creates $100 of value.
Then you admitted that almost nothing creates new money.
Then you came back and stated that creating wealth does add to the money supply.
You've been all over this argument, I have been consistent. I have been arguing with you and others that transferring money does not create new money. I never said otherwise, I never said value and money are the same thing, and I have said that they are different.
Lol John, can you really not read?Higher wages = more money in the economy. Would you like to disprove that?
?
Seriously?
You have GOT to be trolling. Higher wages is just transferring more money from employer to employee. Didn't we just finish the topic of whether or not transferring money creates new money?So you can't disprove it! Instead have to resort to accusations of trolling!
I did disprove it.
No new money is created by raising wages. I have $50k. Whether I pay $20k to Jack, or $30k to jack, the amount of money is still the same. It's just distributed differently.
Care to try and explain how raising wages creates new money?I didn't claim that it produced new money, I said that it made the economy more prosperous and vibrant.
Lol. You said
You said higher wages means more money. You can't have more money unless you have new money(otherwise, you have the same amount of money).
You're hilarious, but seriously have got to be trolling. You've contradicted yourself maybe a half dozen times in this thread alone.Let's see Johny Richbloke has $1 million in his bank and never spends more than a tiny percentage of the interest it accrues. Not much money in the economy there. He won't keep many shops going, or garages or doctors or dentists, not much of anything at all.
One day he gives all his money away to the poor, they immediately go to their local shops, buy lots of food, buy cars, get their teeth fixed and spend money like there was no tomorrow. The unemployed suddenly find their labour is in demand from all the new shops and businesses that are opening in the area.
No new money, but a lot more of it!
You were saying?Doesn't matter if he spends it or not, it's still there. Money in a bank account is part of the money supply and part of the economy.
If you want to say higher wages mean more economic activity, then I will agree that is often the case, where the employer can afford it. I've never said differently, but $500 is $500, no matter how many times it is spent.
Apparently, much of our disagreement simply comes down to definitions. Dictionaries are helpful.Money in a bank account may be part of the money supply, it is not necessarily part of the economy.
Economy meaning the everyday business of the country.Haha, ok. Just make up your own definitions for things, that's fine. You should learn what the accepted meanings for terms are before you debate them though.
You aren't very nice to debate with. Count me out of this discussion, which you have moved well away from its original topic, as per usual.
Too bad. I don't think that lying about what I've said and refusing to address what I actually say is very nice either.
EDIT: and it's no debate. Debates use structure and logic, with sound reasoning. You just make up definitions for words, and attack straw man arguments that I've never made.
From what I've seen, there seems to be a fundamental difference in the way the four of us understand some basic economic principles, and I'm wondering if there's some external influence behind that.
It could be our various backgrounds/upbringings, it could be cultural, or it could just be random. I'm curious as to how four, obviously intelligent people, can all look at the same thing and see things so differently.
Your examples are so over simplified.
"I have $500. You have $100. You work for a day, and I pay you $100.
Now I have $400, and you have $200. Money was transferred between us, from the employer to the employee. I've never seen an employee pay his employer to work!" JaxonRaine
If this is at face value then you are correct. But guess what! You sell the product I have helped you produce and you triple your investment which includes the amount you paid me. The real difference is where you value the product based on what you wish to make. I on the other hand am left with the $100 you paid me while you on the other hand you have made double or more. In many situations with larger companies that could be 1000% or more.
Compound that with you deciding you can make the product overseas for 90% less you terminate my employment and walk away with all the money. Some simple solution, huh.
Take the second part away from the first part and your argument falls flat on its face.No, my argument doesn't fall flat on its face.
The employee is benefiting from the employer creating the job. If the employee doesn't like the job, he can go create his own work.
That's the same mentality that John showed when he said that any of the three hypothetical jobs I listed would be taking advantage of the worker.
The world would sure be better off without those selfish, greedy people creating businesses, wealth, and jobs, wouldn't it?Actually, it would, replace them with humanitarian job creators and the world would be a much better place.
Absolutely the worker benefits from the employment created by the employer. The disconnect comes when the employer makes such an astounding amount more and the employee cannot survive under the wages the employer offers as compensation. Sure the employee has a choice to go find other employment as anyone does but the hitch is that the jobs are being confiscated by the overseas labor market that the employer now persues to improve his profit margin leaving the domestic worker in the lurch. There is only so many times that this can happen before the domestic job market dries up and the employers company begins to find less and less former employees/customers to buy his product. Up until now the difference has been made in credit purchases but we all know where that ends up.
Once again you over simplify with your wrote answer of the employee can go out and create his own job. Take for instance the employee decides to do just that. He is handcuffed to his job because the prospect of producing a service or product is already saturated with other people doing or pondering just the same thing. If the employee had worked for a number of years for the former employer his healthcare, retirement package becomes his alone to handle. Not to mention a mortgage, college saving funds and probably two or more car payments. So if your example is to take place you would need to be barely living on the edge with no family, no expenses and no obligations to begin to compete with the ever burgeoning new business you wish to embark on. Or you could take a chance and cash in that 401K and the kids college fund. Great choices.
No Jaxson, your assertion is completely incorrect. The study is discussing, specifically, how money ploughed into a local economy creates new wealth- it is not discussing the circulation of money but wealth and job creation, including higher incomes.
Ugh, no, it doesn't create new wealth. $10 generates $20 worth of activity. It's called velocity of money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
If you give money to a poor person, they will spend it immediately. The people they give it to will spend some of it, etc etc etc. If you give money to a rich person, it won't be spent immediately, so it generates less economic activity over a period of time.
It is very much the circulation of money.
Wealth is created from certain activities, creating new things. Buying stuff doesn't create wealth.
You're way out of your depth here, but as you can't even admit that transferring money from one person to another doesn't create new money... I just don't know what to say. You're not open to new information at all.Ugh, no, it doesn't create new wealth. $10 generates $20 worth of activity. It's called velocity of money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
If you give money to a poor person, they will spend it immediately. The people they give it to will spend some of it, etc etc etc. If you give money to a rich person, it won't be spent immediately, so it generates less economic activity over a period of time.
It is very much the circulation of money.
Wealth is created from certain activities, creating new things. Buying stuff doesn't create wealth.
You're way out of your depth here, but as you can't even admit that transferring money from one person to another doesn't create new money... I just don't know what to say. You're not open to new information at all.
Jaxson, if you feel that I'm so out of my depth why the aggression?
I agree that very wealthy people do not spend their money immediately, glad we agree on this, I'll remind you of that when next you assert that tax breaks for the rich will create employment and help the economy.
I also agree that creating new things (as in my previous example re; the internet etc,) creates new money-even before the demand has been identified. Nodding my head in agreement and with you so far.
Where we part ways is when you suggest that the transference of money does not create new money- This is only the case when the money flows to monopolistic enterprises who have the power to drive down wages. I've previously used the example of local economies, to further support my claim that the transference of money from one to another can create new money, here's a little extract for you. Apparently, every economist from the New Economics Foundation disagrees with you Jaxson. I just don't know what to say, it appears that you're just not open to new information.
"Suppose you painted a pound coin blue and watched where it went. Every time it
changed hands within a community, it meant income for a local person. If the blue
paint were to come off onto people’s fingertips, how many people would have blue
fingers before the money finally left the community? The more times it changes hands,
the better for that community. In fact, money that is re-spent in a local area is the
same as attracting new money into that area." New Economics Foundation.Not aggression, frustration. You're arguing something that you don't know. I can provide information, sources, etc, but you just don't care. I still haven't seen you admit that transferring money from one person to another doesn't create new money.
Tax breaks do help with employment. Free capital for investment and velocity of money are not directly related. In fact, it is generally the people who have the excess money who are able to invest, not the other way around. Those who turn around and immediately spend any money they get don't have money to create jobs.
Creating new things creates new wealth. Not money.
The economists from the NEF don't disagree with me. Spending money doesn't create new money, no matter how many times it is spent. It creates new economic activity, which is what really matters.
If I buy $100 worth of stuff in the city, and the seller spends $100 in the city, then the total economic activity is $200 for that time period. The economic affect is the same as if the government printed an extra $100 for me and I spent $200 in the city.
Money that is re-spent is not new money.
$500 total.
Person A - $100
Person B - $100
Person C - $300
Person C spends $200 at Person A
Person A - $300
Person B - $100
Person C - $100
Person B spends $100 at Person C
Person A - $300
Person B - $0
Person C - $200
Person A spends $100 at Person B
Person A - $200
Person B - $100
Person C - $200
No matter how many times existing money is spent, it will always be the same amount. NO new money is created.
You can easily get $1000 of economic activity out of $500, but that's not new money, it's new activity.Jaxson, again you are confusing disagreement with not caring, that's nonsense. You talk about value and then use examples of employing someone to do nothing and expect others to agree with a completely ludicrous and unrealistic scenario. That doesn't happen, why would anyone employ someone to do nothing? They'd employ someone because their skills had value and were needed.
I've supported my claims with quotations from the NEF. You gave me a link to Wikipedia.
Perhaps you need more evidence, fair enough I'll find some for you. But before I do, can we agree on a universal definition when it comes to "new money" So far we have agreed that creating new products, or creating more demand for existing products defines "new money" creation. Yes?And Jaxson, just for the record, the quotation is there from the NEF, it clearly states that keeping and transferring money within the local community is *the same* as attracting new money to the area. They disagree with you, it's in black and white.
Is the same as attracting new money.
They didn't say it's new money! It's the same as attracting new money. It has the same affect as attracting new money. It's economic activity. They did NOT say it is new money. It's very clear, in black and white.
Holy cow... I'll just wait for you to define money... this is unbelievable.Holy cow, I didn't say it was new money, I merely quoted the NEF who said it was *the same* as attracting new money. In other words, just to clear up any confusion, it has the same effects- I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand. Seriously, I'm not being cute. The transference of money (remember those blue pound coins) has the same effects, equates to, is as beneficial as *attracting new money* that's what they said!
I asked you to agree a definition of "new money" I think we both pretty much agree as to what constitutes money. So what, exactly, is your definition of new money, Jaxson? Just attempting to make sure we're on the same page.You never said it was new money?!!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!
This is like bizarro world...
Sorry Hollie, you DID say it was new money. Many times.
My definition of new money is new currency. New bills, coins, or digital currency. The money supply, as controlled by the Fed and the Mint.
I know that re-spending money has the same effect. I said exactly that.
It must be hard for you guys to argue when you can't remember what you've already said.Sorry Hollie, you DID say it was new money. Many times.
My definition of new money is new currency. New bills, coins, or digital currency. The money supply, as controlled by the Fed and the Mint.
I know that re-spending money has the same effect. I said exactly that.
It must be hard for you guys to argue when you can't remember what you've already said.
Jaxson- I still absolutely stand by those comments that I have made. Now, apparently, your definition of creating "new money" is only that that can be created by a mint/fed whatever. - I asked you to agree a definition of new money because your arguments seemed rather circular in nature to me. Now I know why, the debate regarding employees and "new money" by your definition is completely irrelevant. Doesn't even belong in this debate.
I also mentioned that I was using the local economy as an example. I didn't at any point say that the NEF said the transference of money *was* new money- but had the same effects. Now I realise that the NEF also disagree with you as to what constitutes new money, as do I.How can you stand by those comments when you JUST SAID YOU NEVER SAID THEM?
Hollie: Transferring money creates new money.
Hollie: I didn't say it's new money, I said it's the same effect as new money.
Hollie: I still stand by my first statement.
Which is it?
Lol, what is new money then? Care to define it? You're hilarious, you're DENYING what I PROVED you said. When money changes hands, no matter how many times it changes hands, it's always the same amount before and after. No new money is ever created from money changing hands.
Now you're back to saying it is?!?!?!?!?
You said, "this explains how the transference of money creates new money", then quoted the NEF. Now you are saying that you didn't say that they were saying that it creates new money, even though you said it explains how it creates new money. Lol.Woah Jaxson, STOP SHOUTING AT ME. You will not intimidate me out of this forum with bullying, insults and asserting that I'm out of my depth. Why do you do that? I thought better of you, you're behaving like a man that has lost the argument?
"How can you stand by those comments when you JUST SAID YOU NEVER SAID THEM?
Hollie: Transferring money creates new money.
Hollie: I didn't say it's new money, I said it's the same effect as new money.
Hollie: I still stand by my first statement."
And this is Jaxson's take on the discussion. lol.
First off, and because your ability to paraphrase seems somewhat impaired- or at least your ability to quote in context to the argument. My first assertion was:
"The creation of money is only EVER about transference of funds from one to another"
See that Jaxson, get it, I was talking about the creation of money?
And your response was:
"Really Hollie?
How does transferring money from one person to another create more money?"
And then you gave this completely laughable of account of you having $500 and I have nothing. And how combined that creates nothing.
"I have $500.
You have $0.
We have $500.
I give you $300.
I have $200.
You have $300.
We have $500.
How is that supposed to create new money?"
Suddenly, your argument becomes about *new money* (albeit, the sensible people here had no idea that by new money you meant that created by the mint/fed) Not about creating *more money* which had been the previous bone of contention. More money, you actually said that!
