Jester;1027577 wrote: I'm finding that the government is all about taking whatever it wants, especially when the American people elect officials that redistribute what americans earn, they seem to like it, I wonder how long they will like it?
Do you not "rightfully earn" your entire gross income? In what way is any tax at all on any earning "rightful"? Accountable said you only "rightfully earn" what the government can't justify taking from you, I think. If I'm wrong he can say what he really meant and that'll clear it up.
Wealth Redistribution
Wealth Redistribution
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
Jester;1027585 wrote: I earn every penny of it. And the government takes a portion of it, last year they took 32% of what I made. (direct income tax) I paid an additional amount in use taxes to the tune of about 18% of purchases.
I figure the government can be trusted with about 4% total of what everybody earns and nothing of what we purchase. Use tax is unconstitutional in my opinion. (it's designed to control behavior the government has no right dictating).
If they can't run government off that then they have no right being in office.
If I had my way government would not have the power to borrow money, ever.I've decided the federal gov't shouldn't be getting any taxes at all from individual citizens. Rather, it should have to justify every dime of its budget to the states, which will pay for approved federal operations proportionately. Since Congress has evolved/devolved/changed to the point that they think they represent no one but instead are the federal gov't itself, that means the justification must be to the state governors or their representatives. Each state can increase its taxes as necessary & approved by voters to regain the balance ruined by the huge unconstiitutional centralized government.
The decentralization of power will increase and encourage benchmarking and competition in all governmental areas. These two things have proven to generate continual improvement far beyond any centralized program.
I figure the government can be trusted with about 4% total of what everybody earns and nothing of what we purchase. Use tax is unconstitutional in my opinion. (it's designed to control behavior the government has no right dictating).
If they can't run government off that then they have no right being in office.
If I had my way government would not have the power to borrow money, ever.I've decided the federal gov't shouldn't be getting any taxes at all from individual citizens. Rather, it should have to justify every dime of its budget to the states, which will pay for approved federal operations proportionately. Since Congress has evolved/devolved/changed to the point that they think they represent no one but instead are the federal gov't itself, that means the justification must be to the state governors or their representatives. Each state can increase its taxes as necessary & approved by voters to regain the balance ruined by the huge unconstiitutional centralized government.
The decentralization of power will increase and encourage benchmarking and competition in all governmental areas. These two things have proven to generate continual improvement far beyond any centralized program.
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1025167 wrote: I just heard a great analogy concerning wealth redistribution:
Imagine applying it to education. Why not take, say, 30% off the scores of the highest achievers and redistribute them proportionately to the lower achievers? Wouldn't that be better for everybody?
Applied to education, the smartest students help the struggling students by donating time and tutoring. What is the problem with that?
What you are suggesting isn't a true redistribution of wealth (which is knowledge, not grades), but simply breaking the measurement system of that knowledge. If you do that, you should just do away with grading students altogether. Grades by themselves have no value.
Imagine applying it to education. Why not take, say, 30% off the scores of the highest achievers and redistribute them proportionately to the lower achievers? Wouldn't that be better for everybody?
Applied to education, the smartest students help the struggling students by donating time and tutoring. What is the problem with that?
What you are suggesting isn't a true redistribution of wealth (which is knowledge, not grades), but simply breaking the measurement system of that knowledge. If you do that, you should just do away with grading students altogether. Grades by themselves have no value.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
yaaarrrgg;1027597 wrote: Applied to education, the smartest students help the struggling students by donating time and tutoring. What is the problem with that?Nothing. Not a thing. What if a high-achieving student had to forfeit 30% of his notes so that lower-scoring students could benefit? Not copy his notes, mind you. He must give up the originals then go make new notes for himself to continue his high achievement.
yaaarrrgg wrote: What you are suggesting isn't a true redistribution of wealth (which is knowledge, not grades), but simply breaking the measurement system of that knowledge. If you do that, you should just do away with grading students altogether. Grades by themselves have no value.Excellent point that I hadn't considered. :yh_clap
I've changed the analogy. Does it fit better?
yaaarrrgg wrote: What you are suggesting isn't a true redistribution of wealth (which is knowledge, not grades), but simply breaking the measurement system of that knowledge. If you do that, you should just do away with grading students altogether. Grades by themselves have no value.Excellent point that I hadn't considered. :yh_clap
I've changed the analogy. Does it fit better?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
Jester;1027609 wrote: Ok I'm on this one for the discussion, I'm not convinced yet I need more understanding.
Look at the name of our nation. It's not the federation that's important but the states, the United States of America. The federal level was so unimportant to our founding fathers that they didn't even deem it worthy of a unique name.
Later, Lincoln framed it well (in words if not in practice) that we are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. We've got the whole thing ass-backwards now. Lincoln and later FDR convinced everybody that the federal gov't should be in charge, when it was originally set up to be the servant. People first, then States, with the federal gov't last.
If the constitution were dusted off and followed rather than just mentioned, most of the federal departments would rightly be declared unconstitutional and disbanded. Education, healthcare, marriage, etc etc are all issues for the states to decide whether and how they will be supported. That would free the people to choose which state gov't best suited their particular lifestyle and situation. Don't like how Montana treats unions? Move to Oklahoma. California too socialist for ya? Try Missouri for a change.
The diversity would spur innovation. States would constantly tweak their programs to best fit their citizens, and citizens would be closer to the decision-makers to keep them in check.
Look at the name of our nation. It's not the federation that's important but the states, the United States of America. The federal level was so unimportant to our founding fathers that they didn't even deem it worthy of a unique name.
Later, Lincoln framed it well (in words if not in practice) that we are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. We've got the whole thing ass-backwards now. Lincoln and later FDR convinced everybody that the federal gov't should be in charge, when it was originally set up to be the servant. People first, then States, with the federal gov't last.
If the constitution were dusted off and followed rather than just mentioned, most of the federal departments would rightly be declared unconstitutional and disbanded. Education, healthcare, marriage, etc etc are all issues for the states to decide whether and how they will be supported. That would free the people to choose which state gov't best suited their particular lifestyle and situation. Don't like how Montana treats unions? Move to Oklahoma. California too socialist for ya? Try Missouri for a change.
The diversity would spur innovation. States would constantly tweak their programs to best fit their citizens, and citizens would be closer to the decision-makers to keep them in check.
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1027479 wrote: Isn't that oxymoronic?
It's moronic but not oxymoronic...
The government does not allow for people to provide for themselves by virtue of hunting and gathering(As the land is owned by someone else thus earning you a one way ticket to jail for trespassing, which ah yes I'm getting to that now - :wah:) Land is not free even though we're all human and live on planet Earth and as I've said before hunting is mandated extensively throughout America, to whom in which I speak of predominantly, so making clothing has to come from commodities out side of animal skin which is the meaning of my entire point...The government makes their money by establishing currency. As I've said before,..the rich shelter the poor to remain more wealthy by virtue of laws and greed all the while people buy into societies need to convince the lazy and ignorant that the middle man is common ground.
It's moronic but not oxymoronic...
The government does not allow for people to provide for themselves by virtue of hunting and gathering(As the land is owned by someone else thus earning you a one way ticket to jail for trespassing, which ah yes I'm getting to that now - :wah:) Land is not free even though we're all human and live on planet Earth and as I've said before hunting is mandated extensively throughout America, to whom in which I speak of predominantly, so making clothing has to come from commodities out side of animal skin which is the meaning of my entire point...The government makes their money by establishing currency. As I've said before,..the rich shelter the poor to remain more wealthy by virtue of laws and greed all the while people buy into societies need to convince the lazy and ignorant that the middle man is common ground.
Wealth Redistribution
Jester;1027628 wrote: No you dont.
You wouldnt like what it would have done to your beloved Russia years ago.
I think Scrat's point is that the US federal government currently spends rather more on military spending than the "4% total of what everybody earns and nothing of what we purchase" you're allocating them, and that if you had your way the military budget and capability would fall short of your current expectations. What'll pay for them if you cut government taxation to 4% of personal earnings?
You wouldnt like what it would have done to your beloved Russia years ago.
I think Scrat's point is that the US federal government currently spends rather more on military spending than the "4% total of what everybody earns and nothing of what we purchase" you're allocating them, and that if you had your way the military budget and capability would fall short of your current expectations. What'll pay for them if you cut government taxation to 4% of personal earnings?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Wealth Redistribution
Jester;1027632 wrote: We'll just have to cut back wont we.
Want to be my campaign manager for the next presidential election now?
I'll auction your deep-water fleet on eBay, how's that.
Want to be my campaign manager for the next presidential election now?
I'll auction your deep-water fleet on eBay, how's that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Wealth Redistribution
Jester;1027636 wrote: ahahahah nah we will just mothball them if needed!:wah:
Rats! I had a buyer in mind too, they just got an entire empty Black Sea port handed to them.
Rats! I had a buyer in mind too, they just got an entire empty Black Sea port handed to them.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1027601 wrote: Nothing. Not a thing. What if a high-achieving student had to forfeit 30% of his notes so that lower-scoring students could benefit? Not copy his notes, mind you. He must give up the originals then go make new notes for himself to continue his high achievement.
Excellent point that I hadn't considered. :yh_clap
I've changed the analogy. Does it fit better?
It might not be a bad idea if we are taking people's notes after they complete a class or set of courses. At that point, they probably have little value to the person that created them other than recycled paper.
But I see your point on the issue of fairness.
IMO donating time or tutoring is what is more valuable ... maybe an hour or so a week. It could be seen as "punishing success." But having tutored math in college, I actually enjoyed it. While I got paid a little, the real payment was in helping others. It's not as bad as people make it out to be.
Excellent point that I hadn't considered. :yh_clap
I've changed the analogy. Does it fit better?
It might not be a bad idea if we are taking people's notes after they complete a class or set of courses. At that point, they probably have little value to the person that created them other than recycled paper.
But I see your point on the issue of fairness.
