Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7375
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Oct 2017, 4:15 pm

In my example the $35,000 worker paid nothing.

In my example the $350,000 worker paid about $30,000.

The second part of your comments sounded as if the government should be dis-incentivizing the earning of wealth. I do NOT agree. We should incentivize the earning of wealth. If the market wants Harry Potter, it will buy it. JK Rowling is a great example of a welfare recipient, working hard to make it. Couple that with Oprah Winfrey, and George Soros, you can see that anyone can make it from harsh living standards to wealthy. You say these people do not provide real value to the economy. Who are you to say such a thing. The market has spoken otherwise! If there was not real value, it would not have survived.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Oct 2017, 4:57 pm

Of course I can say it. Who says we have to worship the market? We don't. We as a society decide how we want things to be valued, not some arbitrary market which is manipulated and distorted anyway. When the market is properly rewarding people then that's great. It's not. More and more wealth is going to investors, corporate executives, and Wall Street and banks--not because what they are doing is better than before but because the rules of the game are being manipulated in their favor. Tax policy is one way to get things back in balance.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7375
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Oct 2017, 10:03 pm

I don't worship the market. I only worship one, and His name is not market.

However, the market is made of people. If they choose to pay a person, so be it.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Oct 2017, 6:26 am

rayjay
There are 50 states that get to make their own tax policies. The feds cannot mandate that. Please don't waste our time discussing how 50 states need to change their tax laws.

A homogenized tax rate allows states to set their own rates...

Illustration.
Federal government sets their tax rate for people earning $75,000 to $99,000 at 22%

Kentucky sets their state tax rate for that to 12% Kentucky's homogenized rate 34%

Hawaii sets their state rate to 15% . Hawaii's Homogenized rate for that bracket is 37%.

And so on.
States keep their revenue. Fed keeps its revenue. And residents understand that they all pay to the federal government the same way, and that states are not being subsidized or subsidizing the activities of other states..

Transparent and fair. And constitutional.
And simple.
Americans tend to choose the most complicated ways of doing anything. Taxation especially.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Oct 2017, 6:29 am

Freeman:
We as a society decide how we want things to be valued, not some arbitrary market which is manipulated and distorted anyway.


Isn't we as a society manipulated and distorted by the political process?

Markets produce I-phones, better cars, abundant food, and Facebook. "We as a society" (i.e. government over intrusion) produce over priced medical care, runaway higher education costs, lack of housing, etc. Of course we need both markets and government, but doesn't your life experience suggest that in general vigorous markets and limited government produce better outcomes? Which works better: South Korea or Venezuela?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Oct 2017, 6:32 am

freeman3 wrote:Of course I can say it. Who says we have to worship the market? We don't. We as a society decide how we want things to be valued, not some arbitrary market which is manipulated and distorted anyway. When the market is properly rewarding people then that's great. It's not. More and more wealth is going to investors, corporate executives, and Wall Street and banks--not because what they are doing is better than before but because the rules of the game are being manipulated in their favor. Tax policy is one way to get things back in balance.


Take from those who have means and give to those in need, right?

Sorry, but our system is out of whack in ways that the tax system will not address. I know a woman who just had her seventh child. Yes, lucky #7! Except the first 3 are in foster care. The second 3 live with relatives. And yet, there are people on Facebook *congratulating* her on #7! I’m sure the baby went into foster care.

13 years ago, she seemed to have her life together. While she was a single mom of 3, she had a steady job, etc. Then, she quit her job, went into prostitution and drugs, etc.

So what?

She’s on government assistance. She’s a recipient of the “safety net.”

100 years ago, would she have been able to maintain a drug-addicted lifestyle?

Is this progress?

I don’t know.

What I do know: while she is making a hash of her own life, she is leaving damaged, innocent children in her wake. And, she’s not the only one.

I know she’s not the “norm.” Neither are the wealthy you want to soak so that she (and those like her) can continue their irresponsible and destructive lifestyles.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Oct 2017, 10:14 am

Yeah...I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have supported your economic beliefs.

