The Senate is advancing legislation to punish China for undervaluing its currency and taking away American jobs. At issue is whether the measure would boost the American economy or initiate a damaging trade war with a major trading partner.
Starbucks Corp CEO Howard Schultz, decrying a lack of leadership in Washington, said his chain of coffee shops is helping to launch a nationwide fund designed to stimulate U.S. job creation.
Several states will also be increasing their minimum wage shortly; some argue higher rates mean being less competitive with other areas of the US and the world.
This is not difficult.
1. Invade Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica (in that order). We now own the poles baby! If you see anything alienlike in a block of ice, leave it the &*%^% alone.
2. Pump out Greenhouse gases like no tomorrow.
3. Sell grade A real estate to the rest of the post apocalypse world = profit!
Alternatively, genetically create anklosaurs and Utah raptors. Parachute them over North Korea. Video for our amusement.
Frazzled wrote:This is not difficult.
1. Invade Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica (in that order). We now own the poles baby! If you see anything alienlike in a block of ice, leave it the &*%^% alone.
2. Pump out Greenhouse gases like no tomorrow.
3. Sell grade A real estate to the rest of the post apocalypse world = profit!
Alternatively, genetically create anklosaurs and Utah raptors. Parachute them over North Korea. Video for our amusement.
Jobs are based on the need for labor. When labor is needed, jobs open up. What fuels need? Consumer demand. We can try to export more goods, which will help a bit, but requires competing against much lower labor costs.
Or we can increase domestic demand for domestics services (and to a lesser extent goods).
The US can, and does, compete internationally in production, just not on stuff that can be built on cheap machinery by semi-skilled labor. Instead of trying to run headfirst into the thicket, why not invest in service industry jobs that can't be outsourced?
The problem is that services need to be consumed by the middle and working class to be a growth industry. Which means we need to put spending power in the hands of consumers to create jobs.
Some economic deregulation will help, but not the sort proposed by the political-industrial oligarchy. Jobs are created by small businesses. You know, the ones that are growing. Lowering taxes on large corporations (and their share holders) won't create jobs. Making it easier to start new small businesses will.
So, yeah, increase progressive tax rates, step in locally and on the state level to make business easier on the ground level, and allow entrepeneurism blossom.
Or, we can instead redefine how we view jobs and work, since it's pretty apparent that the country is more than able to meet all of it's production needs with high unemployment.
bombboy1252 wrote:How about we make american business hire americans......
how does that sound...
Well....
it sounds like you want to increase the price of food while creating millions of less than minimum wage jobs.
Illegal immigrants aren't stealing jobs that pay $35k a year with benefits, you do realize that right?
That said, ending the farce that Illegal Immigration exists because brown criminals want to steal our jobs is a good thing. We'll have real immigration reform right around the time the agriculture lobby stops being influential.
Impose the same trading restrictions on China that Chnia imposes on the US for starters.
But the real issue is that you NEED a certain level of unemployment in order to avoid to high inflation, thus no country on the planet would ever want 0% unemployment.
bombboy1252 wrote:How about we make american business hire americans......
how does that sound...
Well....
it sounds like you want to increase the price of food while creating millions of less than minimum wage jobs.
Illegal immigrants aren't stealing jobs that pay $35k a year with benefits, you do realize that right?
That said, ending the farce that Illegal Immigration exists because brown criminals want to steal our jobs is a good thing. We'll have real immigration reform right around the time the agriculture lobby stops being influential.
I'd get comfy.
This is a thread about how to create jobs, never said I had to list downsides
and I wasn't JUST talking about illegel immigrants, what about the little asian kids making you're sneakers? they get paid like what, 3 cents an hour?
Pyriel- wrote:Impose the same trading restrictions on China that Chnia imposes on the US for starters.
But the real issue is that you NEED a certain level of unemployment in order to avoid to high inflation, thus no country on the planet would ever want 0% unemployment.
Not so much that, as a low level of unemployment indicates economic mobility.
But a high level of unemployment indicates stagnation...
Right, because as we know, as long as it's politically convenient, a bad economic situation develops immediately rather than slowly over time, and can be blamed on the current president, not the former, amirite?