IMO donating time or tutoring is what is more valuable ... maybe an hour or so a week. It could be seen as "punishing success." But having tutored math in college, I actually enjoyed it. While I got paid a little, the real payment was in helping others. It's not as bad as people make it out to be.
Wealth Redistribution
The thing about wealth distribution is it's not just about wealth but also about the distribution of power. We went from feudal society through the industrial revolution the development of mass political movements of which socialism, fascism and communism were a part. America kind of leapt past all that and went their own way.
You've always had debates about who should have the power-who should get to vote men of property or all men regardless wealth. Should government exist just to help business or should it also have a role in making society better. What to do if the rich use their power to take advantage of the poor-you need some kind of government intervention but that's regulation and government interference isn't it?
In the 1840's in europe landowners were using their wealth and power to pass laws so that they could take once common land in to their private ownership-making it a criminal offence for anyone else to use or even be on that property. When Karl Marx coined the phrase all property is theft it is that practice is what he was referring to. A basic land grab. Once upon a time War lords come in take control by force and all land comes from them-later they become the aristocracy and have us all convinced they have a right to keep what actually they took by force. Then you have the wealthy doing the same-what was once common land becomes private by act of parliament (in the case of England ) and just being on that land without permission becomes a crime in itself. He did extend it a bit too far but in context all property/land taken that way was in fact stolen from those who were powerless to prevent it.
You had a similar thing in the states-your literature is full of stories of settlers defending their land from cattle ranchers that don't want them there ploughing or cattle ranchers losing out to sod busters claiming land they once thought was theirs because they were there first. Robber baron/ peasant, cattle rancher/sod buster the words are different but the events are similar. Who was the thief-the cattle rancher protecting his ranch or the farmer taking what he was entitled to?
Mining companies open cast mining and destroying whole landscapes and communities with no one able to stop them. Whose wealth is being redistributed there?
If you have a situation where fewer and fewer people have control of the wealth of a country-be they individuals or corporations it is bad for freedom and democracy. What you do about it is something you need to decide. As soon as you have a tax of any kind you are re-distributing wealth who and why you tax and what you use it for is what governments decide. What governments decide to do is what you tell them to do unless somehow you are persuaded you don't have that right in the first place.
You have a peculiarly American problem so you should work out a peculiarly American solution to issues like things like healthcare and access to education etc. etc. You won't see many European countries adopting an American style solution to the provision of healthcare for instance. Nor do we waste much time comparing our system with yours except to feel slightly smug that ours is better.
I would put it to you that it's not re-distributing wealth you have a problem with. You're doing it all the time, but whose wealth is it and who gets to decide how much and what do you do with it?
You've always had debates about who should have the power-who should get to vote men of property or all men regardless wealth. Should government exist just to help business or should it also have a role in making society better. What to do if the rich use their power to take advantage of the poor-you need some kind of government intervention but that's regulation and government interference isn't it?
In the 1840's in europe landowners were using their wealth and power to pass laws so that they could take once common land in to their private ownership-making it a criminal offence for anyone else to use or even be on that property. When Karl Marx coined the phrase all property is theft it is that practice is what he was referring to. A basic land grab. Once upon a time War lords come in take control by force and all land comes from them-later they become the aristocracy and have us all convinced they have a right to keep what actually they took by force. Then you have the wealthy doing the same-what was once common land becomes private by act of parliament (in the case of England ) and just being on that land without permission becomes a crime in itself. He did extend it a bit too far but in context all property/land taken that way was in fact stolen from those who were powerless to prevent it.
You had a similar thing in the states-your literature is full of stories of settlers defending their land from cattle ranchers that don't want them there ploughing or cattle ranchers losing out to sod busters claiming land they once thought was theirs because they were there first. Robber baron/ peasant, cattle rancher/sod buster the words are different but the events are similar. Who was the thief-the cattle rancher protecting his ranch or the farmer taking what he was entitled to?
Mining companies open cast mining and destroying whole landscapes and communities with no one able to stop them. Whose wealth is being redistributed there?
If you have a situation where fewer and fewer people have control of the wealth of a country-be they individuals or corporations it is bad for freedom and democracy. What you do about it is something you need to decide. As soon as you have a tax of any kind you are re-distributing wealth who and why you tax and what you use it for is what governments decide. What governments decide to do is what you tell them to do unless somehow you are persuaded you don't have that right in the first place.
You have a peculiarly American problem so you should work out a peculiarly American solution to issues like things like healthcare and access to education etc. etc. You won't see many European countries adopting an American style solution to the provision of healthcare for instance. Nor do we waste much time comparing our system with yours except to feel slightly smug that ours is better.
I would put it to you that it's not re-distributing wealth you have a problem with. You're doing it all the time, but whose wealth is it and who gets to decide how much and what do you do with it?
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1025167 wrote: I just heard a great analogy concerning wealth redistribution:
Imagine applying it to education. Why not take, say, 30% off the scores of the highest achievers and redistribute them proportionately to the lower achievers? Wouldn't that be better for everybody?
I think that that is a great analogy.
Imagine applying it to education. Why not take, say, 30% off the scores of the highest achievers and redistribute them proportionately to the lower achievers? Wouldn't that be better for everybody?
I think that that is a great analogy.
Wealth Redistribution
mikeinie;1028516 wrote: I think that that is a great analogy.
No it's not. It's simplistic nonsense beloved of those who think social justice is a loony left wing concept but struggle to come up with a rational counter argument.:sneaky:
No it's not. It's simplistic nonsense beloved of those who think social justice is a loony left wing concept but struggle to come up with a rational counter argument.:sneaky:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
gmc;1028505 wrote: I would put it to you that it's not re-distributing wealth you have a problem with. You're doing it all the time, but whose wealth is it and who gets to decide how much and what do you do with it?
I'm not willing to broaden the definition like that. Taxing citizens to pay for reasonable operating expenses is not redistribution.
As I type this I think I see what you mean. Washington distributes wealth in the form of subsidies to help boost the economy. We pay some farmers tax money to not grow certain crops. All these bailouts were redistributing wealth as well, as were the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac schemes.
Yeh, I have a definite problem with Washington redistributing wealth.
I'm not willing to broaden the definition like that. Taxing citizens to pay for reasonable operating expenses is not redistribution.
As I type this I think I see what you mean. Washington distributes wealth in the form of subsidies to help boost the economy. We pay some farmers tax money to not grow certain crops. All these bailouts were redistributing wealth as well, as were the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac schemes.
Yeh, I have a definite problem with Washington redistributing wealth.
Wealth Redistribution
I don't know what irritates me more.. the notion that lazy folks who don't pay taxes get my money handed to them spend as they see fit, or the fact that the lazy corporations get my money to bail them out of spending as they see fit..
Either way, I need a 2nd parttime job to cover expenses in my own household, because folks either can't be bothered to work, can't be bothered to pay their share or have contributed enough to political campaigns that they get bailed out. I am not only paying my credit card debt, my taxes are now paying everyone elses debt too..
I am sick and tired of standing in line with the 10 for $10 pot pie special, while the lazy jerk in front of me is scanning beef.
MY kid can't get free hearing, eye, immunization checks at school.. but I can pay for some lazy assholes kid to get the same... I'm sick of this entitlement generation...
I should not be able to find a place to apply for a second job... someone on MY dole should be sitting at that checkout on weekends and needing to ask for a little bit less out of my pockets.. !:-5
But I have no problem taxing folks that make more then 250000 at a higher rate... so long as you quit giving the breaks to those who do nothing but stand there with their hand out.. corporate or personal. If we the people need something, fine... but she/he the person.. get a frickin' job... my yard needs raking!:rolleyes:
Either way, I need a 2nd parttime job to cover expenses in my own household, because folks either can't be bothered to work, can't be bothered to pay their share or have contributed enough to political campaigns that they get bailed out. I am not only paying my credit card debt, my taxes are now paying everyone elses debt too..
I am sick and tired of standing in line with the 10 for $10 pot pie special, while the lazy jerk in front of me is scanning beef.
MY kid can't get free hearing, eye, immunization checks at school.. but I can pay for some lazy assholes kid to get the same... I'm sick of this entitlement generation...
I should not be able to find a place to apply for a second job... someone on MY dole should be sitting at that checkout on weekends and needing to ask for a little bit less out of my pockets.. !:-5
But I have no problem taxing folks that make more then 250000 at a higher rate... so long as you quit giving the breaks to those who do nothing but stand there with their hand out.. corporate or personal. If we the people need something, fine... but she/he the person.. get a frickin' job... my yard needs raking!:rolleyes:
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Wealth Redistribution
flopstock;1029319 wrote: I don't know what irritates me more.. the notion that lazy folks who don't pay taxes get my money handed to them spend as they see fit, or the fact that the lazy corporations get my money to bail them out of spending as they see fit..
Either way, I need a 2nd parttime job to cover expenses in my own household, because folks either can't be bothered to work, can't be bothered to pay their share or have contributed enough to political campaigns that they get bailed out. I am not only paying my credit card debt, my taxes are now paying everyone elses debt too..
I am sick and tired of standing in line with the 10 for $10 pot pie special, while the lazy jerk in front of me is scanning beef.
MY kid can't get free hearing, eye, immunization checks at school.. but I can pay for some lazy assholes kid to get the same... I'm sick of this entitlement generation...
I should not be able to find a place to apply for a second job... someone on MY dole should be sitting at that checkout on weekends and needing to ask for a little bit less out of my pockets.. !:-5
But I have no problem taxing folks that make more then 250000 at a higher rate... so long as you quit giving the breaks to those who do nothing but stand there with their hand out.. corporate or personal. If we the people need something, fine... but she/he the person.. get a frickin' job... my yard needs raking!:rolleyes:
I could use a part time job but I don't rake yards. I do however trim bushes..
Either way, I need a 2nd parttime job to cover expenses in my own household, because folks either can't be bothered to work, can't be bothered to pay their share or have contributed enough to political campaigns that they get bailed out. I am not only paying my credit card debt, my taxes are now paying everyone elses debt too..