NOTE: Having noticed the shift in your argument when it came to *new money* or *more money* I asked you to agree a definition of new money. Once you had, it rendered your previous arguments null and void. You argue for the sake of an argument, why is that?
Secondly, I didn't say that the NEF said that circulating money around the local economy was *new money* I posted a quote suggesting that the circulation of money was *the same as* attracting new money. But clearly, the NEF and myself are using a different definition when it comes to *new money* than yourself.
Make your mind up, Jaxson. What is the difference between *new money* and *more money* ?
And don't misquote me. I never do that to you. I always copy and paste, exactly, what you've said when responding.I"m using emphasis, because you're not paying attention. It's not meant to be bullying.
I did quote you, and you did say new money. You said:
"Transferring money always creates new money" That's word for word. I quoted it earlier.
"New money is created when employment is created. " That's word for word. I quoted it earlier.
[the NEF] shows "the transference of money creates new money." That's word for word, you were talking about the NEF quote when you said it. I quoted it earlier.
You're simply wrong. I've quoted you saying *NEW* money. How can you argue with what you have said in the past?
Also, I have defined new money. You haven't. You just said my definition is wrong. I'm still waiting for you to define what money is, because you seem to disagree that money is currency.
And what, pray tell, is the difference between creating new money, and creating more money. If you have $500, and you create more money, isn't the new money 'new money'?
Please, this is a joke. Stop pretending you didn't say what I quoted you saying. Are you going to deny it... AGAIN?Jaxson, here is my original quote:
"The creation of money is only EVER about transference of funds from one to another- the real questions are; how can said funds be inflated without statutory losses, and when said funds are subject to statutory losses who will pay the bill? Them or us? Any rhetoric above and beyond that is nothing more than BS." Hollie Thomas, word for word, in this thread.
Just for emphasis I'M GOING TO SHOUT AT YOU, BECAUSE YOU CLEARLY ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND MY PREVIOUS POINTS.
My original starting point was about the creation of money, not *new money* as in your definition. New money to me is the creation of money, hence, why I asked you to agree on the definition of *new money*
Most graduates will request definitions, it ensures that we are on the same page. Why is your definition so different, when it comes to those which are universally accepted?
"Transferring money always creates new money" That's word for word. I quoted it earlier.
Absolutely true, given mine and many economists definition of *new money*
"New money is created when employment is created. " That's word for word. I quoted it earlier.
Absolutely true, given mine and many economists definition of *new money*
"You're simply wrong. I've quoted you saying *NEW* money. How can you argue with what you have said in the past?" Jaxson, in this thread.
No Jaxson, as you know and anyone else reading this thread, I initially discussed the creation of money, you turned that into "new money" to suit your own purposes. It doesn't matter how many words that you attempt to put into my mouth, the evidence is here. Money, new money, wealth creation- you are the one who shifts the goal posts because your arguments are flimsy. When fronted with evidence from the NEF, you attempt to insult and suggest that I'm out of my league. Whenever you attempt to derail a debate that way, you know you've lost! Pity!
"Also, I have defined new money. You haven't. You just said my definition is wrong. I'm still waiting for you to define what money is, because you seem to disagree that money is currency." Jaxson.
"My definition of new money is new currency. New bills, coins, or digital currency. The money supply, as controlled by the Fed and the Mint" Jaxson's definition.
*New money* to me is wealth creation. It helps to grow an economy, it is wealth and money that wasn't there before. *new money*. If however I was to refer to the printing of bank notes and coins, I'd just refer to that as the printing of bank notes and coins. Not relevant at all as to why the poor should support the wealthy, or vice versa.
"And what, pray tell, is the difference between creating new money, and creating more money. If you have $500, and you create more money, isn't the new money 'new money'?"
You tell me, you're the one arguing that *new money* is about printing new notes and coins.
"My definition of new money is new currency. New bills, coins, or digital currency. The money supply, as controlled by the Fed and the Mint" Jaxson, in this very thread! The hypocracy!
It has just occurred to me that you either utterly confused, or argue for the sake of arguing. You clearly have no clue as to what you are saying. Why on earth would you put yourself in such an embarrassing position? Is it money?
"Please, this is a joke. Stop pretending you didn't say what I quoted you saying. Are you going to deny it... AGAIN?" Jaxson.
I wont deny anything that I've said. I might attempt to put it into context, particularly when someone attempts to paraphrase and completely misquotes me. As for denial, I think that might be you!Lol. You are nitpicking the difference between creation of money, and new money, and you say that they are the same thing? So why does it matter? To create money, the created money is new money, because it's new.
You really have no idea what you're saying, do you? Why are you saying that my definition of 'new money' is different than your definition, when you say it's the same thing as created money? Created money is new money. New money is money that didn't exist. That means it's new. The only place that makes new money is the Fed and the Mint.
Then you go on to say that new money is wealth creation. Money is wealth now, is it? Sorry, no. Money is a representation of value. We have a fixed amount of money, dollars, coins. Just becaues you make a baseball bat doesn't mean there is new money in the country.
I'm sorry if you don't know what money is. I thought everyone knew what money is. At least I understand why you are confused now.
Money is another term for currency. The Fed controls the money supply, which is the sum of all the money, or currency, in the country. They are the ONLY ones authorized to create money.
I had a job where I did nothing about 95% of my days. Was I still creating new money?
I explained your quotes from NEF. They are saying it creates new economic activity, not new money.
As to the definition of money, no, I completely disagree. Money is currency. Money is dollars, bills, coins, 0s and 1s in your bank account.
You really think that if I make a baseball bat from a log I've made new money? What exactly is your definition of money?
Yes, basically we are arguing methods of preventing all the money ending up in As hands.
I did give a proper response. Your examples were all about maximizing profit. They had nothing to do with creating new money.
Please, show us an example. I want to see an example that has more money after money transfers hands than before it transfers hands.
It may be off topic, it may not be.
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/284926.htmlShould the rich have more tax loopholes and ways to hide their money versus the poor? Don't get me wrong, I am not poor and do not rely on government supplements to live. It's easy to dismiss the poor as a needy group of people that do not deserve a free lunch... I get it! But, think about this, why do some of the biggest companies use over-seas laborers to make products that they in turn sell to American citizens? CHEAP LABOR!!!!!
Who will make these products that the RICH sell if not those who provide in-expensive labor? Would the company still be profitable without? How should those people survive? Maybe big business should pay workers more money so they would not have to depend on public services. If they paid more money for work, they could not profit as high and thus would not be as wealthy, right? Maybe the business model would not work at all. The problem is much deeper then the wealthy supporting the poor. The wealthy make money on the backs of poor people. The least they could do is help out a little!I'm a beneficiary of Social Security, and I resent the idea of having my benefits reduced (via Chain CPI) in order to pay for Bush tax cuts for billionaires, two unnecessary wars and an un-financed Medicare drug program. Not to mention oil subsidies, carried interest loopholes for crooked hedge fund operators, etc.
I totally agree with what you said LucidDreams.
especially with your last statement "The wealthy make money on the backs of poor people. The least they could do is help out a little!"For the sake of the conversation though, how would you answer people who say that, if the "poor people" feel they are being mistreated, or exploited by an employer, they can choose to quit?
To put it another way, consider the following hypothetical:
Bob goes to work for Bigmart. When he applied for the job, he knew that it was for minimum wage, and he still chose to take it. Bob is a hard worker, and a model employee, but Bigmart never offers him more than his minimum wage job. At minimum wage, Bob can barely keep a roof over his head, and keep his family fed. He can't afford healthcare and is even looking into going on public assistance just to help make it through.
My question is:
A) Does Bigmart have any additional responsibility to Bob, other than his agreed upon wages?
B) If so, what is the source and extent of that obligation?If you use this scenario in todays economy, I would say this....Bob probably took this job because he wanted the decency of providing for his family versus asking for money from the government to survive. If the money is not enough to survive, this just shows how the minimum wage structure fails and business is more then happy to use this to their advantage.
If Bob has to supplement his income with food stamps or welfare checks, it's hardly his fault since Bigmart is not willing to adjust his income enough to meet basic survival.
On the flip side, Bigmart can not complain about paying higher taxes which goes to the government to support the poor when Bigmart is the cause of this problem.
Bigmart is free to prosper and pay people minimum wage if this is the model they choose.
Bob is free to quit and go on public assistance if it provides a better life based on the fact that Bigmart and other hiring companies choose to profit using minimum wage as their platform.
I personally pay my employess VERY WELL based on work they perform. Better pay does not always equal better workers but being paid based on productivity is the model that works for me!
I'm not rich and I would rather do well and have people working with me do the same versus getting rich off their backs while crying about paying higher taxes to help poor people who need it.
Just a quick link even though outdated by a few years, worth looking at and understanding.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ … _3G_growth
Our economy is very diversified and depends on ALL sectors of the population to be sucessful. Shunning the poor will not help anyone. The wealthy understand this point very clearly when pushed!
Of course the wealthy do not want to pay for the poor, they also would prefer to not pay taxes! The wealthy also understand if you take away the poor peoples meager ways of survival, they will not continue to work for poverty class wages thus sending the wealthy peoples business into chaos and bankruptcy.
Can't have it both ways.................A. no
B. no
C. when they reach legal age - which in my house was 6 years old.
my children learned to gather eggs, clean chickens, feed the animals, and place wood in the smoke house. today, my grandchildren are still doing these same things.
as a healthy farmer, I have never created unemployment.
We still butcher our own animals and consume our own produce.
the government created unemployment when they told me I could not grow crops because they did not want more people working on the farm.
the politicians that created this were college graduates who then created further unemployment because inflation then created problems for manufacturers.
the politicians got very wealthy while many citizens just got to be poor.But, when you do your taxes, is there any credits for farming that you use to your advantage? If so, don't forget that big business thrives on government backed tax breaks for farmers. These tax breaks provide loopholes. Of course, if you don't get any breaks, good on you for being self sufficient, that's awasome, if you do, the wealthy providing money for the poor!
Does the fact that agribusiness has the biggest lobby in the country (by quite a margin) tell you anything?
Pretty incredible, isn't it? And we wonder why food has gotten so expensive.
Farmers aren't farmers any more in far too many cases. They're businessmen looking for a handout and ways to cut their taxes. Actually providing a product (food) has become secondary.Yeah, thats scary.........nice catch. I was just trying to point out that a person may say that the wealthy should not pay for the poor and in the end, even most of them are affectively being subsidized and don't even recognize it.
Sure. There is no one left in the country that isn't subsidized some way or another. Your state taxes are lower, for instance, because my federal taxes help pay for your state roads and the new water treatment plant your town needs. And vice-versa.
To a large degree it is nothing more than congress using the tax code to exert control over states and individuals (and buy votes). Something that most definitely needs stopped as it is also a part of the entitlement society we've become.
You can just feel the injustice of it all, from this post, Mr. T
When ever I see hubs like this I keep getting the impression that some people think that rich people actually think that the rich care about them. If the rich do just try and have breakfast with them if you can afford the establishments where they eat at.
I take it I am supposed to feel sympathetic towards the rich who controls the price of the food which I buy. Do they care that my budget barely allows me to purchase food in the store only to have these food prices constantly going up?
It has been my experience that what rich people care about Is More Money. If getting more money means shutting down American factories, businesses to achieve cheaper labor overseas than from the shorelines of America we can wave bye-bye to the rich business people we believe cares about us.Yes, I dont hate or envy people who have a lot of money. Saying that the wealthy in this econmy could do kore is just sensible. Asking them to pay a little more is only useful for our country. It won't solve all of our problems but closing down the loopholes where they shelter their money is a start in the right direction.
If we cut away loopholes, they will actually pay the correctly identified taxes for their bracket versus hiding most of it and complaining they already pay too much.While I fully agree with closing loopholes AND stopping social engineering via the tax code, it won't help.
Total confiscation of both income AND assets of all the uber rich in the country will run the country for just 1 year. One year! Whereupon we've lost what taxes we do get from them the next year and are in even more trouble.
The real problem is that we refuse to live within our means - we want more than we produce and then borrow to get it. Close all the loopholes that the rich take advantage of and the politicians will add it to the budget to spend.It seems that way but apparently spending may be neccessary. I am not a liberal, democrat, independent nor a republican, I want whats best for this country and that which may actually work and not only party affiliated.
According to Paul Krugman
Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[7][8] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[9]
Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[10][11] liquidity traps, and currency crises. He is the 20th most widely cited economist in the world today[12] and is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the US.[13]
As of 2008, Krugman has written 20 books and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes.[14] He has also written more than 750 columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times.
Krugman goes on to say that we are in a so called "liquidity trap"
A liquidity trap is a situation described in Keynesian economics in which injections of cash into the private banking system by a central bank fail to lower interest rates and hence fail to stimulate economic growth. A liquidity trap is caused when people hoard cash because they expect an adverse event such as deflation, insufficient aggregate demand, or war. Signature characteristics of a liquidity trap are short-term interest rates that are near zero and fluctuations in the monetary base that fail to translate into fluctuations in general price levels
In summary, more spending is needed to continue to stimulate the economy where hoarding and saving to pay our nations debt only stalls and prevents the recovery process.Wow, Lucid Dreams this is a very Lucid explanation!