I'm not asking that people with means support those on welfare no matter what. I am not really that sure what we can do with regard with people who have drug or minimal abilities or other problems that make it difficult for them to contribute. We do what is reasonable, we try to curb manipulation of the system, minimize fraud. But I'm not going to have many other people suffer because of people like the woman you know. I always find it interesting when people get obsessed by those at the low end of the lower end of the economic spectrum who at best eke out a marginal existence and ignore the manipulation that yields far more gains st the top.

What I am saying is that we should try to have economic policies that require people to have contributions to our society in some proportion to the contribution they make to society. The average neurosurgeon makes about $550,000. Do I have a problem with that? Of course not! They've earned it. But it is interesting to know that professions like engineering, medicine and the law are for the most part not particularly lucrative. You can only make so much money when your earnings are tied to ACTUAL WORK. Even with a neurosurgeon his income in some sense tied to an insurance company deciding how much a surgery should be worth.

But that's not true with regard to Wall Street, bank executives, corporate executives whose income is tied to stock prices, and investors. Wall Street's AVERAGE BONUS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES WAS $172,000 LAST YEAR. You think people in those areas are contributing something to society to justify such extreme levels of compensation?

My tax proposal simply makes the case that there is no way an individual is so brilliant, so talented...so whatever that their work is worth more than $5,000 an hour. Do you think that's an unreasonable argument? I think in a fair economic system those who put in 2,000 hours should make enough to have basic necessities, so a $15 minimum wage is required. And pretty much...you have a $5,000 maximum wage. (Of course a hedge fund manager who makes a billion dollars would still take a hundred million so I think they would still opt to work...but at least instances I would think it would make coprporations less greedy and more likely to allow employees to share in a company's success). The higher up the income ladder you go, the more it is divorced from actual work/contribution the less you are entitled to withdraw from the pie WE ALL CREATE. Money is just pieces of paper with ink on it. What matters is what you ARE ACTUALLY DOING to increase our society's wealth. Right now, it's pretty clear that the top 1% in general are getting the right to withdraw wealth far out of proportion to the contribution they are making.

Meanwhile we have 50-60K thousand people dying from drug overdoses, 1,000 people being shot by police, and racial divisiveness increasing while a president continues to stoke it. But all that...is completely unrelated to our present economic policies causing so much wealth to go towards the top, leaving much of the country left out...right?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Oct 2017, 10:57 am

rayjay
Markets produce I-phones, better cars, abundant food, and Facebook. "We as a society" (i.e. government over intrusion) produce over priced medical care, runaway higher education costs, lack of housing, etc. Of course we need both markets and government, but doesn't your life experience suggest that in general vigorous markets and limited government produce better outcomes? Which works better: South Korea or Venezuela?


Its interesting how you pick on examples that all have a lot of government involvement in the markets - either by regulation or even direct involvement, to make successful. Better cars were regulated - either by safety standards or mileage standards. Mass produced cell phones are made possible by the regulation of the spectrum, and by trade agreements with the manufacturing nations. And by patents which protect the intellectual property of the developers. In the US its only through direct government involvement in 2009 that there are still three US auto companies. (Is Chrysler considered American still?)

And its interesting that you pick on US problems like runaway education and medical costs .... which are not huge problems in nations where education is NOT considered a private enterprise and where medical care is not just a business but is a highly regulated business based upon the principle that all people have a right to access medical care as citizens.
In fact both education and education are areas where the application of market principles, have largely created the problems.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Oct 2017, 11:00 am

freeman3 wrote:Yeah...I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have supported your economic beliefs.


I'm pretty sure you don't know anything about His economic beliefs--other than what liberal writers tell you to believe.

I'm not asking that people with means support those on welfare no matter what. I am not really that sure what we can do with regard with people who have drug or minimal abilities or other problems that make it difficult for them to contribute. We do what is reasonable, we try to curb manipulation of the system, minimize fraud. But I'm not going to have many other people suffer because of people like the woman you know. I always find it interesting when people get obsessed by those at the low end of the lower end of the economic spectrum who at best eke out a marginal existence and ignore the manipulation that yields far more gains st the top.