I am sick and tired of standing in line with the 10 for $10 pot pie special, while the lazy jerk in front of me is scanning beef.
MY kid can't get free hearing, eye, immunization checks at school.. but I can pay for some lazy assholes kid to get the same... I'm sick of this entitlement generation...
I should not be able to find a place to apply for a second job... someone on MY dole should be sitting at that checkout on weekends and needing to ask for a little bit less out of my pockets.. !:-5
But I have no problem taxing folks that make more then 250000 at a higher rate... so long as you quit giving the breaks to those who do nothing but stand there with their hand out.. corporate or personal. If we the people need something, fine... but she/he the person.. get a frickin' job... my yard needs raking!:rolleyes:
I could use a part time job but I don't rake yards. I do however trim bushes..
Wealth Redistribution
YZGI;1029517 wrote: I could use a part time job but I don't rake yards. I do however trim bushes..
Sorry pal... nothin' to trim..
Sorry pal... nothin' to trim..
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Wealth Redistribution
flopstock;1029524 wrote: Sorry pal... nothin' to trim..
Sounds like it might need a little growin moisture..
Sounds like it might need a little growin moisture..
Wealth Redistribution
flopstock;1029319 wrote: I don't know what irritates me more.. the notion that lazy folks who don't pay taxes get my money handed to them spend as they see fit, or the fact that the lazy corporations get my money to bail them out of spending as they see fit..
Either way, I need a 2nd parttime job to cover expenses in my own household, because folks either can't be bothered to work, can't be bothered to pay their share or have contributed enough to political campaigns that they get bailed out. I am not only paying my credit card debt, my taxes are now paying everyone elses debt too..
I am sick and tired of standing in line with the 10 for $10 pot pie special, while the lazy jerk in front of me is scanning beef.
MY kid can't get free hearing, eye, immunization checks at school.. but I can pay for some lazy assholes kid to get the same... I'm sick of this entitlement generation...
I should not be able to find a place to apply for a second job... someone on MY dole should be sitting at that checkout on weekends and needing to ask for a little bit less out of my pockets.. !:-5
But I have no problem taxing folks that make more then 250000 at a higher rate... so long as you quit giving the breaks to those who do nothing but stand there with their hand out.. corporate or personal. If we the people need something, fine... but she/he the person.. get a frickin' job... my yard needs raking!:rolleyes:
That's what you need to have a debate about. We have similar issues here with a benefit system that penalises anyone taking even part time work in a disproportionate manner. There's a kind of poverty trap. But there are also places where you just CANNOT get a job. Less so nowadays but I spent two years being unemployed back in thatcher's days. If you have no money you cannot leave where you are living to find work because you have nowhere to stay, if you do take a chance then you have the situation where an employer will not take you on because you don't have an address in the area. Been there done that and it's no fun. At the same time places like london if someone is unemployed it IS from choice.
I'd imagine america is much the same in places. Some cities there are enough jobs-but how many employers will discriminate against someone from the wrong part of town? In others where old industries have died out and not yet been replaced by others where do you go? catch twenty two you would move elsewhere but can't because you have little money nowhere to stay and can't get anywhere until you get a job-if you have a family you need every penny for them it's just not so simple to up and go.
The feckless poor and unemployed are an easy target. Trouble is everybody gets lumped together and tarred with the same brush. Get made redundant in yourlate forties early fifties getting another job or starting a business is not that simple-wonder how all the unemployed fund managers and bankers are doing?
Either way, I need a 2nd parttime job to cover expenses in my own household,
The more you have to do that the more you get trapped with no time to look elsewhere or re-train. Course I haven't a clue what actually happens in america or what the situation is like so if I'm talking a load of rubbish just ignore it. .
Here we expect the govt to get involved in re-generating an area hit by mass unemployment. Round where I live it was the end of coal and steel and heavy manufacture threw thousands on the dole. Since then massive investment has come from the EU regional funds and govt sponsored re-training schemes. Now it's one of the more prosperous areas with widely diversified employment and many small companies rather than one or big employers.
But I have no problem taxing folks that make more then 250000 at a higher rate...
We also use progressive taxation to re-distribute wealth. The trickle down argument gets received with hoots of derision.
posted by accountable
Yeh, I have a definite problem with Washington redistributing wealth.
The main debate here is how it is used the concept itself is well established. Giving it to the already wealthy is not a popular choice. Believe it or not surveys show people don't mind paying more tax just so long as it goes to things like the NHS. What we have had here is lower personal tax but more indirect taxation and that hits those on lower incomes disproportionately- labours natural support in other words- who are getting more and more pissed off about it.
Washington are going to re-distribute one way or another. taking from the poor to give to the rich in the form of tax breaks in the hope they spend it back in to the economy creating jobs and thus helping the poor people is an odd taxation strategy for anyone to support IMO. But they've got you thinking that way haven't they?
Either way, I need a 2nd parttime job to cover expenses in my own household, because folks either can't be bothered to work, can't be bothered to pay their share or have contributed enough to political campaigns that they get bailed out. I am not only paying my credit card debt, my taxes are now paying everyone elses debt too..
I am sick and tired of standing in line with the 10 for $10 pot pie special, while the lazy jerk in front of me is scanning beef.
MY kid can't get free hearing, eye, immunization checks at school.. but I can pay for some lazy assholes kid to get the same... I'm sick of this entitlement generation...
I should not be able to find a place to apply for a second job... someone on MY dole should be sitting at that checkout on weekends and needing to ask for a little bit less out of my pockets.. !:-5
But I have no problem taxing folks that make more then 250000 at a higher rate... so long as you quit giving the breaks to those who do nothing but stand there with their hand out.. corporate or personal. If we the people need something, fine... but she/he the person.. get a frickin' job... my yard needs raking!:rolleyes:
That's what you need to have a debate about. We have similar issues here with a benefit system that penalises anyone taking even part time work in a disproportionate manner. There's a kind of poverty trap. But there are also places where you just CANNOT get a job. Less so nowadays but I spent two years being unemployed back in thatcher's days. If you have no money you cannot leave where you are living to find work because you have nowhere to stay, if you do take a chance then you have the situation where an employer will not take you on because you don't have an address in the area. Been there done that and it's no fun. At the same time places like london if someone is unemployed it IS from choice.
I'd imagine america is much the same in places. Some cities there are enough jobs-but how many employers will discriminate against someone from the wrong part of town? In others where old industries have died out and not yet been replaced by others where do you go? catch twenty two you would move elsewhere but can't because you have little money nowhere to stay and can't get anywhere until you get a job-if you have a family you need every penny for them it's just not so simple to up and go.
The feckless poor and unemployed are an easy target. Trouble is everybody gets lumped together and tarred with the same brush. Get made redundant in yourlate forties early fifties getting another job or starting a business is not that simple-wonder how all the unemployed fund managers and bankers are doing?
Either way, I need a 2nd parttime job to cover expenses in my own household,
The more you have to do that the more you get trapped with no time to look elsewhere or re-train. Course I haven't a clue what actually happens in america or what the situation is like so if I'm talking a load of rubbish just ignore it. .
Here we expect the govt to get involved in re-generating an area hit by mass unemployment. Round where I live it was the end of coal and steel and heavy manufacture threw thousands on the dole. Since then massive investment has come from the EU regional funds and govt sponsored re-training schemes. Now it's one of the more prosperous areas with widely diversified employment and many small companies rather than one or big employers.
But I have no problem taxing folks that make more then 250000 at a higher rate...
We also use progressive taxation to re-distribute wealth. The trickle down argument gets received with hoots of derision.
posted by accountable
Yeh, I have a definite problem with Washington redistributing wealth.
The main debate here is how it is used the concept itself is well established. Giving it to the already wealthy is not a popular choice. Believe it or not surveys show people don't mind paying more tax just so long as it goes to things like the NHS. What we have had here is lower personal tax but more indirect taxation and that hits those on lower incomes disproportionately- labours natural support in other words- who are getting more and more pissed off about it.
Washington are going to re-distribute one way or another. taking from the poor to give to the rich in the form of tax breaks in the hope they spend it back in to the economy creating jobs and thus helping the poor people is an odd taxation strategy for anyone to support IMO. But they've got you thinking that way haven't they?
Wealth Redistribution
Wealth redistribution being separated into percentages associated with income wouldn't see a change in the amount the poor and middle class is taxed...In fact, if wealth was distributed equally in direct co-relation to income the middle class and poor would probably see a decrease in the amount of taxes they have to pay...There's no doubt in my mind in America that the extremely rich in America would fill the void of the numbers the "poor" and "middle class" make up...People just don't wish to have their millions stashed away in bank accounts go to people who need it because quite frankly they're inconsiderate and have no ounce of human compassion and empathy.
You argue that by doing so would limit the amount of enthusiasm associated with job placement but what really would falter is the luxurious jobs that make luxurious products such as factories that make 80 different types of cheeses and 100 different television sets...The real concern lies in jobs that are necessities in society and quite frankly pretty much all of them that I can think of people do because they wish to anyway...Teachers, police officers, firefighters, etc... etc... are all under payed. In order for wealth redistribution to be successful in my own eyes is for all jobs to be well worth the effort in conducting them as efficiently as they so demand.
The next argument is being resentful of those who wish to not do anything at all and draw welfare...You feel that the numbers associated with welfare would significantly increase ultimately forcing all peoples who have a job to provide for a much higher number of lazy people and there in lies the problem...
Personally I feel that the government should treat welfare as a police matter and take the money from stupid insufficient governmental policies and create a branch of social workers dedicated to monitoring a persons employment record assisting but not limited to personal job placement, job counseling and advice, as well as legal administration.
The difference between communism and a perfect state of equality is corruption that ultimately leads to abuse and that which is biased is obviously the determining factor throughout the entire conjecture.