Thanks!
I just want to make a comment about "C" - "personal responsibility"
Most people are severely restricted in everything that they are able to do if they want to survive, they cannot go and dig up a bit of barren land to grow some crops, they cannot keep chickens in their apartment or a small herd of goats on their front lawn. They can't turn their garage into a store or convert to rent out.
People are so limited in what they are allowed to do that there are no options available to them to be able to look after themselves and take responsibility. People end up going hungry.
I am living currently in the Philippines and where I live is far from affluent, most of the people have NO work and NO money; but they are rarely hungry. If they don't own a plot of land, or don't have permission to use a plot they can still usually find somewhere to throw up a bamboo home and grow some food even if only for a year or two before they are moved on. They can go down to the river to catch some fish, go catch some shellfish in the sea or even slaughter their dog if they are really desperate! But very few people are truly hungry.
Half the homes have a store that sells something to their neighbors, others have places where people can sit and drink and sing,,
But out in the "provinces" where I am nothing is regulated so people can do what they want to survive, start putting rules in place and enforcing them and people will be hungry!
Where do these rules come from? they are developed by big businesses trying to protect their markets. Consider Europe banning the re-use of preserve jars so that home jam makers cannot have containers to sell their produce! Only big businesses will have the resources available to them to provide products and services...
Why is everyone in the city in the first place? Because businesses took them there as labor. Then they discard them when they find cheaper labor in China and elsewhere!
But of course if you let the rich keep their money they will invest it in our economy and help it grow - or maybe they will just buy stocks and shares and speculate as to which businesses who employ foreign labor will go up or down..
So should higher earners and businesses pay more taxes? Businesses certainly should and their should be no loop holes and most higher earners are doing so off the back of the poor and those businesses so they should too...
but then that is just my highly simplified opinion..Unemployment is a function of the marketplace...supply and demand. When supply gets too high or demand too low, employers have little choice but to either let their company go into the red and possibly disappear or layoff some portion of the workforce...a large chunk of the overhead. No legitimate employer wants to do that because people are directly tied to productivity and productivity is what makes them money....not the lack of it. If the lack of productivity and high unemployment were profitable, then there would be more rich people in socialist and communist countries who got rich by firing their employees. High unemployment is a direct reflection of poor market conditions and a lagging economy which produces substandard demand. We are experiencing that situation in the USA now and have been for some time....as evidenced by the marginal growth in GDP for the past few years. Add to that fact that union labor has priced itself out of the market in order for manufacturers to compete in a global market and the situation gets even worse. Companies are not reinvesting their money at a level that could be possible because the projected return on investment is just not there added to the fact that most of them are running scared as to the impact of Obamacare, on-going higer taxation threats, and a growing over-regulating federal government which the current administration has stated flat-out is no longer a point to be argued. There is no progress here...only slow decay and the government will only continue to give more and more as it takes more and more until finally there is nothing of substance left. The wealthy will still be wealthy...they have options, and the rest of us...well, we will be much further into poverty that many of us have ever seen in our lifetime. As long as people take the mindset that industry should exist to provide jobs and income for people, even when it is becomes a losing proposition, we will continue in a downward spiral economically as a nation. ~WB
Ah yes, it's all the fault of the workers for refusing to be slaves.
In what way do you think workers are slaves?
I don't!
It's the attitude that workers are too greedy that makes them slaves.Fair enough, but it's hard to deny that Wayne's point that Labor Unions have created a lot of the problems that they purport to solve.
I'm sure at one time and in certain circumstances, labor unions have a place. Right now they seem to do more harm then good.
Unions served an incredibly important purpose at one time, but (and I can't believe I'm about to do this) "success has defeated them" (tell the truth, some of you just reread that in the Bane voice didn't you, lol.).
They have long since outlived their usefulness, and now, amount to little more than government sanctioned extortionists.
What? By trying to ensure that their members are not paid slave wages!
How about by demanding wages that an employer simply cannot pay, for one?
By driving companies to bankruptcy, costing jobs
By being one of the primary causes of inflation.
By protecting incompetent workers
By requiring extra, unneeded, employees be paid for no return
Unions have done a lot of good for this country, but they have also done a lot of harm as well.Maybe it is the company directors failing that drives the company to bankruptcy.
At least you recognise that unemployment is an important tool in the capitalists tool box for controlling inflation and wages!Yes, I know that unions with constant demands for higher wages never, ever pass the point of no return with companies. Unions are as concerned about company profits as the owners are and would never demand money that isn't there. After all, each company always has more money to give. And if you believe it too, I have a bridge for sale...
In addition, I fully understand that laying employees off into the unemployment line (thus increasing company costs for unemployment insurance) always has a positive effect on the bottom line. Extra insurance costs are picked off the money tree in the back yard, and companies are better off without employees anyway as they don't produce anything. Say, I've got some waterfront property in Arizona you might be interested in as well...Why should employees subsidise unprofitable businesses whilst the CEOs continue to take more and more money out of those unprofitable businesses?
Unemployment is not just related to supply and demand WB, much of the unemployment has been caused by companies trying to maximise their profits by shedding labor in the west and transferring operations to the east.
The problem is that they have just started to realise that the people they were employing and paying were the same ones buying their products - now they have no jobs they have stopped buying their products as they have no money!!You have to ask yourself who wanted to compete globally in the first place? Are we to compete with countries that have substandard conditions and governments that refuse to allow free enterprise to flourish under the same conditions we enjoy here? When are we to expect our recovery to take place as the prices for manufacturers imported goods plummet to lows that we domestically can't even fathom to try to meet? Do we need to pay our lowest skilled workers $11.00 a month so that big business can still enjoy their record profits and provide jobs for the masses? How far and how low and fast are we to go in turning manufacturing around in this country?
America has always loved slave labor. What was born in the cotton fields and the trampling of human rights to gain profits at the sake of the less fortunate has been a staple of the moraless greed of free enterprise in the US. Big business is who wanted globalization and they should have it as they paid enough politicians and judges to make it happen.
I think the premise of your question is flawed and misleading. What makes you think the Government spends most its money by giving it to the poor?
As I recall there were a few trillion spent on wars in the Middle East, and there are still bills to be paid, such as, caring for the wounded veterans.
Are Social Security and Medicare gifts to the poor? I have paid a lot of taxes for both. When its time for me to retire, is your attitude that I paid to support your grandparents, but now that its my turn, tough luck, I'm just a poor, taker?
Do you use public infrastructure, like roads and bridges, universities, but not want to pay for them?
Do you feel a little proud that America sent a man to the moon?
I think libertarian-ism is a really selfish and disgusting philosophy. The natural world is a libertarian paradise; if you are weak or sick, something stronger just eats you. You may think you will always be the strong one, but you will be wrong one day. Civilization is what humans have invented to make our lives more just and comfortable, but libertarians are just too stingy to want to pay the bills.a) Is there no middle class anymore? or just wealthy and poor? Too bad. The taxes in the US are not that high for the population you have. Take a look at what other countries are doing. How can the US keep up with its spending on areas that have nothing to do with the poor.
b) huh? who do you think funds the NGOs and charities in the first place? Basically, gov't offloads services to NGOs and charities; this is done through funding various initiatives rather than having gov't provide the service at a much higher cost because they are not very good at working with strict budgets; rather they have a black hole of endless funds they are not accountable for. NGOs and charities are really good at being fiscally responsible for the dollars they have.
c) huh again?! Good for you for being in a good position now. When the bubble bursts and hopefully it doesn't, you may be glad that there are services in place for times when it is needed, especially when you are old and grey and the old lady has taken you to the cleaners and the kids don't care!
you sayin' i'm old and grey and the old man will take me to the cleaners?
LOL!
We the people need to make sure that the politicians do not overstep the boundaries created by the Declaration and the Constitution. We need to make sure what was set in place to protect us... and our freedom to survive with our own independence and strength is honored, respected and
F o l l o w e d!
We need to Know what power for the people means. We need to figure out when it is being taken away and take appropriate steps to enforce it. Aren't there more of us than them?
Y E S .
So Vote wisely.
In two years we need to vote out all the career politicians.
And you know who they are.Amen to that! Freedom is the real issue here; politicians with the aid of their media allies have tempted the American people into servitude in the name of helping them. The Constitution to them is just a speed bump in their quest for power. The big picture is that the welfare state has hurt the poor the most by killing jobs and opportunities for advancement.
I have always said term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is the only answer to rejecting the slime on the hill and its' self serving system of entitlement and greed.
A few years ago the good citizens of Idaho told their state legislature just that. Term limits were voted into law during the general election.
The legislature went on vacation in December, came back in January and the first order of business to vote the new law down and rescind it - the hard work of the people and their voice was shut down and buried.
Marvelous people, our leaders, that really care about and listen to the people they represent.the crooked politicians always find the loopholes.
if the citizens were wise, they would have included a statement in the amendment that required a vote by the voters, not the politicians to change the amendment.
we as the real government need to get wiser.Yep. Your'e in good company, Mr. Taburkett.
Thomas Jefferson explained, "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Kathryn...in a way you remind me of ladylove....someone paying you to spout your stuff?....
I guess you don't care about your freedom or your power. You do not know w h y or h o w it is that we still have what remains of it! Or how to prevent loosing the rest of it.
PS How dare you accuse ME of being paid!
Epitome of rudeness.hey don't take it personally ladylove.....it's the we people shyte that just sounds like you have an agenda...someone else's agenda and not necessarily your own thoughts or opinions...rather you sound like you are following a script/political agenda.....been to any meetings lately?
Benjamin Franklin reminds us, "The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it." Do you understand this quote? Do You?
Thomas Jefferson mentioned, "In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock."
Check out this site with more wise quotes. Have Fun!
http://www.brainyquote.com
PS Yes, I have an agenda... It is We the People! The same agenda we all have in America! Right????
You are funny.
ladylove #2 ( I guess)I got a three day suspension for asking another poster if they were Ladylove!!
money is fiction. lets all go to the banks tomorrow and try to withdraw our money. all of it. tomorrow
i can prove it. fictitious currency .It's not fiction, it's just a representation that the collective we agrees to use. It's a representation of value to make it much easier to barter for goods and services.
I agree, JaxaonRaine
Also, Money is actually a Certificate of Productivity. The good of money is the use of money. Furthermore, Benjamin Franklin explained, "Money has never made man happy, nor will it. There is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has the more of it one wants." "He that is of the opinion that money will do everything, may well be suspected of doing everything for money." " He does not possess wealth; it possesses him."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benjamin _franklin.html//
Just Sharin' (...for what it's worth...just philosophy, not economics.)
Q."Why should the wealthy be forced to support the poor?"
A. The wealthy should not be relied upon indefinitely to support the poor, as we all know. All people need to learn to rely on themselves.
One's independence is the Joy of Life.
(Their relatives, (i.e. parents) should help them, or their friends and loved ones.)
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of parents and teachers to contribute to the child's ability to survive in the world. The question is, are they contributing adequately enough? Another question, in this world of today is: C a n they?
No one really wants to rely on another, once they become adults.
Yes, we have welfare. But, it should be temporary, of course.
However, times have changed. We have sent jobs to other countries, etc.
The real question has become:
How can we help each other survive without having to rely on government assistance or evil corporations, etc.?The poor, as they are called, have been supporting the wealthy for thousands of years, by force mostly or by voluntary deception. Would be nice to see the pendulum swing the other way for a bit. Heck, even slaves need a holiday too. Two weeks holiday for all the world's impoverished, fully paid, all inclusive to a destination of choice.
James.This is pure poetry. Beautiful. Sympathetic, Utopian.
And what is wrong with that?
You ask
Wearing your mask,
Without a task,
All to ash...
And why ?
You ask.
You'll see...
In the next decade,
After the facade
Of Utopian dreams
Has come undone
Not for some...
But for all.
Whether they deserved it or not...
Because of
Ignorance.I guess I'll let this go.
with the quiet drop
of a tear...
p l o p
( ( ( ( ( ( , ) ) ) ) ) )
- HuntersWhittposted 12 years ago0
This has been a great discussion, with some very interesting points of view on all sides. I figure that it's about time for me to answer my own question, so here goes:
A) Should the wealthy have to pay a larger percentage in taxes in order to provide assistance for the poor?
This was a trick question. Yes, the wealthy should pay a larger percentage in taxes, but it's not to support the poor. A progressive tax (which is the technical name for our tax system) is the only way to keep taxes fair.
B) Should the Government provide assistance to the poor at all, or should that be the prevue of private charities and other NGOs?
Yes, the government absolutely should provide assistance to the "poor". Assistance is not permanent however, nor is it unconditional (hence why it's called assistance). There should be work requirements and periodic case by case review to help combat those who have found ways to game the system.
C) At what point does personal responsibility replace government assistance (i.e. work requirements for welfare, limited unemployment, etc)?
This was another trick question. Personal responsibility always trumps Government assistance, as well it should. Self sufficiency must be the "default position" in this country. Now I understand, as any reasonable person does, that circumstance doesn't always afford everyone the same opportunities in life. That's where the Government should be able to step in and "level the playing field".1) Why is a progressive tax the only way to keep taxes fair?