No, I marvel at people like you who would scream (and have sued) to prevent drug testing for those on welfare. These people need help, not enablement. When you give addicts money, housing, and food, you are helping them stay addicted.

Meanwhile we have 50-60K thousand people dying from drug overdoses, 1,000 people being shot by police, and racial divisiveness increasing while a president continues to stoke it. But all that...is completely unrelated to our present economic policies causing so much wealth to go towards the top, leaving much of the country left out...right?


Actually, no.

We have people dying of drug overdoses because we support their addiction via government largess.

People are shot by police most often because . . . they assault the police.

We have racial divisiveness because it suits the media and the Democratic party to stoke it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Oct 2017, 11:06 am

Ricky:
In fact both education and education are areas


cute ...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Oct 2017, 11:46 am

No. I subscribe to writers like Kant, Hegel et al who believed that human beings are free and should reject ALL dogma and should think for themselves. Religion tells people what to believe.

I won't bother to look for verses supporting my position that Jesus would not have supported free-wheeling capitalism where people amass untold amounts of wealth. Are you really going to argue that point?

As for drug deaths....I don't think your contention explains why we were under 10,000 drug overdose deaths until the early 1990s...and are now at 60,000. Is that completely unrelated to a social and economic pressure cooker caused by a highly stratified economy?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -ever.html

Tough economic conditions cause racial friction. That's pretty predictable.

I don't know exactly why we have all these police shootings...but are they completely unrelated to socio/economic conditions created by a highly stratified economy?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Oct 2017, 1:57 pm

To allow an adult person to work a full-time job and not make enough to reasonably provide for basic necessities and make him dependent on the largesse of others...is to deny him/her full recognition as a person. Healthy adults from 18-65 owe society the duty of either going to school or working to support themselves; in return, every job should pay enough to provide for necessities. "Who has no rights has no duties; who has no duties has no rights."--Hegel
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7375
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 04 Oct 2017, 2:46 pm

A friend of mine owns/manages a fast food restaurant in town here. The minimum wage increase caused him to terminate an employee to keep the restaurant profitable.

That is what I think of minimum wage. Another person lost a job.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Oct 2017, 2:58 pm

We go and on about whether the minimum wage causes the loss of jobs or what-not. But it doesn't matter though. A worker who works full-time should be able to support him or herself without assistance. Period. We can make other adjustments to account for any dislocation. And we will have the established the fundamental principle that if you work full-time...you will earn enough to support yourself and be recognized as such.

The right of a business owner to have his business subsidized by the rest of society...so he can pay workers less than a subsistence rate...is not a right at all.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Oct 2017, 6:53 pm

freeman3 wrote:No. I subscribe to writers like Kant, Hegel et al who believed that human beings are free and should reject ALL dogma and should think for themselves. Religion tells people what to believe.


“Religion” does. On the other hand, the Creator knows more than the creature.

I won't bother to look for verses supporting my position that Jesus would not have supported free-wheeling capitalism where people amass untold amounts of wealth. Are you really going to argue that point?


I would encourage you to search Scripture. Period. Full stop.

As for drug deaths....I don't think your contention explains why we were under 10,000 drug overdose deaths until the early 1990s...and are now at 60,000. Is that completely unrelated to a social and economic pressure cooker caused by a highly stratified economy?


If that were the cause, we would have expected the deaths to peak at the worst of the economic trouble. If you want to know the costs of Narcan and what sorts of people use it as a “get out of overdose free” card, talk to a fireman.

Tough economic conditions cause racial friction. That's pretty predictable.


Especially when Democrats need to maintain the anger of minorities against the majority and Trump benefits from the anger of the majority against everything.

I don't know exactly why we have all these police shootings...but are they completely unrelated to socio/economic conditions created by a highly stratified economy?


Gangs. Gang mentality. Social vacuum caused by fatherless homes.