A business's reward should be themselves being entitled to expand their enterprise just so long as the minimum requirement to the benafit of society is met...The more enterprises they have benefiting society the more they're granted to expand ultimately keeping their entitled already set 5%-10%(Depending on merit) revenue from all of their owned businesses so long as the local quota for obligation is met...They're next business would obviously be the locality from which will benefit said society the most.
You argue that by doing so would limit the amount of enthusiasm associated with job placement but what really would falter is the luxurious jobs that make luxurious products such as factories that make 80 different types of cheeses and 100 different television sets...The real concern lies in jobs that are necessities in society and quite frankly pretty much all of them that I can think of people do because they wish to anyway...Teachers, police officers, firefighters, etc... etc... are all under payed. In order for wealth redistribution to be successful in my own eyes is for all jobs to be well worth the effort in conducting them as efficiently as they so demand.
The next argument is being resentful of those who wish to not do anything at all and draw welfare...You feel that the numbers associated with welfare would significantly increase ultimately forcing all peoples who have a job to provide for a much higher number of lazy people and there in lies the problem...
Personally I feel that the government should treat welfare as a police matter and take the money from stupid insufficient governmental policies and create a branch of social workers dedicated to monitoring a persons employment record assisting but not limited to personal job placement, job counseling and advice, as well as legal administration.
The difference between communism and a perfect state of equality is corruption that ultimately leads to abuse and that which is biased is obviously the determining factor throughout the entire conjecture.
A business's reward should be themselves being entitled to expand their enterprise just so long as the minimum requirement to the benafit of society is met...The more enterprises they have benefiting society the more they're granted to expand ultimately keeping their entitled already set 5%-10%(Depending on merit) revenue from all of their owned businesses so long as the local quota for obligation is met...They're next business would obviously be the locality from which will benefit said society the most.
Wealth Redistribution
K.Snyder;1029852 wrote: .............People just don't wish to have their millions stashed away in bank accounts go to people who need it because quite frankly they're inconsiderate and have no ounce of human compassion and empathy................
Everything after this is a lost argument, IMO.
What I chose to do with the extra $5 bucks I may have left over from my paycheck is my business... who in the hell are you or anyone else to be telling me I'm inconsiderate if I work 60 hrs a week at my job to have anything left over to supply a decent life for MY family?
I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling entitled to a piece of the pie i spent my life baking!:rolleyes: bake your own damned pie and share it with the world... I did the work for mine.
I don't care what folks earn... flat tax everyone. And if you don't have a job, you do something so that it isn't a handout. Why don't people have too much pride to use the system for a free ride anymore? It's all about figuring out the angles... here's one... frickin' work!
Everything after this is a lost argument, IMO.
What I chose to do with the extra $5 bucks I may have left over from my paycheck is my business... who in the hell are you or anyone else to be telling me I'm inconsiderate if I work 60 hrs a week at my job to have anything left over to supply a decent life for MY family?
I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling entitled to a piece of the pie i spent my life baking!:rolleyes: bake your own damned pie and share it with the world... I did the work for mine.
I don't care what folks earn... flat tax everyone. And if you don't have a job, you do something so that it isn't a handout. Why don't people have too much pride to use the system for a free ride anymore? It's all about figuring out the angles... here's one... frickin' work!
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Wealth Redistribution
flopstock;1029906 wrote: Everything after this is a lost argument, IMO.
What I chose to do with the extra $5 bucks I may have left over from my paycheck is my business... who in the hell are you or anyone else to be telling me I'm inconsiderate if I work 60 hrs a week at my job to have anything left over to supply a decent life for MY family?
I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling entitled to a piece of the pie i spent my life baking!:rolleyes: bake your own damned pie and share it with the world... I did the work for mine.
I don't care what folks earn... flat tax everyone. And if you don't have a job, you do something so that it isn't a handout. Why don't people have too much pride to use the system for a free ride anymore? It's all about figuring out the angles... here's one... frickin' work!
With all due respect sweetheart, if you had millions then why are you feeling the need to work 60 hours a week only to have "scraps"?...
My reference was to the rich that has more than they need in order to sustain a healthy living condition.
I thought that was clear.
What I chose to do with the extra $5 bucks I may have left over from my paycheck is my business... who in the hell are you or anyone else to be telling me I'm inconsiderate if I work 60 hrs a week at my job to have anything left over to supply a decent life for MY family?
I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling entitled to a piece of the pie i spent my life baking!:rolleyes: bake your own damned pie and share it with the world... I did the work for mine.
I don't care what folks earn... flat tax everyone. And if you don't have a job, you do something so that it isn't a handout. Why don't people have too much pride to use the system for a free ride anymore? It's all about figuring out the angles... here's one... frickin' work!
With all due respect sweetheart, if you had millions then why are you feeling the need to work 60 hours a week only to have "scraps"?...
My reference was to the rich that has more than they need in order to sustain a healthy living condition.
I thought that was clear.
Wealth Redistribution
flopstock;1029906 wrote: I don't care what folks earn... flat tax everyone. And if you don't have a job, you do something so that it isn't a handout. Why don't people have too much pride to use the system for a free ride anymore? It's all about figuring out the angles... here's one... frickin' work!
When my sister was pregnant with her first child(His name is Logan) her and her boyfriend were separated and she was struggling to pay for everything. She refused assistance by any means because she wanted to do it on her own. She'd just moved out on her own a month before she had the baby and upon having her son, my nephew, she was in a state of mind very unbeknown to us...She became very depressed and very emotional and effects alot of women. Postpartum depression is very serious among women.
Too much pride can hurt much like too much money can hurt. We need a middle ground so that all can live without having to feel bad about the other guy.
What you're not understanding is if everyone were payed equally you wouldn't have to give to others what you need to remain healthy because others would be giving to you as well.
What's left is false of "I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling entitled to a piece of the pie i spent my life baking!" ultimately ensuring that everyone chooses the career field they prefer as opposed to living a life dreading going into work everyday because everyone would be receiving money.
If that upsets "you" then it's "you" who is lazy as well among those who choose to do nothing.
When my sister was pregnant with her first child(His name is Logan) her and her boyfriend were separated and she was struggling to pay for everything. She refused assistance by any means because she wanted to do it on her own. She'd just moved out on her own a month before she had the baby and upon having her son, my nephew, she was in a state of mind very unbeknown to us...She became very depressed and very emotional and effects alot of women. Postpartum depression is very serious among women.
Too much pride can hurt much like too much money can hurt. We need a middle ground so that all can live without having to feel bad about the other guy.
What you're not understanding is if everyone were payed equally you wouldn't have to give to others what you need to remain healthy because others would be giving to you as well.
What's left is false of "I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling entitled to a piece of the pie i spent my life baking!" ultimately ensuring that everyone chooses the career field they prefer as opposed to living a life dreading going into work everyday because everyone would be receiving money.
If that upsets "you" then it's "you" who is lazy as well among those who choose to do nothing.
Wealth Redistribution
K.Snyder;1029929 wrote: When my sister was pregnant with her first child(His name is Logan) her and her boyfriend were separated and she was struggling to pay for everything. She refused assistance by any means because she wanted to do it on her own. She'd just moved out on her own a month before she had the baby and upon having her son, my nephew, she was in a state of mind very unbeknown to us...She became very depressed and very emotional and effects alot of women. Postpartum depression is very serious among women.
Too much pride can hurt much like too much money can hurt. We need a middle ground so that all can live without having to feel bad about the other guy.
What you're not understanding is if everyone were payed equally you wouldn't have to give to others what you need to remain healthy because others would be giving to you as well.
What's left is false of "I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling entitled to a piece of the pie i spent my life baking!" ultimately ensuring that everyone chooses the career field they prefer as opposed to living a life dreading going into work everyday because everyone would be receiving money.
If that upsets "you" then it's "you" who is lazy as well among those who choose to do nothing.
I'm not gonna even pretend that what you wrote made any sense to me, it doesn't. What he hell does your sister have to do with anything?
I'm a single mother, raising a child on my own KS. Working an average 55-60 hours a week and looking for something for the spare weekends to earn a few extra bucks... I work my ass off and until every other person in america standing in line for a piece of my earnings is willing to work just as hard...you can bet their lazy asses I'm gonna resent them feeling entitled to anything of mine. Welfare parent to corporate welfare recipient
Too much pride can hurt much like too much money can hurt. We need a middle ground so that all can live without having to feel bad about the other guy.
What you're not understanding is if everyone were payed equally you wouldn't have to give to others what you need to remain healthy because others would be giving to you as well.
What's left is false of "I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling entitled to a piece of the pie i spent my life baking!" ultimately ensuring that everyone chooses the career field they prefer as opposed to living a life dreading going into work everyday because everyone would be receiving money.
If that upsets "you" then it's "you" who is lazy as well among those who choose to do nothing.
I'm not gonna even pretend that what you wrote made any sense to me, it doesn't. What he hell does your sister have to do with anything?
I'm a single mother, raising a child on my own KS. Working an average 55-60 hours a week and looking for something for the spare weekends to earn a few extra bucks... I work my ass off and until every other person in america standing in line for a piece of my earnings is willing to work just as hard...you can bet their lazy asses I'm gonna resent them feeling entitled to anything of mine. Welfare parent to corporate welfare recipient
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Wealth Redistribution
K.Snyder;1029913 wrote: With all due respect sweetheart, if you had millions then why are you feeling the need to work 60 hours a week only to have "scraps"?...
My reference was to the rich that has more than they need in order to sustain a healthy living condition.
I thought that was clear.
Back at ya sweetcheeks... I don't need to be a millionaire to object strongly to anyone feeling they are entitled to what someone else has worked for. Hell, I'm not ever gonna hit that 250000 mark, so what? No one else can either? That's total BS. I hope all of my kids do... they work their asses off too.
Who gets to judge what is healthy for someone else KS? YOU? I don't think so... if you want to decide what is satisfactory for you and yours, you do that and work toward that goal.