2) I'll go along with.
3) Default position?Because 10% from somebody earning $100 a week is far more crippling than 10% from somebody earning $1000 a week.
Oh come on man, you have $100 a week to live off and you tell me that losing 10% of that is no harder than having $1000 a week to live on and losing 10% of that.
Do you understand percentages?Yes John, I understand percentages. 10% is 10%. Do you understand that anyone who has a job in America is making more than 100 a week?
It was an example for illustrative purpose. Change it to $500 and $5000 if it makes it easier to understand.
whoisit
some people have done everything they can to get a job and are still without. Some have taken a very part time job just to have an income that is not government supported. (say 100.00 per week) You act like this is dishonerable or not good enough for some reason. What would you do if you lost your job?
Are you self employed like I am? If you are, you realize how tough times are and work very hard to get leads and continue to grow a business in a slow economic time. If you work for someone, in todays world, nothing is 100% safe. Losing a job would mean competing against all of the others who need work. It wouldn't matter your qualifications or work history as the competing forces all have that going for them.
Because tax systems are either progressive or regressive, there is no "neutral" or "balanced" tax structure. If a tax system isn't progressive, it is, by very definition, regressive. Regressive taxes put undue strain on those who can afford it the least.
Yes, Self Sufficiency should always be the standard (a.k.a. the Default Position). No one should aspire to live on Government Assistance.
Lets try this, do you believe that Obama has the poor in the U.S. best interest in mind?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. My neighbor asked me to help her with her taxes, she is a single mother of three who works as a waitress. I took her last paycheck stub to try and get an idea about what she might be getting back and ran it through turbo tax it came to around $5600, this is on a reported income of around 9000. I'm sure she makes considerably more with tips but the employer reported on the stub about 3000in tips.
Two days ago she came over with her W-2 to do the final filing, I let her log in using her information and noticed that the refund amount had gone down by 2000 dollars. You see our President had let the Bush tax breaks expire, the good news is I managed to get her refund back up to around 5000 but if the breaks had been left alone it the refund would have been much larger.
Her taxes were raised and she doesn't even pay taxes.What I am saying is that Obama is a right winger and what right winger has the best interests of the poor at heart?
Obama is not a right winger, he is however a liar.
In the US, Liberals (Obama, Clinton, etc) are the Left, the Conservatives (Reagan, Bush, etc) are the right.
No, being to the left of somebody does not make them left wingers, it just makes them not as extreme right wingers.
Nor does being to the right of center in a socialistic country make them right wingers in the US. Obama is still well left of center where it counts for him; in the US.
But the US isn't a socialist country!
Obama isn't even left of centre, he's just nearer to it than some others.
Extremity aside, your terminology is still off.
Because with the two party system, there is no "center", you're either left or right. There are moderates on both sides, to be sure, but they're still either liberal or conservative.
Democrats (like the President) are the left
Republicans are the right.
All of the other smaller parties (the green party, the tea party, etc) fall on either the left or right as subsidiaries of the two main parties.I'm sorry, but that is rot.
There are certain principles adhered to by the left and there are certain principles adhered to by the right. Nobody adhering to left wing principles could ever be described as a right winger, and nobody adhering to right wing principles could ever be described as a left winger.You're talking ideology, I'm talking semantics.
?
In politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. It usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that need to be reduced or abolished
In politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy or social inequality. Social hierarchy and social inequality is viewed by those affiliated with the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, whether it arises through traditional social differences or from competition in market economies. It typically accepts or justifies this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
Not really much room for being a bit of each is there?Putting aside the fact that you're using Wikipedia as a source,
I'm not arguing the merits of the "left" or the "right", I was simply correcting you on the statement that President Obama is a "right-winger"...
In the US, President Obama (and Democrats in general) is referred to as being on the "left", not the "right".Not as a source, just a lazy way of repeating my thoughts. If I believe something the fact that Wikipedia echoes my thoughts doesn't negate those thoughts.
No, my statement that Obama is a right winger is correct.
Yes but as a country you are horribly confused about left and right. I even had somebody today tell me that a right wing politician in the UK was a socialist!We are not horribly confused to what Obama is, he is a left wing politician with hopes of one day living in a Marxist society.
Glad you find that funny. My life's work complete.
You mean your only purpose in life is to amuse me!
I'm flattered.Yes John, I know the kind of stress you must be under so I'm happy to eliminate as much as I can.
Stress! I now live an almost entirely stress free life. The most stress I've had recently was walking to work this morning on icy paths!
It must be stressful to live a life where the worlds problems are yours.
It seems you are concerned about the U.S. more than most in the U.S.. I know the sneeze quote is sure to follow but still doesn't explain your constant concern. But you are entitled so I have no objections, I will continue to help where I can.
Do you really think that what the USA does has no affect on the rest of the western world!
I am sure that it does, but gun control and the rights of its citizens should be of no concern to the rest of the world.
Which is why I make very little comment on your gun laws. But as for citizens rights, where the US leads, the rest of us follow.
Then I think you are confused.....Obama isn't a socialist.
Sorry, just had to laugh. She doesn't pay taxes, but she got a tax raise AND a refund of something she didn't pay.Yes I know, its funny. Last year she would have been 2000 dollars better off. So much for the caring thing.
I know, I told you the right wing doesn't care!
They cared for many years, Bush was a right winger was he not? What you mean to say is the left wing in this country does not care, but for some reason I doubt you will.
Sometimes frogs live under toadstools. Sometimes they live in a pond of murky water. Sometimes they live on the other side of the pond.
Good.Look up Keynesian Economics.
Hint: It doesn't work.
Some frogs don't know this.
Their croaks make no sense.Did they teach economics in nursing school? Did you learn your economics from Atlas Shrugged?
I guess you mean Nursery school, (in case you meant nursing school... that is a picture of an airline stewardess. My son picked that picture for me. He liked it. I am not a nurse. I am not an airline stewardess.) You and I have discussed Keynesian economics already in other forums. You were croaking then too.
Beg your pardon, Kathryn. I mixed you up with Teamrn.
Sweden was one of the first countries to recover from the Great Depression - using Keynesian economics.
400+ posts... My brilliant submissives shall be forthcoming. Or not...
"Why Should The Wealthy Be Forced To Support The Poor?"
Extremes... Crime becomes the norm.Wow, Mr. (or Ms.) Paradigmsearch, Are you rich? If so where have you been?
- Educateurselfposted 12 years ago0
Because God gave him wealth to help the poors and the wealthy person should be thankful to God who gave him much than his thoughts.
"Because God gave him wealth to help the poors"
You would pass laws to take the fruits of ones labor, then, based solely on your personal interpretation and fantasy of an imaginary creature you call God?
Because your personal religion says this God gave the wealthy all they own is reason enough for you to take it back? Whatever happened to the idea of freedom of religion? If the wealthy does not share your fantasy you would force it on them anyway?Read what he actually said "Because God give him wealth to help the poor(s)"
Assuming that that really happened why is it so wrong for the wealthy to actually do what was intended?
I can't wade in on the whole american political stance as I'm over in the UK, but we are going through all the same issues here at the moment, with benefits and taxes.
In all honesty I don't think the rich should have to pay any more than anyone else. It is all comparative 20% of a basic income to 20% off a wealthy income - they are still paying more, but they deserve not to be penalised for being successful, especially if they have worked hard to get where they are! When some people do very little work so earn less they should not be rewarded for it. What I do disagree with is all the loop holes the rich have to pay less tax or to lower their tax rate - that is the governments fault for allowing there to be loop holes, that is what needs to be sorted. So the 20% tax they are meant to pay really does get paid, not a lower rate because they give x amount to charity and x amount to a trust fund, etc.
I disagree with there being so many benefits available! Too many people take advantage of them and know how to work the system. I have personal experience of this with some of my inlaws and it has caused a riff between us at time. My parents have been hard working all their lives, and have only ever claimed child benefit which they were entitled too. Then members of my inlaws have milked the system for all they could and splurged on phones, laptops and huge TV's when my parents often struggled to afford such things, and lived within their means. My sister and brother in law intentially didn't marry and declared him as living with my inlaws when he wasn't so she could claim single parent benefits, a council house and free school stuff for the children. She chose to have a second child so she could claim more, not considering teh fact she couldn't afford a second child. And there is far to much of this happening in Wales where I live. It is just breeding generations of benefit claimants! It is totally wrong that people can play the system like this and get away with it for years, there needs to be far stricter reviews on it.
We also know a friend who is claiming house and dole benefits in a town close to ours (we live in the capital) and has no intention of getting a job as he can live on benefits without it. But is planning to move to the capital, claiming better job prospects, but really just because he will get a higher housing benefit and can get a nicer flat! We struggle to live in the city and have to live in flats we can afford as we are pursuing careers here. I have worked since I was 15, paid my way through uni and supported myself since I left home with no benefits, or parental support it drives me mad that people can coast through life on government handouts! I know there are people who really struggle to get a job or manage the cost of living but then there are 100's more who scam the system.
So shoudl the government support them? I think they shoudl support them a damn sight less and force them into actually getting jobs, I'm sorry if you need a job you can't be picky! I have always managed to get shop/supermarket/bar and cafe jobs, they are out there, people just chose not to do them, as government hand outs are easier.
Ok rant over with!Yet, when people call for more personal responsibility and fewer government handouts, we're called "cold" and "heartless".
Look, I understand that people need help every now and then, and I'm all for having a "safety net" for extreme circumstances, but telling me I have to pay more in taxes to help support all of the lazy deadbeats out there that want to milk the system instead of getting off their asses and getting a job, well I'm afraid those people can collectively go **** themselves.
And John, my internationalist friend, you want "more and better paid jobs", how about you talk to the Unions that are bankrupting companies every day, driving up the cost of labor, making it impossible for companies to stay competitive. Some High School dropout, makes $25 and hour to sit on an assembly line pressing a button all day, and you people wonder why companies outsource jobs to China, and India.Thank you Praetor! You put it more eloquantly than my ranting, lol! I work hard for my money (and there isn't a lot of that!) I don't see why I should hand it over to people who cheat the system and are just too lazy to get a job. Yes there are the few in real difficult circumstances and I believ in helping the disabled and those physically unable to work (but this is another area of true scamming! Which infuriates me!)
Plus hiugher rates for certain jobs is making it very hard for manufactures when you compare it to foreign wages. No wornder they export manufacturing outside UK/US.
I recently read an interesting article about the new work idea in China - a 25 hour week. Pay is higher to compensate for the lack of hours, but they employ more people as they have more hours avaliable, and it is all structured by management not getting such a high rate of pay. Company director and higher managemnet can only earn 10X that of the floor workers hourly rate, whereas in the UK company directors often earn in the region of 100x that of the floor workers. I vaguely remember a statistic saying the M&S CEO is on 114x the hourly rate of the staff in the M&S stores. Greed is a huge issue! If those higher up just took a smaller cut and less bonuses sthere would be more money to go around for more, better paid workers.Have you ever wondered why more people "cheat" the system when we have a Tory government with loads of job cuts?
Do you think people celebrate by voluntarily giving up their jobs?You had me up until this point. Why should anyone be asked to take less for their job just so that others can have more?
Now before you all start calling the Ghost of Christmas Past on me, let me explain:
Meet Bob. Bob is an Executive VP for Widgets INT. Bob makes $350k a year in base salary, plus stock options and bonuses. All together, Bob earns approx $600k before taxes.
Now meet Joe. Joe works on the assembly line in one of the Widgets INT factories. Joe makes minimum wage in a "Right to Work" state (currently $7.25hr).
Both of these men work in jobs where the market has decided the value of their time. Bob went to college, and grad school, and has skills that the market values at $600k, his employer finds Bob's contributions to be worth this amount, so they keep him on staff.
Joe graduated high school and went straight to work. The market values his job at $7.25 and hour, a fact Joe was aware of when he took the job.
Now why should Bob be asked to accept less for his skills and contributions, just so Joe can earn more money? If Joe feels that his wages are unfair, he can always seek employment elsewhere, or continue his education and learn additional skills that would make him a more valuable employee.Market forces! Rubbish, it is Bob who has decided that Joe should only be paid $7.25 an hour.
It's becoming painfully obvious that you know absolutely nothing about business or economics. Here's an idea, put down the "Little Red Book" every once in a while.
What, you mean I don't know that the purpose of the workers is to make the bosses rich!
And yet, if the market is currently paying $15 per hour, Bob won't have an employee for long.
Remember, Bob can't decide what Joe makes - it takes both Bob and Joe to make that call. We're not allowed to chain people to the machine and whip them to make them work.Bob and Joe decide! That's the biggest joke I've heard in a long while
Bob says to Joe $7.25 an hour, take it or leave it. Joe thinks "Bob's the only one hiring, I can't afford to live off $7.25 an hour, but then again I can't afford to live off nothing.Therefore he makes a choice.
Joe and bob decided.Why does Joe deserve more than market value for his job?
Because it isn't a market value, it's the least the employee can get away with paying.