I object to Obama trying to buy me with a tax cut I don't understand... did we not just pass a 700 billion or trillion dollar bailout? How are we gonna pay for that? Perhaps with McCains capital gains tax cut?:-2 Excuse my middleclass mentality... but everyone paying a flat tax on earnings with no deductions.. ta da! And pardon the heck out of me but if you don't pay in, get a job so you can start paying in already and quit living off the rest of us.
My reference was to the rich that has more than they need in order to sustain a healthy living condition.
I thought that was clear.
Back at ya sweetcheeks... I don't need to be a millionaire to object strongly to anyone feeling they are entitled to what someone else has worked for. Hell, I'm not ever gonna hit that 250000 mark, so what? No one else can either? That's total BS. I hope all of my kids do... they work their asses off too.
Who gets to judge what is healthy for someone else KS? YOU? I don't think so... if you want to decide what is satisfactory for you and yours, you do that and work toward that goal.
I object to Obama trying to buy me with a tax cut I don't understand... did we not just pass a 700 billion or trillion dollar bailout? How are we gonna pay for that? Perhaps with McCains capital gains tax cut?:-2 Excuse my middleclass mentality... but everyone paying a flat tax on earnings with no deductions.. ta da! And pardon the heck out of me but if you don't pay in, get a job so you can start paying in already and quit living off the rest of us.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Wealth Redistribution
flopstock;1030047 wrote: I'm not gonna even pretend that what you wrote made any sense to me, it doesn't. What he hell does your sister have to do with anything? It was a simile...A simile I made acknowledging the fact that alot of what you implied was a good thing which led to my saying that alot of money can be a bad thing...Simple really...
flopstock;1030047 wrote:
I'm a single mother, raising a child on my own KS. Working an average 55-60 hours a week and looking for something for the spare weekends to earn a few extra bucks... I work my ass off and until every other person in america standing in line for a piece of my earnings is willing to work just as hard...you can bet their lazy asses I'm gonna resent them feeling entitled to anything of mine. Welfare parent to corporate welfare recipient
Again,..you're missing the entire point...
If money were distributed equally you wouldn't have to "work your ass off". What you've done is taken my idea of adequate "wealth redistribution" and have convoluted a conspiracy theory...It's easy...If wealth were equally distributed no one would have to "work their ass off"...
What you would see is a decline of irrelevant luxury to individuals creating a demand for personal necessity...
"Wealth redistribution" ideally would in all actuality increase the amount of pay to jobs that are worth the effort to keep them(Philosophically speaking in that sense)...Police officers, firefighters, doctors, and farmers would receive money equal to their worth from which you'd see an increase of income pertaining to those jobs in my personal opinion(With the exception of doctors in the fields equal in effort to the jobs I've discussed which would see a decrease from their current state)...
"Wealth redistribution" is not giving handouts to the jobless...It's giving equal pay to the same exact amount of effort...
A corporate exec makes more money than an accountant yet doesn't worker harder(For the most part)...
flopstock;1030047 wrote:
I'm a single mother, raising a child on my own KS. Working an average 55-60 hours a week and looking for something for the spare weekends to earn a few extra bucks... I work my ass off and until every other person in america standing in line for a piece of my earnings is willing to work just as hard...you can bet their lazy asses I'm gonna resent them feeling entitled to anything of mine. Welfare parent to corporate welfare recipient
Again,..you're missing the entire point...
If money were distributed equally you wouldn't have to "work your ass off". What you've done is taken my idea of adequate "wealth redistribution" and have convoluted a conspiracy theory...It's easy...If wealth were equally distributed no one would have to "work their ass off"...
What you would see is a decline of irrelevant luxury to individuals creating a demand for personal necessity...
"Wealth redistribution" ideally would in all actuality increase the amount of pay to jobs that are worth the effort to keep them(Philosophically speaking in that sense)...Police officers, firefighters, doctors, and farmers would receive money equal to their worth from which you'd see an increase of income pertaining to those jobs in my personal opinion(With the exception of doctors in the fields equal in effort to the jobs I've discussed which would see a decrease from their current state)...
"Wealth redistribution" is not giving handouts to the jobless...It's giving equal pay to the same exact amount of effort...
A corporate exec makes more money than an accountant yet doesn't worker harder(For the most part)...
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
K.Snyder;1030097 wrote:
A corporate exec makes more money than an accountant yet doesn't worker harder(For the most part)...
That's a pretty big investment; the corp. expects a pretty big return. So what do you think the company is paying for?
A corporate exec makes more money than an accountant yet doesn't worker harder(For the most part)...
That's a pretty big investment; the corp. expects a pretty big return. So what do you think the company is paying for?
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1030110 wrote: That's a pretty big investment; the corp. expects a pretty big return. So what do you think the company is paying for?
The corporate exec works off of numbers much like the accountant...The only difference being the amount of return associated with those numbers...That money is investment which acts to decrease the worth of it's current state of currency ultimately negating it's only expressed justification; more jobs.
Minimum wage means nothing upon equal the amount of inflation and to be quite honest can actually, in all technicality, decrease the amount of worth it likes to portray as greater upon the bias being in favor of that very same inflation.
$7/hr in Ohio is no different than $0.75/hr in 1950...
You see industries associated with necessity creating those minimum wages because of no limitations upon the corporate business dealings associated with inflation...Oil companies raise the price of gasoline and bam you have yourself a country going through a financial crises all because fat cat business people could get away with it...
Taking the financial power out of business's hand with the power to dictate the financial state of a country, not to mention the wealthiest country in the world, would prevent such a sharp increase ultimately not effecting the lower social classes as much as they have otherwise...Wealth redistribution does that...
The corporate exec works off of numbers much like the accountant...The only difference being the amount of return associated with those numbers...That money is investment which acts to decrease the worth of it's current state of currency ultimately negating it's only expressed justification; more jobs.
Minimum wage means nothing upon equal the amount of inflation and to be quite honest can actually, in all technicality, decrease the amount of worth it likes to portray as greater upon the bias being in favor of that very same inflation.
$7/hr in Ohio is no different than $0.75/hr in 1950...
You see industries associated with necessity creating those minimum wages because of no limitations upon the corporate business dealings associated with inflation...Oil companies raise the price of gasoline and bam you have yourself a country going through a financial crises all because fat cat business people could get away with it...
Taking the financial power out of business's hand with the power to dictate the financial state of a country, not to mention the wealthiest country in the world, would prevent such a sharp increase ultimately not effecting the lower social classes as much as they have otherwise...Wealth redistribution does that...
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
K.Snyder;1030128 wrote: The corporate exec works off of numbers much like the accountant...The only difference being the amount of return associated with those numbers...That money is investment which acts to decrease the worth of it's current state of currency ultimately negating it's only expressed justification; more jobs.
Minimum wage means nothing upon equal the amount of inflation and to be quite honest can actually, in all technicality, decrease the amount of worth it likes to portray as greater upon the bias being in favor of that very same inflation.
$7/hr in Ohio is no different than $0.75/hr in 1950...
You see industries associated with necessity creating those minimum wages because of no limitations upon the corporate business dealings associated with inflation...Oil companies raise the price of gasoline and bam you have yourself a country going through a financial crises all because fat cat business people could get away with it...
Taking the financial power out of business's hand with the power to dictate the financial state of a country, not to mention the wealthiest country in the world, would prevent such a sharp increase ultimately not effecting the lower social classes as much as they have otherwise...Wealth redistribution does that...
:-2:-2:-2:-2
Not having the first clue as to what you're saying, I'm going to guess that you're wrong.
The corp is in business to make a profit. The bookkeeper makes the company zero profit. The cost is justified in the prevention of loss. The exec, on the other hand, brings in tremendous profit (or at least that's what he's hired to do
) through whatever skills he's hired for. The huge paycheck is to ensure the exec is satisfied to stay and won't be lured away by the competition.
If the corp decided to pay both the same, what's to keep the exec from defecting?
Minimum wage means nothing upon equal the amount of inflation and to be quite honest can actually, in all technicality, decrease the amount of worth it likes to portray as greater upon the bias being in favor of that very same inflation.
$7/hr in Ohio is no different than $0.75/hr in 1950...
You see industries associated with necessity creating those minimum wages because of no limitations upon the corporate business dealings associated with inflation...Oil companies raise the price of gasoline and bam you have yourself a country going through a financial crises all because fat cat business people could get away with it...
Taking the financial power out of business's hand with the power to dictate the financial state of a country, not to mention the wealthiest country in the world, would prevent such a sharp increase ultimately not effecting the lower social classes as much as they have otherwise...Wealth redistribution does that...
:-2:-2:-2:-2
Not having the first clue as to what you're saying, I'm going to guess that you're wrong.
The corp is in business to make a profit. The bookkeeper makes the company zero profit. The cost is justified in the prevention of loss. The exec, on the other hand, brings in tremendous profit (or at least that's what he's hired to do
) through whatever skills he's hired for. The huge paycheck is to ensure the exec is satisfied to stay and won't be lured away by the competition.If the corp decided to pay both the same, what's to keep the exec from defecting?
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1030148 wrote:
The corp is in business to make a profit. The bookkeeper makes the company zero profit. The cost is justified in the prevention of loss.
The exec, on the other hand, brings in tremendous profit (or at least that's what he's hired to do) through whatever skills he's hired for. The huge paycheck is to ensure the exec is satisfied to stay and won't be lured away by the competition.
[...]... It's relative in accordance to the product from which he is selling...
The X-Ray machine was used commercially some years back and to the astonishment of the citizens at the time this machine looked like it were magic...Very high regard this machine was held...Well,..that is until they found out that continued exposure to it's harmful rays would rot their feet off!!!!!!!...
My emphasis is worth...You're defining worth in conjunction with the profits the company sustains and not actual involvment...A person with a 130 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 130 IQ in the same way that a person with a 90 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 90 IQ...It's luck of birth quite frankly as far as I'm concerned and they would both do equal the amount of work for equal the amount of pay but the difference has to be in the worth of the job...If the person doing the job that requires a 130 IQ makes alot of money because he returns a substantial profit for a business that sells x-ray machines commercially and makes more money than the guy with the 90 IQ who is working for the city picking up trash(Not implying that all people working for the city picking up trash have 90 IQ's, rather picking up trash involves the ability to know how to walk and bend over) when picking up trash is significantly more important than selling an overly luxurious item that no one truthfully needs in the way they would hypothetically and are literally selling them...
You take that very same company selling them to hospitals and that product becomes a necessity...
Worth all convoluted into pragmatic wealth. Not undistributed irrelevant packages that benefit people doing less the amount of true work getting paid more than the guy doing the more productive work...
The idea is not giving hand outs...Not in the least...My idea is not anyway...
Accountable;1030148 wrote:
If the corp decided to pay both the same, what's to keep the exec from defecting?
My idea of wealth redistribution is to pay jobs by their worth to society's function regarding necessity...The fact remains that if an exec was working for a company selling irrelevant luxurious items they would not be effected by a persons lack of readiness to be that exec in question...
No,..they'd much rather be a police officer, or a doctor, or that city construction worker that actually means something to society because he'd then be getting paid as much as the irrelevant exec...
There you have it. Necessity meets demand, but not only that, adequately and all the more worthwhile.
Simple in my mind really.
The corp is in business to make a profit. The bookkeeper makes the company zero profit. The cost is justified in the prevention of loss.
The exec, on the other hand, brings in tremendous profit (or at least that's what he's hired to do
) through whatever skills he's hired for. The huge paycheck is to ensure the exec is satisfied to stay and won't be lured away by the competition.[...]... It's relative in accordance to the product from which he is selling...
The X-Ray machine was used commercially some years back and to the astonishment of the citizens at the time this machine looked like it were magic...Very high regard this machine was held...Well,..that is until they found out that continued exposure to it's harmful rays would rot their feet off!!!!!!!...
My emphasis is worth...You're defining worth in conjunction with the profits the company sustains and not actual involvment...A person with a 130 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 130 IQ in the same way that a person with a 90 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 90 IQ...It's luck of birth quite frankly as far as I'm concerned and they would both do equal the amount of work for equal the amount of pay but the difference has to be in the worth of the job...If the person doing the job that requires a 130 IQ makes alot of money because he returns a substantial profit for a business that sells x-ray machines commercially and makes more money than the guy with the 90 IQ who is working for the city picking up trash(Not implying that all people working for the city picking up trash have 90 IQ's, rather picking up trash involves the ability to know how to walk and bend over) when picking up trash is significantly more important than selling an overly luxurious item that no one truthfully needs in the way they would hypothetically and are literally selling them...
You take that very same company selling them to hospitals and that product becomes a necessity...
Worth all convoluted into pragmatic wealth. Not undistributed irrelevant packages that benefit people doing less the amount of true work getting paid more than the guy doing the more productive work...
The idea is not giving hand outs...Not in the least...My idea is not anyway...
Accountable;1030148 wrote:
If the corp decided to pay both the same, what's to keep the exec from defecting?
My idea of wealth redistribution is to pay jobs by their worth to society's function regarding necessity...The fact remains that if an exec was working for a company selling irrelevant luxurious items they would not be effected by a persons lack of readiness to be that exec in question...
No,..they'd much rather be a police officer, or a doctor, or that city construction worker that actually means something to society because he'd then be getting paid as much as the irrelevant exec...
There you have it. Necessity meets demand, but not only that, adequately and all the more worthwhile.
Simple in my mind really.
Wealth Redistribution
The problem with a lot of these arguments is this.
1. This is the big one: Rich people don't become rich in a vacuum, their wealth may be inherited, or through a high paying job, or through investment or speculation, but the fact that the possess wealth in an easily transferable form such as currency or credit, is fundamentally a result of the commerical, legal, and political structures of a society (which everyone pays for through taxation). Therefore they have a direct responsibility and interest in paying into that society to make sure that the rules (that have allowed them to become, and stay, wealthy) are maintained, it is also of course ethical to pay back something to the little people who actually prop up your little hubristic empire of one.
2. Of course many rich people live under the delusion that only through their superior intelligence, work ethic, or moral code that they are rolling in it, not that there parents educated them, that other people employ them, that society enforces law and order and a money system, or that many other people do the manual labour that somewhere along the line pays for all economic growth, whether in their own country or another one, and that ultimately the state provides banks, tax incentives, investment capital, stockmarkets, law, and military to proect them and their interests.
3. It is a recurrent theme in the history of wealthy societies, that as a society becomes richer, the wealthier elements of society try to insulate themselves and their interests from the great unwashed, either through direct coertion, or through trying to evade their social and civic responsibilities by subverting the state, and creating a situation where their own ascendency in ensured and that increasing amounts of political and economic power accrues unto themselves. This is usually characterized by the increasing wealth of the rich, and the decreasing wealth of everyone else, as well as a astronomic rise in asset prices and luxury for the few.
4. In our own time there can be no doubt that all of these trends are in evidence. The middle-classes now work longer hours, for less money, with less social provision than they did in the past, both parents usually have to work double the labour, but unfortunately this extra income from 50 percent more labour per family has been mostly sucked up by property developers and banks through the impoverishment mechanism through long-term debt known as the "the housing market". Such people, once the backbone of all western societies are now so worried about trying to pay a bank a massive mortgage they don't have time to worry about their economic disenfranchisment. The shrunken (what used to be called) "working" class have become an underclass with bleak economic and education, prospects and are probably as badly off as they were in victorian times in many respects, meanwhile the rich have become "the super rich" with lifestyles of unsurpassed luxury and incredible wealth as well as an unhealthy amount of supine media coverage, and in many instances direct access to political patronage.
The theory is of course that without such wealthy people, who will throw coins out the window at the poor people to buy bread?? Its also known as "trickle down" economics, a nice way to say, "let them eat cake" It bodes ill for our socities if we continue down this route.
1. This is the big one: Rich people don't become rich in a vacuum, their wealth may be inherited, or through a high paying job, or through investment or speculation, but the fact that the possess wealth in an easily transferable form such as currency or credit, is fundamentally a result of the commerical, legal, and political structures of a society (which everyone pays for through taxation). Therefore they have a direct responsibility and interest in paying into that society to make sure that the rules (that have allowed them to become, and stay, wealthy) are maintained, it is also of course ethical to pay back something to the little people who actually prop up your little hubristic empire of one.
2. Of course many rich people live under the delusion that only through their superior intelligence, work ethic, or moral code that they are rolling in it, not that there parents educated them, that other people employ them, that society enforces law and order and a money system, or that many other people do the manual labour that somewhere along the line pays for all economic growth, whether in their own country or another one, and that ultimately the state provides banks, tax incentives, investment capital, stockmarkets, law, and military to proect them and their interests.
3. It is a recurrent theme in the history of wealthy societies, that as a society becomes richer, the wealthier elements of society try to insulate themselves and their interests from the great unwashed, either through direct coertion, or through trying to evade their social and civic responsibilities by subverting the state, and creating a situation where their own ascendency in ensured and that increasing amounts of political and economic power accrues unto themselves. This is usually characterized by the increasing wealth of the rich, and the decreasing wealth of everyone else, as well as a astronomic rise in asset prices and luxury for the few.
4. In our own time there can be no doubt that all of these trends are in evidence. The middle-classes now work longer hours, for less money, with less social provision than they did in the past, both parents usually have to work double the labour, but unfortunately this extra income from 50 percent more labour per family has been mostly sucked up by property developers and banks through the impoverishment mechanism through long-term debt known as the "the housing market". Such people, once the backbone of all western societies are now so worried about trying to pay a bank a massive mortgage they don't have time to worry about their economic disenfranchisment. The shrunken (what used to be called) "working" class have become an underclass with bleak economic and education, prospects and are probably as badly off as they were in victorian times in many respects, meanwhile the rich have become "the super rich" with lifestyles of unsurpassed luxury and incredible wealth as well as an unhealthy amount of supine media coverage, and in many instances direct access to political patronage.
The theory is of course that without such wealthy people, who will throw coins out the window at the poor people to buy bread?? Its also known as "trickle down" economics, a nice way to say, "let them eat cake" It bodes ill for our socities if we continue down this route.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Wealth Redistribution
Only to see that the loans are not being payed back because people are filing bankruptcy and now we're in a state of financial crisis because of the rich increasing their interest rates out of greed.
The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer comes to mind...
The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer comes to mind...
Wealth Redistribution
K.Snyder;1030166 wrote: It's relative in accordance to the product from which he is selling...
The X-Ray machine was used commercially some years back and to the astonishment of the citizens at the time this machine looked like it were magic...Very high regard this machine was held...Well,..that is until they found out that continued exposure to it's harmful rays would rot their feet off!!!!!!!...
My emphasis is worth...You're defining worth in conjunction with the profits the company sustains and not actual involvment...A person with a 130 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 130 IQ in the same way that a person with a 90 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 90 IQ...It's luck of birth quite frankly as far as I'm concerned and they would both do equal the amount of work for equal the amount of pay but the difference has to be in the worth of the job...If the person doing the job that requires a 130 IQ makes alot of money because he returns a substantial profit for a business that sells x-ray machines commercially and makes more money than the guy with the 90 IQ who is working for the city picking up trash(Not implying that all people working for the city picking up trash have 90 IQ's, rather picking up trash involves the ability to know how to walk and bend over) when picking up trash is significantly more important than selling an overly luxurious item that no one truthfully needs in the way they would hypothetically and are literally selling them...
You take that very same company selling them to hospitals and that product becomes a necessity...
Worth all convoluted into pragmatic wealth. Not undistributed irrelevant packages that benefit people doing less the amount of true work getting paid more than the guy doing the more productive work...
The idea is not giving hand outs...Not in the least...My idea is not anyway...
My idea of wealth redistribution is to pay jobs by their worth to society's function regarding necessity...The fact remains that if an exec was working for a company selling irrelevant luxurious items they would not be effected by a persons lack of readiness to be that exec in question...