BTW, how much income support do you pay to the companies who only pay minimum wages?Let me try to explain this to you one more time comrade:
If a job pays minimum wage, it's because that's the value that the market has placed on that particular job. If you don't like your pay, quit. If there aren't any other jobs available in your area, move. If you can't find a job that pays more than minimum wage, then pick up a book and learn a new trade, but don't expect a handout just because you think you deserve one.But isn't the very fact that those on minimum wages have to look for hand outs to live pertinent at all to your idea?
Er, more and better paid jobs - talk to the unions who are driving up the cost of labour!
That, my friend, does not equate!
And as for $25 an hour for pushing a button! Evidence please.I think 18,000+ former Hostess employees (not to mention the entire state if Illinois) would disagree.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a whole website full of data on the matter. Take your pick.As I recall it was gross mismanagement that brought down Hostess. The workers, paid considerably less than $25 an hour, had already taken one pay cut to try to save the company. This did not prevent the bosses awarding themselves a pay rise and engaging in asset stripping.
Do not automatically blame unions for the faults of others.It wasn't "gross mismanagement". Hostess has been losing money for years due to increased competition, increased distribution and labor costs, and (to a lesser extent) to the "health food" craze. The bakers union knew this, yet they still fought for higher salaries. Even the Teamsters admitted that the money just wasn't there, and agreed to concessions, but no, those poor bakers just couldn't live without their pay raise. Now the entire company can enjoy the 100% pay cut. Way to watch out for the "little guy".
But how many pay cuts should the workers be prepared to take?
Should they agree to work for nothing so that the management can continue to draw their salary and bonuses?Yes John, because that's exactly what management was asking for, for them to work for nothing. Where do you come up with this stuff?
But how many pay cuts should the workers have been prepared to take while the bosses increased their own pay?
Answer me that instead of evading the question.
No, it wasn't gross mismanagement. That's a popular claim by those hating the idea of corporate profits, but it isn't true.
It was the direct result of one union (out of several) that refused to take a pay cut to maintain company viability. Wages were past what could be paid and still earn; under those circumstances there is no reason to operate.Don't bother Wilderness, Comrade John doesn't care about things like that, he'd much rather spend his time bashing the successful and drinking the "pro-union" kool-aid.
And I use to think you were so intelligent..
You sure swallowed the kool aid didn't you? Rich guys and management are always perfect.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/25 … k-20121125So I get it, the Teamsters are on the side of management as well? Are you kidding me?
By the way, shouldn't you and "A Troubled Man" be over in the religion forum driving the bible thumpers crazy? Not that I'm complaining about having you with us here in politics, but I didn't think this was your "bag".http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news … x-man.html
Drink up, your Kool aid is getting warm.Allow me to quote that article:
Explain to me, exactly what is the problem with someone "using legal tax holes".Legal and ethical are two completely different things.
If a company should be unethical in its tax affairs, why believe that they will be ethical in employment matters?Using a LEGAL tax rule is not unethical I really do not understand where you come up with these ideas..
Not unethical! Using a loophole to avoid paying taxes due is not unethical!
What about Starbucks who for many years were boasting of profits in the UK and paying dividends, but filing returns that showed no profit?
They were moving profits out of the country under the guise of franchise fees which magically became profits after they'd left?That's right, it is not unethical to do something legally.
No, not unethical. You want to blame someone for the use of unethical loopholes, blame the politicians that put them there to buy votes with.
On a related note, warm Kool-Aid is actually pretty good (with a little bit of bourbon).
Oh, I know. To some the word "profit" or "corporation" equates to "Satan".
They will always believe that they, not business owners, should be the determining factor of what a company or employee should earn. Fortunately for the economy it doesn't work that way or we would all be out of work instead of 10% of us.
When corporate profits = worker losses then anybody with an ounce of human decency should hate them.
Corporate is supposed to profit, that's what businesses do. Why be in business if you are not trying to succeed?
So you are saying that profit is all! That the people who are actually making that profit shouldn't be allowed to share in it!
If they don't like it, they can quit. Otherwise, they can take their @ss back to school and improve their marketability.
I don't know as I've ever seen a worker pay an employer for the privilege or working, but that's the only real way to actually lose money by holding a job.
Or did you have something else in mind?Ah, but then they have no employer. They are merely "renting" the pole even though they still have additional rules to follow.
As do hairdressers, and many others who "rent" work space off their "employers".
A landlord is now an employer? I suppose you will now claim that you, not the market, should now set all rents as well as wages? Will you set prices for goods as well, and services?
You haven't seen very much then.
Worker produces $100 of goods and gets paid $10.Really? If they lost money even though paid, where did their expenses come from? What did they spend that salary plus more on to lose money?
Or is it your claim that they should be paid the $100 that the goods they produced are worth. Produced with tools provided by someone else, in a building provided by someone else and with raw materials provided by some else. Because if it is I want that "job" too, and in the worst way!No, charge the worker a fair price for rent and materials plus on costs but let him, not the employer, have the lions share of the profit. Not the other way round.
Wouldn't it be better for the worker to start his own business then?
Not everybody has the ability or the finance to do that.
How would that work for a coal miner or a production worker in a manufacturing baker?So you are asking the owner of the facility to carry the worker. What if the worker is not as industrious as someone who is willing to work per hour?
So if they don't have the ability or the finance, why should they share in the profits?
Because they make the profits, there, that was easy wasn't it?
They don't "make the profits", they make a product, for which they are compensated. Try again.
And without that product where do the profits come from?
The profit comes from the consumer who was informed of its existence through marketing which by the way also costs the employer.
No, answer the question please. Without a product where do the profits come from?
There are no profits without the product. But rest assured there will always be a worker to make the product.
Thank you.
Yes, there will always be those desperate enough to work for any money.You really don't get this do you? I have never worked for a company who didn't pay me a fair wage for my labor. Did I sometimes want more? Absolutely! When I couldn't get more I moved to the next employer willing to pay more.
Did you get that from the Karl Marx "Quote-A-Day" Calendar?
No, I got it from something I think some of you could use a bit more of - life experience.
Oh no, John is questioning my life experience... whatever shall I do?
Shouldn't you be getting ready for your next party meeting there comrade?A sad but predictable reply.
I am quite capable of making my own decisions and feel no need to follow any party line.
It's a shame that others aren't so free but must follow the party line without any independent thought.Really John? Am I really that predictable? You want to know what's "sad"? People who don't even live in America, complaining about how bad the workers here are treated.
It's people who know nothing about economics, who start vilifying the "evil corporations", and denouncing profits. Sure, forget the fact that it's Microsoft's profits (the ones that made Bill Gates one of the wealthiest men on the planet), that are now funding the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It's the profits that Pfizer made off of Viagra, that are financing their fight against AIDS & Malaria in Africa, or why they just made the largest donation ever to the WFH’s Humanitarian Aid Program.
It's those "evil profits" that let companies like Johnson & Johnson donate over $460 million dollars in medical supplies and pharmaceuticals, or Oracle over $2 billion in software and other educational supplies.
In short, you can fool yourself into thinking that you're some kind of advocate for the "little guy", and you can jump on the forums and trade jibes with us here, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you know anything about economics.No, it's not complaining about how workers are treated in the USA, it is about how workers are treated in the western world.
I know you like to think that it's all about you, but it isn't really.
Rot, Bill Gates is spending his customers money, not his own. Without his customers money he would just be another nobody. He has acquired so much money by not operating on a level playing field, but by twisting us all. Do you know that if you buy a PC Gates gets a cut of the profit even if there are no Microsoft products installed on it?
As for Pfizer and their fight against AIDS, nobody in Africa can afford their drugs and the drugs that they actually donate are so tied up in red tape as to be useless. And as for their donation to the WFH program, it was in the form of a blood clotting agent rather than cash, yeah great, but how much is it worth to Pfizer in good will and tax breaks?
$460 million as a percentage of profit and over how many years and what tax offsets?
I'm not fooling myself, it's not me who thinks that big business is wonderfully benevolent - what was it Keynes didn't say -
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
Again, your lack of economic understanding is showing through.
The profits come from the company. It was the company who created the product to fill a need in the marketplace. It was the company who built the facilities to produce that product. It was the company that acquired the materials necessary to manufacture that product. It's the company that distributes that product to the market.
This idea that the worker is entitled to the profits from the products they make is just absurd. They deserve their wages, that's it- plain and simple.
If the worker can't afford to start his own business, from either an ability OR capital standpoint, then both that ability and capital should be worth something. Why can't the employer receive that worth?
I've never worked for a small employer that paid himself more than his labor costs. In general, he earned 2 or 3 times what individual workers did, but I personally find that quite equitable; he usually worked more hours as well as supplying all the capital.
I've never seen or taken the time to examine the books of a large corporation, but strongly suspect it is the same there - the labor cost is far greater than the net profit.No problem with that!
But what about those earning 100 times what the worker on the shop floor earns?I've never heard of such a disparity in income between owner and laborer. Top CEO's and such, yes, but then they are employees, not owners, and the marketplace sets the wage there just as it does for the laborer.
You may feel that you have the knowledge and right to set those higher wages, but you are obviously wrong when employers are "bidding" for those services and bidding at many times what you think the job is worth. While I tend to agree (employees earning millions per year aren't worth it) I'm just as wrong as you are if those employees can negotiate the higher salary. Neither you nor I are capable of setting those salaries; only the two parties involved.
OK, I've taken my pick. The first thing I read was "In 2012, the union membership rate was 11.3 percent, down from 11.8 percent in 2011." I find it difficult to believe that such a small percentage of the working population could do half the damage you claim.
As for your idea that high school drop outs earn $25 an hour for pushing a button, your recommended site does not uphold that idea. The only group in goods producing earning $25 an hour are those engaged in mining and logging. Construction workers $24 an hour and in manufacturing $19 an hour.
There may well be a few HS drop outs earning $25 an hour, but these will be the exception rather than the rule.
Answer to all that Daisydayz is more and better paid jobs.
More and better paid jobs is a catch 22, though. More jobs, let alone better paid jobs, requires more customers unless you propose paying people to stand around and produce nothing.
More customers means more people buying locally produced "things", but as long as the job pays well enough to live nicely on in a developed country imports will be cheaper. Rather than buying local and promoting jobs for themselves and their neighbors everyone buys cheap imports costing them the jobs they cry for.
Which is where the catch 22 comes in; it would require a loss of living standard to buy local, although it would likely reverse the trend in time as more and more people go to work. People won't give up the standard of living to better either their neighbor, themselves or the future, so no jobs.
Although corporate greed is one cause of the problem, personal greed is just as large a problem. We all want things, but don't want the cost so we "exploit" foreign workers that earn slave wages and are happy to get even that.
Convince the population to buy only things made in their country and you will quickly find employment rates soaring; with it being a workers market wages are likely to soar right along with the job numbers. Of course, it's a lot easier to vilify corporations that make a profit, but the problem is individual consumers just as much.
Michael Bloomberg gives $1.1 billion to Johns Hopkins University.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/nyreg … us.html?hp
On the same token I could ask: Is it fair I have to support wars I disagree with with MY tax monies? Is it fair that the top wealthy of the American population control Most of the country's wealth? Is it fair we pay for FREE healthcare for politicians who ought to get Real jobs? Nope!
You do not get a choice as to where your money goes, that's what I have been told. You want different politicians then vote for the other guy.
Well, the 'other guys' are no better, yet Americans do nothing to scrap it.
et Americans do nothing to scrap it san go cao cap
Check out Article 21 in the UN agenda. Is your city getting funded?
I don't know what this will say about my political views but I would be happy (in theory) to give money to the poor when my income reached a certain level or support a tax placed on particular high paying jobs. We should definitely try to find ways in which to give people the opportunity to decide whether they help the poor or hold referendums to find out who would be willing to. A tax on a person's income sounds like an effective way of encouraging the more fortunate to help out others, maybe in this process people are allowed to choose the charity which part of their income would go to. However, this would probably seem impractical and naive for many societies and to many people. I haven't researched this topic so I'm not sure which countries already have income taxes which help the poor, but I assume there are a few.
The link between the destruction of pre-colonial societies (such as that of the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines) and poverty is an interesting one and I guess the extent to which we feel responsibility for the actions of our ancestors ultimately determines our conviction to take action and therefore how much we actually help the poor. Nevertheless, I would hope that people feel a responsibility to help others regardless of their ancestors.I guess the extent to which we feel responsibility for the actions of our ancestors ultimately determines our conviction to take action and therefore how much we actually help the poor. Nevertheless, I would hope that people feel a responsibility to help others regardless of their ancestors. sàn gỗ ngoài trời
"Makers, Takers, Fakers" by Paul Krugman
"Republicans have a problem. For years they could shout down any attempt to point out the extent to which their policies favored the elite over the poor and the middle class; all they had to do was yell “Class warfare!” and Democrats scurried away. In the 2012 election, however, that didn’t work: the picture of the G.O.P. as the party of sneering plutocrats stuck, even as Democrats became more openly populist than they have been in decades...