No,..they'd much rather be a police officer, or a doctor, or that city construction worker that actually means something to society because he'd then be getting paid as much as the irrelevant exec...
There you have it. Necessity meets demand, but not only that, adequately and all the more worthwhile.
Simple in my mind really.
Guess what the key is in successfully implementing "Wealth Redistribution" to boost the economy significantly to the point of scarce question is?...
You raise minimum wage by 200% all the while billionaire industries fill the void by relinquishing their current right to bogart their profits from which is sustained through equal the amount of effort...Companies with a commodity destined for necessity are exempt of more strenuous oversight to the degree that keeps their interest relative to society's demand...
What you see are Enterprises, that gain their wealth by virtue of land ownership AKA: theft/bullying currently backed by law, redistribute their wealth equally and rightfully to people just as entitled to that land and you don't see John Doe filing bankruptcy because he cannot afford his second mortgage because inflation has risen 900% since he was 12 years old...
The X-Ray machine was used commercially some years back and to the astonishment of the citizens at the time this machine looked like it were magic...Very high regard this machine was held...Well,..that is until they found out that continued exposure to it's harmful rays would rot their feet off!!!!!!!...
My emphasis is worth...You're defining worth in conjunction with the profits the company sustains and not actual involvment...A person with a 130 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 130 IQ in the same way that a person with a 90 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 90 IQ...It's luck of birth quite frankly as far as I'm concerned and they would both do equal the amount of work for equal the amount of pay but the difference has to be in the worth of the job...If the person doing the job that requires a 130 IQ makes alot of money because he returns a substantial profit for a business that sells x-ray machines commercially and makes more money than the guy with the 90 IQ who is working for the city picking up trash(Not implying that all people working for the city picking up trash have 90 IQ's, rather picking up trash involves the ability to know how to walk and bend over) when picking up trash is significantly more important than selling an overly luxurious item that no one truthfully needs in the way they would hypothetically and are literally selling them...
You take that very same company selling them to hospitals and that product becomes a necessity...
Worth all convoluted into pragmatic wealth. Not undistributed irrelevant packages that benefit people doing less the amount of true work getting paid more than the guy doing the more productive work...
The idea is not giving hand outs...Not in the least...My idea is not anyway...
My idea of wealth redistribution is to pay jobs by their worth to society's function regarding necessity...The fact remains that if an exec was working for a company selling irrelevant luxurious items they would not be effected by a persons lack of readiness to be that exec in question...
No,..they'd much rather be a police officer, or a doctor, or that city construction worker that actually means something to society because he'd then be getting paid as much as the irrelevant exec...
There you have it. Necessity meets demand, but not only that, adequately and all the more worthwhile.
Simple in my mind really.
Guess what the key is in successfully implementing "Wealth Redistribution" to boost the economy significantly to the point of scarce question is?...
You raise minimum wage by 200% all the while billionaire industries fill the void by relinquishing their current right to bogart their profits from which is sustained through equal the amount of effort...Companies with a commodity destined for necessity are exempt of more strenuous oversight to the degree that keeps their interest relative to society's demand...
What you see are Enterprises, that gain their wealth by virtue of land ownership AKA: theft/bullying currently backed by law, redistribute their wealth equally and rightfully to people just as entitled to that land and you don't see John Doe filing bankruptcy because he cannot afford his second mortgage because inflation has risen 900% since he was 12 years old...
Wealth Redistribution
flopstock;1029906 wrote: Everything after this is a lost argument, IMO.
What I chose to do with the extra $5 bucks I may have left over from my paycheck is my business... who in the hell are you or anyone else to be telling me I'm inconsiderate if I work 60 hrs a week at my job to have anything left over to supply a decent life for MY family?
I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling entitled to a piece of the pie i spent my life baking!:rolleyes: bake your own damned pie and share it with the world... I did the work for mine.
I don't care what folks earn... flat tax everyone. And if you don't have a job, you do something so that it isn't a handout. Why don't people have too much pride to use the system for a free ride anymore? It's all about figuring out the angles... here's one... frickin' work!
Not being american I haven't a clue how your tax system works. But I assume you have a base income at which you start paying tax.
The thing about flat rate taxes-say for instance the rate is 25%. To someone earning $20,000 a year 25% has a much bigger impact than does 25% of $100,000. It's that much harder to save, buy a house get on etc etc.
It's equal everybody is treated the same and it's up to you to get a better paid job. But is it fair?
On the other hand-take someone like yourself and the bar was raised so that your tax bill was reduced or eliminated. you'd be in a better position financially to "get on" in life-more time and to go to college get a better job etc etc. You pay less in percentage terms than the rich guy but is it a fairer concept? Would it be better for society as a whole if those on lower incomes got to keep more of it and be better able to help themselves?
Wealth re-distribution isn't necessarily about taking from the rich and giving to the useless. That's a nice image that stops people thinking it through.
it's a tool you can use to make society fairer and give greater opportunity. Rather than talking about the tool you should really sit down and first decide what kind of society you would like to see around you. You work sixty hours a week-so do many here but regardless of income we all have access to free education and healthcare. That was our choice you need to make your own.
posted by K snyder
Guess what the key is in successfully implementing "Wealth Redistribution" to boost the economy significantly to the point of scarce question is?...
You raise minimum wage by 200% all the while billionaire industries fill the void by relinquishing their current right to bogart their profits from which is sustained through equal the amount of effort...Companies with a commodity destined for necessity are exempt of more strenuous oversight to the degree that keeps their interest relative to society's demand...
What you see are Enterprises, that gain their wealth by virtue of land ownership AKA: theft/bullying currently backed by law, redistribute their wealth equally and rightfully to people just as entitled to that land and you don't see John Doe filing bankruptcy because he cannot afford his second mortgage because inflation has risen 900% since he was 12 years old...
Simple and it won't work. utopian societies never do and never will. Human nature gets in the way.
What I chose to do with the extra $5 bucks I may have left over from my paycheck is my business... who in the hell are you or anyone else to be telling me I'm inconsiderate if I work 60 hrs a week at my job to have anything left over to supply a decent life for MY family?
I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling entitled to a piece of the pie i spent my life baking!:rolleyes: bake your own damned pie and share it with the world... I did the work for mine.
I don't care what folks earn... flat tax everyone. And if you don't have a job, you do something so that it isn't a handout. Why don't people have too much pride to use the system for a free ride anymore? It's all about figuring out the angles... here's one... frickin' work!
Not being american I haven't a clue how your tax system works. But I assume you have a base income at which you start paying tax.
The thing about flat rate taxes-say for instance the rate is 25%. To someone earning $20,000 a year 25% has a much bigger impact than does 25% of $100,000. It's that much harder to save, buy a house get on etc etc.
It's equal everybody is treated the same and it's up to you to get a better paid job. But is it fair?
On the other hand-take someone like yourself and the bar was raised so that your tax bill was reduced or eliminated. you'd be in a better position financially to "get on" in life-more time and to go to college get a better job etc etc. You pay less in percentage terms than the rich guy but is it a fairer concept? Would it be better for society as a whole if those on lower incomes got to keep more of it and be better able to help themselves?
Wealth re-distribution isn't necessarily about taking from the rich and giving to the useless. That's a nice image that stops people thinking it through.
it's a tool you can use to make society fairer and give greater opportunity. Rather than talking about the tool you should really sit down and first decide what kind of society you would like to see around you. You work sixty hours a week-so do many here but regardless of income we all have access to free education and healthcare. That was our choice you need to make your own.
posted by K snyder
Guess what the key is in successfully implementing "Wealth Redistribution" to boost the economy significantly to the point of scarce question is?...
You raise minimum wage by 200% all the while billionaire industries fill the void by relinquishing their current right to bogart their profits from which is sustained through equal the amount of effort...Companies with a commodity destined for necessity are exempt of more strenuous oversight to the degree that keeps their interest relative to society's demand...
What you see are Enterprises, that gain their wealth by virtue of land ownership AKA: theft/bullying currently backed by law, redistribute their wealth equally and rightfully to people just as entitled to that land and you don't see John Doe filing bankruptcy because he cannot afford his second mortgage because inflation has risen 900% since he was 12 years old...
Simple and it won't work. utopian societies never do and never will. Human nature gets in the way.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
K.Snyder;1030166 wrote: It's relative in accordance to the product from which he is selling...
The X-Ray machine was used commercially some years back and to the astonishment of the citizens at the time this machine looked like it were magic...Very high regard this machine was held...Well,..that is until they found out that continued exposure to it's harmful rays would rot their feet off!!!!!!!...
My emphasis is worth...You're defining worth in conjunction with the profits the company sustains and not actual involvment...A person with a 130 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 130 IQ in the same way that a person with a 90 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 90 IQ...It's luck of birth quite frankly as far as I'm concerned and they would both do equal the amount of work for equal the amount of pay but the difference has to be in the worth of the job...If the person doing the job that requires a 130 IQ makes alot of money because he returns a substantial profit for a business that sells x-ray machines commercially and makes more money than the guy with the 90 IQ who is working for the city picking up trash(Not implying that all people working for the city picking up trash have 90 IQ's, rather picking up trash involves the ability to know how to walk and bend over) when picking up trash is significantly more important than selling an overly luxurious item that no one truthfully needs in the way they would hypothetically and are literally selling them...
You take that very same company selling them to hospitals and that product becomes a necessity...
Worth all convoluted into pragmatic wealth. Not undistributed irrelevant packages that benefit people doing less the amount of true work getting paid more than the guy doing the more productive work...
The idea is not giving hand outs...Not in the least...My idea is not anyway...
My idea of wealth redistribution is to pay jobs by their worth to society's function regarding necessity...The fact remains that if an exec was working for a company selling irrelevant luxurious items they would not be effected by a persons lack of readiness to be that exec in question...
No,..they'd much rather be a police officer, or a doctor, or that city construction worker that actually means something to society because he'd then be getting paid as much as the irrelevant exec...