Governors Push Bigger Reliance on Sales Taxes (January 25, 2013)
"As a result, prominent Republicans have begun acknowledging that their party needs to improve its image. But here’s the thing: Their proposals for a makeover all involve changing the sales pitch rather than the product. When it comes to substance, the G.O.P. is more committed than ever to policies that take from most Americans and give to a wealthy handful...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opini … n&_r=0No matter what your opinion is, things are not what they appear to be... in the least. We have no more power, politically. Common sense is so minimal. And now the Constitution is being devalued. It is up to those who already own us.
I hope this is not true.Ha! Swift, a tongue-in-cheek precursor of Ayn Rand, David Koch, Paul Ryan and Kathryn Hill.
Um, I think Swift was a bit more along the lines of Stephen Colbert.
Those who invest in high risk investments are on their own. The favorite phrase of the "HAVES" who insist upon looking down their noses at anyone NOCD (Not our class dahling). The problem with these investors is their unwillingness to accept full accountability for the risk they and only they choose to take. This is what happened in 2008 with that Financial Meltdown. For 8 years, investing in reckless high risk investments in real estate, housing and mortgaging that went sour . Who paid for that mess? US taxpayers. First with the 2008 TARP and then ARRA in January 2009. Bailouts are paid for by all taxpayers. Class doesn't enter the picture. If those with the highest earnings do not want to pay higher taxes, the choice remains theirs. Earn less. But, the attitude of the "HAVES" appears to be irresponsible. They want to earn the higher and higher salaries and pay less and less taxes. And if they do that, who then makes up the loss of what they are not paying in taxes? It's time to stop enabling the "HAVES" to demonize anyone NOCD when it's the individual Middle Class taxpayers bearing the biggest brunt of income tax deductions, property taxes, sales and use taxes and a dearth of state taxes. States have all bent over backward to help businesses and business owners who then do an about face and become an "entitled" elite. Sorry. Not in a democracy.
Yes, we bail people out when we shouldn't.
But, where did that money come from in the first place? Overwhelmingly, it comes from the wealthy, who pay a tax rate more than 12 times higher than half of Americans, and a dollar rate more than 1000 times higher.And the wealth and income gap between rich and middle class gets bigger every year. How big is big enough?
Nobody is FORCING income inequality.
We are FORCING inequal taxation, which is even more disproportionate than the income inequality.
Ralph, I know it's a hard concept, but freedom means that some people will have more than other people. It means some people will do good things, and some people will do bad things.
It means everyone has a choice to act for themselves."Nobody is FORCING income inequality."
Nobody except the crooked banksters, billionaire hedge fund operators and oil men like the Koch brothers who are polluting our pollitcal process as well as the air we breath.Yup, pick out some rich people, and 'them', to point the blame.
You're wrong Ralph. millions of Americans realize the American Dream every year and become rich. Nobody is forcing anybody down.
Wealth inequality is exaggerated, since Americans are so quick to go into debt. Of course there is a huge gap when you have college graduates earning $60k, with $400,000 or more of new debt. They have no wealth.Wealth and income inequality has not been exaggerated. It has increased immensely, starting with Reagan.
Compensation of corporate CEOs has risen from 25 to 250 times that of the average worker. Tax rates on high income Americans and corporations have decreased, and loopholes have proliferated. Ordinary, garden variety CEOs who worked their way up in corporate bureaucracies without ever having contributed a new idea pay themselves as if they were Henry Ford, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. They hire consultants to justify huge pay for performance compensation packages and generous lifetime perks. And when performance falters some cook the books or re-price their stock options. Greed rules.
The failure to regulate the banking industry allowed Goldman Sachs, CitiBank, Bank of America and other giant Wall Street banks as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pursue risky, dishonest practices which contributed to our current worldwide recession. They were bailed out by the government to prevent a complete meltdown. Most have returned to profitability and are now lobbying to undermine government regulations designed to prevent another financial catastrophe.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, possibly the worst decision since Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson, has compounded the situation by allowing unlimited anonymous corporate and union political contributions. The domination of the Republican primaries by SuperPacs has turned American presidential politics into a billionaire's game.
"The data shows the U.S. experienced a widening of the gap between high and low earners in recent decades and currently has a higher level of inequality than Europe, Canada, Australia and South Korea.
"European countries rank highly with Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Ukraine the top five most equal countries in terms of wages.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z2JO7QgKHr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … st-worlds-
ich-countrires.html
"The Price of Inequality" Joseph Stiglitz
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Glo … h-Stiglitz
Perhaps a few more jail terms would be in order.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
I still don't understand how anybody can think that with
1200 people each paying the government $1
1 person paying the government $1300
That the person paying $1300 isn't paying 'his fair share', and is being 'supported' by the 1200 people that each pay $1...
It's a complete intellectual disconnect. Yeah, the 1 person isn't paying his fair share. He's paying more than 1000 times an equal share... It's unfair that he pays so much.
By no definition of the word is he being supported by the 1200. Could you imagine a rich man going to dinner with three other people, where they each pay $1 for the meal and he pays $100, and the three people, and other bystanders, all complain that the rich man didn't pay enough?Your comparison, "Could you imagine a rich man going to dinner with three other people, where they each pay $1 for the meal and he pays $100, and the three people, and other bystanders, all complain that the rich man didn't pay enough?" is totally off the mark. It is like the old I can balance my checkbook why can't the government? argument.
Big business has built their greed on the backs of first the American worker and when it became too even a trade they went overseas to get the slave labor they wanted all along. They bought the legislation to accomplish it and now have bought the supreme court to back them up. NAFTA was the single most destructive element introduced into our economy and the politicians were greased accordingly.
The pathetic reality to all of this is that the banks created the 2007 disaster knowing that they were covered and held us all ransom to bail them out. Once they were flush again they began the methodical confiscation of the bad mortgages they wrote in the first place. In other words we bought their bad loans, paid for them when they failed and lost our homes in the process all the while thinking there would be a job for us at the end of it all. Instead the banks padded their balance sheet, held onto the money and left us all out in the cold.Typical.
Blah blah banks blah evil corporations blah.
My scenario isn't correct, I'll admit. The wealthy person pays much more than $100 to $1. But it's true, the left looks at that situation and says the wealthy person isn't paying his fair share.
What's worse is the reality. The wealthy person takes 3 people to lunch. He pays $3000. One person takes $100 of that and pockets it for himself, another takes $50, and the third pays $10.
And yet, the wealthy man isn't paying his fair share! lol It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever come across.I don't think you get it at all, Jaxson. To the socialist liberal ALL money, regardless of who "owns" it, belongs to them. They can and will make excuses and rationalizations to placate the masses ("They don't deserve it so we can morally take it" or "They cheated to get it, so we can morally take it") but no such rationalization is actually necessary to the socialist.
Everything you have really belongs to the liberal that wants to give it to someone else. Modern day Robin Hoods, the ethics and morality of the action is irrelevant; those silly concepts belong only to conservatives.Er, rot, to the socialist money doesn't belong to anybody, there is no "yours and mine" It is capitalists who live by the mantra "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine alone".
I suggest that you go away and learn about socialism rather than just rehash the myths invented by your capitalist masters.No take on it whatsoever!
Socialism isn't about taking money off the wealthy and privileged. There are no extremes of wealth and poverty - to each according to need, from each according to ability, and he who does not work does not eat.
If that's true then why do you claim all the profit from the sale of goods belong to labor?
I've never claimed that all profits belong to labour in the way you mean. The bossman in the factory s entitled to a profit on the raw materials he buys and the machinery on which the goods are produced but the labourer is entitled to the profit from his own labour. The bossman is robbing the worker when he takes some of a man's labour and uses it to enrich himself.
He is no better than the scrounger who will not work and would rather live off somebody else's earnings.You said this.
Er, rot, to the socialist money doesn't belong to anybody, there is no "yours and mine" It is capitalists who live by the mantra "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine alone".
Money doesn't belong to anybody then how is labor being robbed?We don't have socialism, we have capitalism and that does treat money as a possession and happily robs men of their labour.
You are NOTHING but a poet. And your poetry is not that good.
So the sin is the "bossman" robbing the worker " when he takes some of a man's labour and uses it to enrich himself."
Could you please give an example?Sure, in my younger days in my desire for work I went to an employment agency. For every £10 that I earned, they took £30!
No, you kept what you earned, that is what they earned.
Sorry, I should have said "paid" rather than earned. What I actually earned was £40 in that hour, what I was paid was only 25% of that, and you lot moan about high taxes, or any taxes at all!
John opens a woodworking shop, and gives a job to Jack.
John buys wood for $50, and Jack spends an hour turning that wood into a $200 table.
So, Jack is entitled to the $150 of profit?
I don't understand what the profit on raw materials or machinery would be. Raw materials don't go up in value just sitting there, someone has to do something with them.John you did not answer in specifics. how can you think that response up there will convince ANYONE of you position????
Come on, man!
Here is one more chance:
Please comment on the jist of the reply below.What does the "enrichment" involve??? Maybe it is paying the electricity bills, maybe it is paying rent for the not only the workshop, but his residence, as well. Maybe it is paying the U verse bill, not to mention food for himself and a tidbit for his family... if he feels they deserve it. (like maybe his wife was caught having an affair for no good reason except for the fact that she got bored... what with John spending so much time in the workshop training and mentoring the workers and all. But, I digress...)
Please tell us what enrichment you speak of? What is wrong with accumulating wealth? Most people invest their wealth and create jobs, or whatever... the use of money is the good of money,
A percolating economy is what we need.
The real problem is the tragedy of bailing out the banks and those who have blown it.
Let them blow it.
Consequences!
oh, well.
This nation just really needs to Man and Woman up.
Yes Jack spends his time turning the wood into a table, but John takes the lions share of the profit!
Why?
John doesn't have the ability to turn that wood into a table!How do you know? Very few people start businesses they know nothing about.
In this case, John does. He's been doing it for years, and he taught Jack how to do it.
But, for some reason, you don't think John should be allowed to actually make money for being an employer...Nope, I never said that. What I did say was that it was unfair for the none worker to make more profit off the worker than the worker did.
So, even though John created the business, paid for the tools, paid for the wood, paid for the building, paid for the electricity, invested his own time which could have been spent earning money...
He's not entitled to anything?Very little apparently. A 1% ROI should be more than sufficient for the
years John has invested into the business with very little return and well under that for capital invested. If your returns on capital are greater than inflation you are certainly making far too much.
John does little manual labor and so is virtually worthless to the business. Certainly his capital invested should not earn anything; investing in a business is immoral unless done from an altruistic standpoint.The standpoint that John isn't entitled to anything is even worse than the 100% subjective 'He can only take this much, because I've decided that's what is fair' standpoint.
True, but that seems to be the mindset of the far left. If you're rich (have the capital to invest) then you should give it to the poor rather than investing. That way NONE of us can have jobs as all the capital goes outside the country to somewhere it can be useful to the owner.
Exactly. What is the "enrichment," John? I do not know about your country, but it is really expensive to live here.
But even on another level...Should our star golfer, Phil, give up 65 % of his well earned millions... (yeah, yeah strolling about hitting little white balls,) just because....
because...
There are poor people who never even had golf lessons?
Maybe we should force him to give them golf lessons! Then he could keep his money.
Why should he have free time?If the world operated by John's proposal, we wouldn't have most of the things we have today. Ironic that he criticizes capitalism, while promoting a system that wouldn't work, using electronic devices and infrastructure that never would have existed under his proposed system.
Sorry Kathryn but you don't know the meaning of expensive. Generally what will cost you a dollar will cost us over a pound. We pay more for a litre of gas than you pay for a gallon. Rents are sky high. And on and on.
And it never occurs to you that the biggest reason for those costs is non-producing people although I don't believe for a minute that the average cost for things in the UK is double that of the US.
You pay more for gas, but it's all in taxes (to give to the poor?) for instance.
The banks are at least 50 percent to blame for the recession.
And in this country, your taxes are based on the percentage of your income. If you want to argue that the poor get a lot of tax breaks, the rich do as well. Just doing some cursory research has pointed me to options that I can't believe exist to help you shelter your money from taxes.We're taxed on percentage? Really?
You're not listening. With our current system, the three guys sit at the table with the rich guy. Two guys take money directly from the rich guy. One guy pays $10. And the rich guy gets stuck with a $3000 tab.
Yet, he's not paying his fair share. That's the result and reality of our system, and that's the extent that people on the left are calling unfair.
As for tax shelters, most of the crap you read online is wrong... most people go on and on about tax shelters, without actually knowing what they are, how they work, or if they even exist.Eh, I do most of my research by reading IRS forms and publications....I hope they aren't steering me wrong when it comes to legal ways to lower my tax bill.
And its not that I'm not listening, you just keep steering the conversation where you want it to go.
Yes, we are taxed on percentage. The government keeps writing in deductions to make the amount that you are taxed on lower and lower. The poor and the middle class get credits and deductions for having kids, buying a home or for something else that is useful to society or something that the government wants to encourage.
The rich get tax breaks through lower rates on capital gains. They also pay less in FICA taxes and can shelter their money in ways that those with fewer financial resources cannot.