There you have it. Necessity meets demand, but not only that, adequately and all the more worthwhile.
Simple in my mind really.
I wish you coud write it simply. Your style gives me a headache.
Did I understand right that you want society to dictate salary? Meaning gov't?
The X-Ray machine was used commercially some years back and to the astonishment of the citizens at the time this machine looked like it were magic...Very high regard this machine was held...Well,..that is until they found out that continued exposure to it's harmful rays would rot their feet off!!!!!!!...
My emphasis is worth...You're defining worth in conjunction with the profits the company sustains and not actual involvment...A person with a 130 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 130 IQ in the same way that a person with a 90 IQ would have no problem doing a job that demands a 90 IQ...It's luck of birth quite frankly as far as I'm concerned and they would both do equal the amount of work for equal the amount of pay but the difference has to be in the worth of the job...If the person doing the job that requires a 130 IQ makes alot of money because he returns a substantial profit for a business that sells x-ray machines commercially and makes more money than the guy with the 90 IQ who is working for the city picking up trash(Not implying that all people working for the city picking up trash have 90 IQ's, rather picking up trash involves the ability to know how to walk and bend over) when picking up trash is significantly more important than selling an overly luxurious item that no one truthfully needs in the way they would hypothetically and are literally selling them...
You take that very same company selling them to hospitals and that product becomes a necessity...
Worth all convoluted into pragmatic wealth. Not undistributed irrelevant packages that benefit people doing less the amount of true work getting paid more than the guy doing the more productive work...
The idea is not giving hand outs...Not in the least...My idea is not anyway...
My idea of wealth redistribution is to pay jobs by their worth to society's function regarding necessity...The fact remains that if an exec was working for a company selling irrelevant luxurious items they would not be effected by a persons lack of readiness to be that exec in question...
No,..they'd much rather be a police officer, or a doctor, or that city construction worker that actually means something to society because he'd then be getting paid as much as the irrelevant exec...
There you have it. Necessity meets demand, but not only that, adequately and all the more worthwhile.
Simple in my mind really.
I wish you coud write it simply. Your style gives me a headache.
Did I understand right that you want society to dictate salary? Meaning gov't?
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1030458 wrote: I wish you coud write it simply. Your style gives me a headache.
Did I understand right that you want society to dictate salary? Meaning gov't?
I thought that was simple...:wah:...
Not "dictate" per say...Limit...Such as raising the minimum wage at the same time making up for such a piece of legislation by virtue of the wealthy...The wealthy pay for the difference...The wealth otherwise sitting in bank accounts accumulating interest that more predominantly is used in real estate...Something I personally feel should be sparsed equally as apart of ones employment contract, but that's a bit optimistic at present...
I feel the government with it's power should mandate wealth redistribution but should be done so typically how it is now rather the businesses giving equal share to all it's employees...You cannot convince me that even half of the wealthy have their money after having worked harder than the other half of the very same society he/she has earned their wealth.
Did I understand right that you want society to dictate salary? Meaning gov't?
I thought that was simple...:wah:...
Not "dictate" per say...Limit...Such as raising the minimum wage at the same time making up for such a piece of legislation by virtue of the wealthy...The wealthy pay for the difference...The wealth otherwise sitting in bank accounts accumulating interest that more predominantly is used in real estate...Something I personally feel should be sparsed equally as apart of ones employment contract, but that's a bit optimistic at present...
I feel the government with it's power should mandate wealth redistribution but should be done so typically how it is now rather the businesses giving equal share to all it's employees...You cannot convince me that even half of the wealthy have their money after having worked harder than the other half of the very same society he/she has earned their wealth.
Wealth Redistribution
gmc;1030449 wrote: posted by K snyder
Simple and it won't work. utopian societies never do and never will. Human nature gets in the way.
You'll forgive me as I cannot understand why seeing as how I'm all for it...
Simple and it won't work. utopian societies never do and never will. Human nature gets in the way.
You'll forgive me as I cannot understand why seeing as how I'm all for it...
Wealth Redistribution
I would like to point out that redistributing wealth away from the rich to the poor is not giving money from the useful to the "useless". An awful lot of wealth is generated through simple speculation or inheritance, would you call people who suck all of the productive capital out of society through their stockmarket gambling while rewarding themselves multi-million bonuses are of any use to anyone? The phrase "worse than useless" comes to mind.
Such people have been given every advantage by recent Western governments, while an awful lot of people are now living on incomes where you cannot afford a house or much else unless you are prepred to endebt yourself for the rest of your working life. Here I am thinking of such losers as nurses, policemen, plumbers, pipe-fitters, foresters, fishermen, etc etc. Such people (basically the rest of us who are not, and never will be, rich) are hardly "useless" people, they are the 98 percent of society that are not millionaires or anything like it. That these people should put up or shut up is an argument straight our of ancien regime Europe at its aristocratic height.
The fact that most of the wealth of society is dependent upon the ordinary little people doing their "useless" tasks such as keeping the lights on and cleaning the rich people's toilets would make it sensible to me that the speculative parasites of society, (who coincidently have just totally our financial systems and soon our economies) and their conspicuous consumption are taxed as much as possible, while ordinary peolpe are given perhaps a little bit of help to keep an overpriced roof over their head, or some food in their children's mouths.
Such people have been given every advantage by recent Western governments, while an awful lot of people are now living on incomes where you cannot afford a house or much else unless you are prepred to endebt yourself for the rest of your working life. Here I am thinking of such losers as nurses, policemen, plumbers, pipe-fitters, foresters, fishermen, etc etc. Such people (basically the rest of us who are not, and never will be, rich) are hardly "useless" people, they are the 98 percent of society that are not millionaires or anything like it. That these people should put up or shut up is an argument straight our of ancien regime Europe at its aristocratic height.
The fact that most of the wealth of society is dependent upon the ordinary little people doing their "useless" tasks such as keeping the lights on and cleaning the rich people's toilets would make it sensible to me that the speculative parasites of society, (who coincidently have just totally our financial systems and soon our economies) and their conspicuous consumption are taxed as much as possible, while ordinary peolpe are given perhaps a little bit of help to keep an overpriced roof over their head, or some food in their children's mouths.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
K.Snyder;1030468 wrote: I thought that was simple...:wah:...
Not "dictate" per say...Limit...Such as raising the minimum wage at the same time making up for such a piece of legislation by virtue of the wealthy...The wealthy pay for the difference...The wealth otherwise sitting in bank accounts accumulating interest that more predominantly is used in real estate...Something I personally feel should be sparsed equally as apart of ones employment contract, but that's a bit optimistic at present...
I feel the government with it's power should mandate wealth redistribution but should be done so typically how it is now rather the businesses giving equal share to all it's employees...You cannot convince me that even half of the wealthy have their money after having worked harder than the other half of the very same society he/she has earned their wealth.
When you say "worked harder" what do you mean? More calories burned, as someone stated earlier? Lifting more cumulative weight? What about the ones who 'work smarter not harder'?
When the government with it's power starts mandating that employers pay employees at a fiscal loss, what's to keep them from moving their business to a friendlier nation?
Not "dictate" per say...Limit...Such as raising the minimum wage at the same time making up for such a piece of legislation by virtue of the wealthy...The wealthy pay for the difference...The wealth otherwise sitting in bank accounts accumulating interest that more predominantly is used in real estate...Something I personally feel should be sparsed equally as apart of ones employment contract, but that's a bit optimistic at present...
I feel the government with it's power should mandate wealth redistribution but should be done so typically how it is now rather the businesses giving equal share to all it's employees...You cannot convince me that even half of the wealthy have their money after having worked harder than the other half of the very same society he/she has earned their wealth.
When you say "worked harder" what do you mean? More calories burned, as someone stated earlier? Lifting more cumulative weight? What about the ones who 'work smarter not harder'?
When the government with it's power starts mandating that employers pay employees at a fiscal loss, what's to keep them from moving their business to a friendlier nation?
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1030479 wrote: When you say "worked harder" what do you mean? More calories burned, as someone stated earlier? Lifting more cumulative weight? What about the ones who 'work smarter not harder'? Harder is defined by the worth the work the person in question is doing for the necessities needed within said society...
Accountable;1030479 wrote:
When the government with it's power starts mandating that employers pay employees at a fiscal loss, what's to keep them from moving their business to a friendlier nation? Purchasing power...I'd love to smoke a Cuban cigar but I cannot seem to find one...But then again I don't need a Cuban cigar because it will kill "you"...
Don't smoke you'll get lung cancer and die before you're 55...:yh_wink...
Accountable;1030479 wrote:
When the government with it's power starts mandating that employers pay employees at a fiscal loss, what's to keep them from moving their business to a friendlier nation? Purchasing power...I'd love to smoke a Cuban cigar but I cannot seem to find one...But then again I don't need a Cuban cigar because it will kill "you"...
Don't smoke you'll get lung cancer and die before you're 55...:yh_wink...
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
K.Snyder;1030481 wrote: Harder is defined by the worth the work the person in question is doing for the necessities needed within said society...Again ... you're leaving these questions to be decided by gov't instead of the individual? You'd scrap our entire Constitution then?
K.Snyder wrote: Purchasing power...I'd love to smoke a Cuban cigar but I cannot seem to find one...But then again I don't need a Cuban cigar because it will kill "you"...
Don't smoke you'll get lung cancer and die before you're 55...:yh_wink...
Huh?!? :-2
You are aware, of course, that a company can sell goods here (access purchasing power) without employing one single American, aren't you? Or are you now wanting to abolish import/export?
K.Snyder wrote: Purchasing power...I'd love to smoke a Cuban cigar but I cannot seem to find one...But then again I don't need a Cuban cigar because it will kill "you"...
Don't smoke you'll get lung cancer and die before you're 55...:yh_wink...
Huh?!? :-2
You are aware, of course, that a company can sell goods here (access purchasing power) without employing one single American, aren't you? Or are you now wanting to abolish import/export?