I know you are aware of this already, I'm just sick of the sob story that the rich are oh-so-burdened with taxes. Maybe you and Phil Mickelson can have a nice chatOk Cody, what are some of the tax shelters you have found?
My example is based on the effective rates each group pays, deductions, 'shelters', everything included. Are you saying that, for the rich person to pay $3000, one other person to pay $10, and the other two people to take some of the rich person's money, that the rich guy isn't paying his fair share?If the guy who pays $3,000 also made $1 million during the year, he is only paying less than one percent of his total earnings.
If the guy who pays $10 makes $50,000 in a year, he is also paying less than one percent.
Is that not fair?
The banks are the cash cow for the government, thats why the government keeps asking the Federal Reserve to print more money... to bail them out.
This is according to Clark Howard. Heard this on the Bill Handle's AM radio show, this am. Well, it makes sense.
Your examples are so minutely focused and don't look at the larger evolution of the problem. To dismiss the situation with the blah, blah, blah reaction only cements my point that you cannot look outside the immediate instance. This is something that corporations have been doing for years and is the only thorn in the side of free enterprise. The corporate mentality has always been to buy influence and that is what sets us all up for the fall. If there were a moral reason other than greed that motivates their bastardization of the system I would look at it more along your lines.
Rhamson, it's called being off-topic. I'm talking about the stupidity of saying that the guy paying $3000 isn't paying enough. For anyone to launch into greed or corporate power or anything else, is off-topic from the point I am making.
I also noticed you failed to answer my question, but I'm pretty sure you would say that he's not paying enough. After all, the guy who takes $100 from the rich man, should really be taking $1000, shouldn't he?
JaxsonRaine, I have to say that your arguments are totally twisted and illogical. Please listen to the many clear voices who are trying to straighten out the logic for you.
Ah, so you don't think one person who pays more than 1000 other people is paying his fair share?
I listen to the arguments put before me. They are illogical. For instance, John says that the poor give away all their money by trading labor for money. If someone gives away all their money, how much do they have left? If someone works for $80 in a day, how much money does he have left? Are those two totals the same? If not, then clearly the person didn't give away all their money, did they?
I would kill to have a discussion with someone who could understand and form logical arguments.So would I!
The idea that somebody who could afford a $1000 lunch would sit down to eat with somebody who could only afford a $1 lunch is hysterical.It's not the plausibility of the example, it's the principle of saying the person paying $1000 isn't paying enough.
It all depends on earnings, if he is earning 2000 times the amount of the other, then it isn't enough.
If their living expenses are $81 a day then not only do they have nothing left, they have less than they started with.
They didn't give their money away then. They traded their money for goods and services. Giving away money gets you nothing in return.
I don't think less than nothing can be counted as a result in the way you seem to envision it.
Amazing that you can't understand.
Even if my bills are $90, and I work for $80, then I TRADED my labor for money. Then I pay $80 of my $90 worth of bills. I didn't GIVE away my money, I TRADED it for goods and services.
This whole argument is that you claim that my stance is for poor people to 'have to give away all their money'. It's beyond ridiculous.But if you say that man a) is worth only $80 a day, but by an accident of birth man b) is worth $8000 a day, can you get any more ridiculous than that?
No it's not, since this conversation is of the struggle between the rights of the wealthy and the rights of the poor if poor people are returning everything they labor for to the wealthy class (and almost inevitably they do) then it quickly becomes apparent that other measures are necessary to ensure some modicum of survival for one group, failing to support those people who cannot is disastrous for everyone because of the inevitable political and criminal results.
My argument with John is what John and I were talking about.
John claimed that it is my position that the poor should 'have to give away all their money'. That's simply not true, and he even admitted in an earlier post that 'ok but' and went off on another topic.
Do the goods and services that you're talking about include taxation?
I think they should because the poor help the rich get richer. Greed is one major problem in America. People will scam anyone for money. The bible says that the rich is suppose to help the poor. Where is the Utilitarian?
A voice of reason! People can more easily scam the poor and disenfranchised, thereby making such people poorer and even more disenfranchised. Without implying any religioius bias, I have to point out that we all come into this world with nothing and leave with nothing. It's our behavior between those two points that determines whether we are honorable people or not. The rich in our country are getting rich at the expense of the poor--by scamming, by giving themselves a pay raise, by not paying their employees the agreed-upon amount, by lying and cheating... Ask if that is honorable behavior. If someone becomes rich due to hard work, that's a rarity indeed, although some would say that it's hard work scamming people out of money. The rich should pay more to take care of the poor because it is the honorable thing to do, and since they haven't been doing that our economy and government is in a knot. Also, people let them (the scammers) get away with it--they don't report every little scam to the police. Little scammers become bigger scammers, and so on, because they think/know they'll never get in trouble for it. Isn't it time?
Richard Handler, king of Wall Street hogs for 2012 with a $45.2 million pay package.
1-30-13Wall Street Journal--"Jefferies Chief is Pay King Again With $45.2 million Package"
A $45.2 Million Payday for Jefferies CEO - WSJ.com
Richard Handler's compensation for 2012 pushes him ahead of some top executives at larger Wall Street rivals. Richard Handler has the biggest package with $45.2 million.
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB2 … 37930.htmlI presume that you think 1 million + a 5 million bonus (must have done something right) + 13 million in restricted stock (whatever the restriction is) is unreasonable. What do you base that on, though? Just that nobody is worth that, that he did a poor job, or on actual market conditions that he and his ilk are all paid?
Personally I think that anyone paid over a couple hundred thousand is overpaid, but if a company is willing to pay that much for the expertise being offered, (they think the return is greater than the expense) I don't see where my opinion has anything to do with anything at all.
IF...the million or so wealthy Knew that there were well over a hundred million people in America jobless, but desiring to earn a living wage, maybe the wealthy would support the poor. If they knew that jobs would arrest poverty and the people could pay more taxes and they could pay less, maybe they would become job creators. The fact is we don't have a spending problem, we have an employment problem. The lack of jobs has for years created over 40% unemployment in America's permanent underclass. Now after four years of created unemployment in the middle, working, and lowclass to make Obama the first Foodstamp President the underclass is growing. Share the wealth for the good of America, thats was I yes, but thats my underclass opinion.
What the heck is a Utilitarian??? Does it pay to be a Utilitarian?
Is there some sort of profit involved?
If so count me out, cuz I am against profit.
I live in a cave.
That is certainly good enough for me. I think it builds character to survive the cold nights.
And Sometimes I go for days without food.
If Jesus went for 40 days and nights without food, I can certainly go for a week. Then, I go into the city and beg. Some people look at me like I am a bum. Some people feel sorry for me. Thank the heavens for these kind-hearted people, but then, they've got oodles!
Cuz they work to make money. Yeah , they've got it all.
But to me, THEY are the bums.
Try living in a cave, you bums!
But I digress,
I do not think there is any profit in being a Utilitarian at all.
What would the motivation be, to be one?
Getting into heaven?
Most people can't wait that long for rewards.
It 's human nature.
Some people are naturally utilitarian in their approach to life.
(Their reward is in real time, knowing they have helped... those they wished to help.)
Thank goodness for them.
But, no one should be forced into it...
By the Fed.Okay, this thread is getting (has gotten?) ridiculous. I'm gonna make this short and sweet:
Why should the wealthy be forced to support the poor? Because the wealthy are in a position to help others, and helping others is Basic Human Decency 101.Forcing people to give away their money is human decency?
I agree that it's compassionate and decent to help others.
I don't see how it's decent to force people to help others.
Can you see the difference?Then I shall rephrase:
Why should the rich be forced to support the poor? They shouldn't, but it's the right thing to do, and failure to do so should deliver a giant autonomous floating "Don't Associate with Me Because I'll Screw You Over" sign to hover over your head until the day you die.I agree, they shouldn't.
Nor should we try to coerce people to do what we think it 'right', through any sort of negative means, including a large sign floating over their heads.
Freedom is held in such low regard these days.It's not coercion; the sign isn't forcing you to do anything. The hypothetical sign is a repercussion for not doing the right thing, and saying that having freedom is to be free from repercussions is lunacy.
Also, scientists, you need to start inventing autonomous floating signs. Because it's the future now.Repercussion for not doing 'X' is coercion to do 'X'.
Imagine the government saying 'We're not going to force you to donate all of your money to the government, but if you don't, we're going to punish you by taxing all your money.'
Now, that's an extreme example, coercion comes in degrees, but punishment for not doing the 'morally right'(subjective) thing is coercion.
If someone is going to FORCE me to help the poor, then you can bet I ALSO will stay poor. Which is pretty much my reality at this point.
Q. Why should I knock myself out, if I can't keep what I have worked for?
(at least MOST of what is due me; a little I have willingly allowed the
government to use...It really seems like the more one makes, the more one has to give around here.)
Where is the justice, Zelkiiro?
Justice in the end, is allowing a man/woman to KEEP what is due to him/her. Allow that man/woman to help out humanity with their own willingness ... (which many of them do because they get tax breaks)
Q. Do the rich OWE money to the poor for some reason? Like, in their last lives did they borrow money from those who are now poor in this life?
If so, where is the proof?
LOL!
Glad you accept that forcing workers to give up their earnings at far higher rates than any rate of taxation is indecent.
I agree, forcing workers to give up their money is wrong.
That's not what employment is though. Employment is an agreement, so it's voluntary.
Before you say it's slave wages and they have no choice, please explain why millions of people are able to create their own success.Luck, niche markets, unique talent, a mix of all of the above?
NOT being stuck in the boonies with no money to relocate?
Luck? How exactly does luck play into creating a successful business? I can understand if you happen to bump into a V.C. investor at Starbucks and tell him your idea, how that *might* be considered luck(you could always just call and pitch to him anyway), but it seems to be thrown out all the time as an excuse.
Niche markets? Are you suggesting only *some* people have the freedom to create products or services for niche markets? Are you suggesting we have run out of niche markets? Why can't everyone have the freedom to build a business based on a niche market?
Unique talent... everyone has talents. Hard work is generally much more important than talent, unless you are something like an athlete.
The woman who made spanx started her business with $5000. Many more people have started businesses with no money, so what's really holding them back?So because a go-get-'em attitude is apparently the most important thing (according to you), I'm going to launch a warehouse store that will send Walmart nose-diving into bankruptcy!
I mean, after all, I don't need to be lucky or fill an obscure niche or have any talent, right? I JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE!!None of the ingredients to success are enough on their own. You're using a straw man, I never said ambition will make you successful in anything. Is there demand for competition with Wal-Mart? Probably not.
You need to have a few different things, at least the following.
Hard work.
Market research.
Good business management.
Good financial management.
If you fail to have one of those, luck *might* help you, but I'd rather rely on myself than luck.
Yes,like the voluntary agreement between a mugger and his victim. They both get what they want, the mugger the victims valuables and the victim gets to go home relatively unscathed.
The victim however would not agree that the settlement was fair and equitable.Haha, there is no voluntary agreement between a mugger and his victim. Have you ever seen a victim walk up to someone and say 'I'll agree for you to take my stuff, if you don't hurt me'?
And why have you not responded to what I said earlier? Did you realize you contradicted yourself?Just the same as there is no voluntary agreement between employer and employee.
I didn't contradict myself but I have learnt not to feed the trolls.Why not... they are poor! They just want a little of what you have! Don't you have enough to give a poor little troll.
How mean spirited of you.Weird... nobody forced a gun to my head or knife to my throat when I was deciding who I was going to work for.
You did contradict yourself. Calling me a troll doesn't change that.
You first said that John shouldn't get any of the money from the table that Jack makes. Then you said that John just can't make more off of Jack's work than Jack does, and that you never said that John wasn't entitled to any of that money. The contradiction is that you DID say that John isn't entitled to that money.
I'm asking you to clarify, because I don't see why many people would become an employer if they don't make any money from doing it. Why can't you just stick with a conversation and explain your views?You should choose your profession because you enjoy it, not because it gives you the right to trample on 400 peoples' faces while you buy expensive cars with the "401K" money you've taken from them.
I do my work because I enjoy it. I wasn't forced to do so.
Lucky you, but what about the many that don't have that choice? There are plenty of them and they aren't all sub human, they love their wives and families and strive to do their best for them.
They still have a choice. They can work for one employer, or another, or they can go create their own wealth.
Look for other employment? Start a new business (that doesn't immediately tank due to a terrible economy and the population's general averseness to change)? In America?!
Surely you jest.Man! What's it like living in a reality free bubble? There is mass unemployment, the banks are reluctant to lend cash to anybody but the big names, there is a recession on, but to you it's easy, just get another better paid job or work for yourself!
I believe in making your future work on your own. I've seen it done, and I'm doing it myself. I only have to work 2 hours a day at my job, the rest of our time is going into our business.
We started it with $2000, and doing it on top of our regular work. I don't see why others are somehow forced *not* to find their own success.How would you have started without that $2000?
We didn't start until we had it. We didn't have it, so we worked hard, lived frugally, and saved up for it.
Which implies that you were earning enough to live frugally and save. What if you had been forced, like so many, to live frugally but not have enough left to save?
Nobody is being forced. You don't know what that word means.
A single person can save money off of minimum wage, without government assistance. A married couple probably could too, and both definitely could with government assistance. A married couple with kids might need two minimum-wage jobs to save, but it can be done.
It's always about excuses and how *other* people aren't doing enough to help me/him.
There are laws. No one has been trampling on their employees faces or buying expensive cars with their employee's 401K money! Maybe in China. Not here. Yes, some corporations are misstepping their bounds. Usually the scenario is like this: Dad owned a business and it merged and grew. Now it is a multimillion dollar organization. Then he retires, or dies. Jr. takes over and goes to town, buying expensive cars and being a u no what.
(The employees are treated like dirt... cuz the kid never learned any values from dad who was never home.)
ULP.
The employees will have to leave the company.
Good! They be finally will be in a position to find work they like.
Firstly, you asre not everybody else and are not qualified to speak for everybody else however much you might like to think you are.
I first said that John shouldn't get any money off the table beyond rent for the space and machinery that John used and some profit on the raw materials.
Not my contradiction, just your inability to follow a thought.When did I say I am everybody else?
You first said that Jack should get all $150 profit from the table. You didn't say anything about rent for the space or machinery.
Don't believe me?
You did say in another post that an employer should get profit for raw materials, but when I asked you about that, you didn't respond. Raw materials don't generally just increase in value, so what 'profit' are you talking about?
For you to say that Jack isn't entitled to the $150 of profit IS a contradiction, because you said that he is. Is, and isn't, are contradictory."John buys wood for $50, and Jack spends an hour turning that wood into a $200 table.
So, Jack is entitled to the $150 of profit?"
Where in that do you reach the conclusion that John should get none of the profit? He might well voluntarily agree to share his profit with John, which is more than John does with Jack according to you.I have solved the problem, I fired Jack and hired Jill. Jack argues way too much and sweats profusely! Jill smiles and smells good.
But what if Jack argues while smelling good and Jill smiles while sweating profusely?
There is lawsuit waiting to happen...
-better keep the sweaty arguer!
But then,
Of course,
Lawyers need money too!
He cannot afford to share his profit! Jack wouldn't even have a job, if that was done.
Furthermore, did you know that the President is not given more of a salary because the i m p o r t a n c e of the job is enough to attract willing candidates? Did Romney need the Job of President of the US for the money?No.
PS here is a news flash and a half
The President and Congress members gave themselves raises about month and a half ago... while we're here chatting in forums.
BAH.
How is this relevant?
Jack loves woodworking!You said Jack is entitled to the profit. All of it. So, John gets none of it.
There is no more profit after Jack took it all. It's pretty simple math.Being entitled to all the profit and being given all the profit are rather different things.
Being entitled does not mean taking it all. Just as your employer and employee can reach a voluntary agreement for the employee to work for peanuts so why shouldn't Jack be in that position?
I go back to my example of working for an agency who paid me 25% of what I earned and kept the rest for themselves.
That's always the crux of it, it comes down to entitlement.
Say in a town there are no jobs. John comes in, opens his shop, and offers to pay people $8/hr to work for him.
Some people would be grateful that he is working to stimulate the local economy and offering jobs.
Some though, will complain that he's not paying enough, and he is forcing people to accept low wages. Well, would anybody be better off if he didn't come to town?But according to you there are plenty of jobs and nobody is forced to do one that doesn't satisfy them!
There could definitely be more jobs, but there are plenty, at least around where I live. Dozens of call centers that will hire anybody who can type 20wpm and not swear at people.
But those call centers are always struggling to hire enough people, because 'it's too hard' or 'it doesn't pay enough'.
Edit: nobody is forced to accept a job in this country.But you said " in a town there are no jobs." Make up your mind!
Ah, sorry, I didn't read the post you had quoted.
There are plenty of jobs. When I say that, I don't mean every little town and city has plenty. Sometimes people have to move, but there are plenty of jobs open right now.
The fact is, people like you would criticize John for providing those jobs, as if you would be better off without him!It's that good old victim mentality! Oh bless you John for allowing me to live!
Yup, ignoring what I'm actually saying.
If something isn't as good as you would prefer it to be, then it's bad. Any job under, what, $20/hr is just evil, slave labor, lol.
Alright John. Say you live in this town with no jobs. Say that two large companies talk to the townsfolk and say they will provide 50 jobs at $10/hr.
Are you going to tell them 'Go away, we don't need your slave labor!'. lol
Remember my analogy of the mugger and his victim?
I agreed to it because the alternative would have been to let my wife and daughter starve.Unfortunately yes, you should work on your analogies,
Why? Is it too straight forward for you to argue against?
You still weren't forced.
What would you have done if that job hadn't been available?So, somebody took their time, money, and effort to provide an alternative for you, but rather than be grateful, you criticize them. I'm astonished you weren't at least grateful for there to be some work for you.
Beggars can't be choosers, but they can sure complain about it!What time and effort? They sat there and answered the phone, no effort involved at all whereas I sweated all day for my 25%!
The time and effort to build the company and offer you a job that you agreed to do even though you think they should just have given you the money.
I wouldn't have quibbled at a 75-25 split in my favour.
The effort of creating those opportunities. See, you complain because someone gave you an option to avoid having to 'go on the rob'. Surely you would have been better off without them, right?
Lol, now you're backtracking.
Let's take out the word entitled.
John buys $50 of wood. Jack, his employee, makes a table. John sells the table for $200.
Where should the money go?
@ JH
NO! At least SOME people are better off after he came to town! You just answered the debate yourself. If NO ONE has a chance to make a little money isn't that
w o r s e?It's based off of feelings of entitlement, jealousy, etc...
Yeah, the town is better off, but it's still not fair! John shouldn't have money when other people don't! How dare he help the town, without helping more!
I guess anybody who doesn't give away ALL of their money more than they need to barely survive is just a horrible person... which would be all of us, including John. He's wasting money running an electronic device to argue on an internet forum... that time and money should be used to help the less fortunate.But you fully expect the man at the bottom of the pile to give away all his money!
Where did I say that? Quote please.
When I claim that you said something, I quote your actual words. Quote where I said I expect poor people to give away all their money.Your whole argument says that! The man at the top is worth every penny he is paid, the man at the bottom should be grateful for the pittance he gets. It runs through all your posts like an anthem.
Quote me. I never said poor people should have to give away all their money. Straw man. Straw man. Straw man. Do you have any idea what Straw Man means?
Someone who creates a company is entitled to do with it as they wish. Someone who accepts employment is entitled to the compensation they agreed to.
Nothing in that says that the poor should have to give away all their money... your conclusion is so far from the actual statements that it's laughable.
Like I said, you would complain about being given rice if you were starving.You have consistently argued that people should be grateful for what little they receive and that high earners are over taxed!
Wealthy people are taxed too much = Poor people should have to give away all their money?
Yes or no?
Employees should be grateful for the jobs they have = Poor people should have to give away all their money?
Yes or no?
Why can't you read a sentence and understand what it says, instead of completely changing the meaning?I don't change the meaning, I read exactly what is written.
Do you deny that you have stated that high earners shouldn't have to pay so much tax?
Do you deny that you have said that people should welcome minimum wage jobs ($8/hr)
But surely better if a lot of people make more than a little money?
@Zelkiiro
try: has been ridiculous from the start.
PS Has this thread brought you out of your anime world? if so... then it's all been worth it.I wasn't aware anime even had a world. Though if Sturgeon's Law is any indication, it's probably populated with 4channers and nimrods who think High School of the Dead is high art.
I wouldn't want to go there.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Answer this plainly John, yes or no.
Would you have been better off if that company hadn't been there to give you that job?Better off is subjective, would I be better off up to my neck in silage or sh!t?
"And it never occurs to you that the biggest reason for those costs is non-producing people although I don't believe for a minute that the average cost for things in the UK is double that of the US.
You pay more for gas, but it's all in taxes (to give to the poor?) for instance."
Non-producing, like CEOs and accountants and bankers?
And yes, things in the UK cost roughly double what they cost in the USA.
It's not all in taxes to give to the poor either, much more goes to fighting the USAs wars.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Ok, let's say you go back to that situation, and you have 3 job offers.
Job 1 - Employer pays you $8/hr(you get 100%)
Job 2 - Agency pays you $10/hr, keeps $5/hr(you get 67%)
Job 3 - Agency pays you $30/hr, keeps $90/hr(you get 25%)
Which would you pick?But that is so unlikely, more likely is that the employer paying me $8/hr is keeping 90% back.
So produce abstract paintings and charge $4,000 for each one. Let the government take 65% of that money and share the profits with those who bought your "Modern Art" pieces! That would be fair!
And you better continue living in your little cramped art studio that smells to high heaven like acrylic paint.
Very often, cynicism is a mask for insecurity. Snobbery is as well. It's only the real people who live with day-to-day challenges of the most difficult kind who validate themselves most as human beings. Money isn't the sole purpose of existence. Such an existence entirely dependent on money proves a total lack of character and substance. If you review the history of the top 7 wealthiest Robber Barons of the 1900s, two committed suicide, one died in prison for fraud, two died penniless and one became a recluse. Of our millennial greedheads, Madoff, Kozlowski, Ebbers and Abramoff are in jail. A person who cannot earn their wealth without defrauding others in any way, is a person who deserves to lose every dime they've dishonestly earned.
1) Rich people should help poor because poor people maintain the wealth of rich people, if they struggle the economy that rich people rely on to generate wealth will also struggle. They should pay higher tax because luck is a significant factor in achieving financial success, and those with greater means should pay tax to help the society that has been kind to them.
2) Governments have a responsibility to look after the rights of their citizens, I don't think it is reasonable to pass this responsibility to charities.
3) I do believe that most people do work hard if they are given the opportunity to do so. Most people will be genuine if they feel they will be treated fairly, and enjoy personal responsibility and independence. Those who have enjoyed wealth should realize that less fortunate people also want their loved ones to be happy, if they need a little help to achieve this then so be it.1) Rich people should help poor because poor people maintain the wealth of rich people, if they struggle the economy that rich people rely on to generate wealth will also struggle. They should pay higher tax because luck is a significant factor in achieving financial success, and those with greater means should pay tax to help the society that has been kind to them.
2) Governments have a responsibility to look after the rights of their citizens, I don't think it is reasonable to pass this responsibility to charities.
3) I do believe that most people do work hard if they are given the opportunity to do so. Most people will be genuine if they feel they will be treated fairly, and enjoy personal responsibility and independence. Those who have enjoyed wealth should realize that less fortunate people also want their loved ones to be happy, if they need a little help to achieve this then so be it.The OP was "why should the wealthy be forced (presumably against their will) to support the poor. While I think few would disagree with the idea that the rich should help support the poor, when the concept of forcing that help is added in it becomes another question.
Your reply seems to indicate that the force is acceptable because the rich were lucky. They were lucky (ignoring their hard work, smarts and willingness to risk it all) and therefore it is OK to take their belongings from them.
Can't say as I can swallow that one - not only can you not declare that wealth comes from luck, it is has nothing to do with the morality of confiscating the belongings of someone else.I don't think that belongings should be taken from people, how they decide to spend their non-taxable income is their concern. I also said luck was a factor, but just because a person is poor does not mean they are lazy and stupid.
"They should pay higher tax because luck is a significant factor in achieving financial success, and those with greater means should pay tax to help the society..."
Sorry, I interpreted that "They should pay higher tax because...", and "those with greater means should pay tax to help the society" meant they should pay tax (have their wealth taken under threat of jail) to "help the society". If I misunderstood the meaning I certainly apologize. (I also considered wealth and/or money to be a "belonging").
Related Discussions
- 109
Who is Responsible for the Poverty?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 5 years ago
Why there is poverty in specific people while others are well to do people? Who are responsible for poverty - the poor people themselves, Government policies or the system?
- 41
Should the Wealthy Pay for the Poor in America
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
There are some who contend that there is a gross inequality regarding income. They maintain that there are poverty amid wealth. They vehemently decry that there should be equalization in terms of income. They maintain that having wealth borders on obscenity & they should...
- 43
The Welfare Issue.......YET AGAIN
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
The "Great" Society which was instituted in the 1960s led to the current welfare state & the massive socioeconomic malaise associated with it. Many people on welfare are able-bodied people who CAN but WON'T work. Also, much of welfare is generational. There is...
- 62
Millennials Vs. Baby Boomers Gov Care Vs. personal Responsibility
by ga anderson 5 years ago
I know I am showing my stripes here, but . . . Check out this blog post and see if you see any truth in it.International Liberty - A Lost Generation of Socialism Youth?And this parody:GA
- 42
Divided America: The Battle for Core Values and Who Will Prevail
by Sharlee 5 months ago
Americans have become deeply divided over a combination of political, cultural, and social factors that have been escalating for decades. The truth is, political polarization has intensified significantly over the last 40 years. The two major parties have moved further apart ideologically, with...
- 596
Do Wealthy People Work Harder and Are they Smarter?
by Sophia Angelique 6 years ago
According to Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Outliers, the answer is no.Gladwell showed repeatedly that whether people who succeeded or not, depended a great deal on how much wealth and education their parents had. For example, children who have the benefit of a private school learn a lot of things...