Melissia wrote:Right, because as we know, as long as it's politically convenient, a bad economic situation develops immediately rather than slowly over time, and can be blamed on the current president, not the former, amirite?
bombboy1252 wrote:
This is a thread about how to create jobs, never said I had to list downsides
and I wasn't JUST talking about illegel immigrants, what about the little asian kids making you're sneakers? they get paid like what, 3 cents an hour?
You can't fight globalization. You can try, and you will fail.
Do you know why? Commodities prices are controlled by the cheapest producer. No matter how little more it costs to make sneakers in the US, that business will eventually fail.
People will pay a premium for quality, or features, or even novelty. They will not pay a premium because it's made in the US.
Melissia wrote:Right, because as we know, as long as it's politically convenient, a bad economic situation develops immediately rather than slowly over time, and can be blamed on the current president, not the former, amirite?
Thats seems obviated by Obama who has turned blaming into a high art.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:
bombboy1252 wrote:
This is a thread about how to create jobs, never said I had to list downsides
and I wasn't JUST talking about illegel immigrants, what about the little asian kids making you're sneakers? they get paid like what, 3 cents an hour?
You can't fight globalization. You can try, and you will fail.
Do you know why? Commodities prices are controlled by the cheapest producer. No matter how little more it costs to make sneakers in the US, that business will eventually fail.
People will pay a premium for quality, or features, or even novelty. They will not pay a premium because it's made in the US.
Unless of course, your nation doesn't trade with the nation that makes the cheapest sneakers.
Gettin rid of the Puerto Rican and Mexican illegal immigrants is a good way to start opening new jobs for Americans. Moving to Europe is also a good move as there are many open jobs here.
Kylis wrote:Gettin rid of the Puerto Rican and Mexican illegal immigrants is a good way to start opening new jobs for Americans. Moving to Europe is also a good move as there are many open jobs here.
Puerto Rican's can't immigrate to the US, legally or iillegally.
biccat wrote:Repealing minimum wage laws would lead to more jobs created.
They would be low-paying jobs, but IMO it's better to have productive citizens at low-paying jobs than non-productive citizens with no jobs.
The difference may be taken up by welfare and/or private charity.
That's undeniable that more jobs will open up. Of course....
Polonius wrote:Illegal immigrants aren't stealing jobs that pay $35k a year with benefits, you do realize that right?
No, but they are taking a lot of construction jobs and devaluing the labor of the average construction worker.
...it would also devalue labor.
Getting rid of minimum wage laws would open up some jobs, but I think it would limit long term growth, because minimum wage jobs, much less jobs that pay less than that, keep a person stuck in poverty. You grow an economy by increasing consumer demand, not by cutting wages at the bottom.
I think a lot of American labor is overvalued. Which is why there's external pressure to compete for "American jobs" like service, construction, and farming. When an employer can choose between paying a minimum wage to an American and below minimum wage to a Mexican, you get a better view of the value of that labor.
Polonius wrote:Getting rid of minimum wage laws would open up some jobs, but I think it would limit long term growth, because minimum wage jobs, much less jobs that pay less than that, keep a person stuck in poverty. You grow an economy by increasing consumer demand, not by cutting wages at the bottom.
Demand is only one part of growth, production is another. Someone who is paid $5/hour is providing a benefit to the economy. If he is paid $5/hour by the government, the money is coming from the taxpayer (eventually) and therefore must be taken out of the economy elsewhere.
Simply put, it's cheaper to pay someone $500/mo in welfare than it is to pay them $1000/mo in unemployment.
I think a lot of American labor is overvalued. Which is why there's external pressure to compete for "American jobs" like service, construction, and farming. When an employer can choose between paying a minimum wage to an American and below minimum wage to a Mexican, you get a better view of the value of that labor.
Polonius wrote:Getting rid of minimum wage laws would open up some jobs, but I think it would limit long term growth, because minimum wage jobs, much less jobs that pay less than that, keep a person stuck in poverty. You grow an economy by increasing consumer demand, not by cutting wages at the bottom.
Demand is only one part of growth, production is another. Someone who is paid $5/hour is providing a benefit to the economy. If he is paid $5/hour by the government, the money is coming from the taxpayer (eventually) and therefore must be taken out of the economy elsewhere.
Simply put, it's cheaper to pay someone $500/mo in welfare than it is to pay them $1000/mo in unemployment.
Well, that's actually one of the problems we face in this country: not enough for people to do. Production simply isn't a problem: we have all the goods and services we could want available, we just can't all afford them all.
Thats' why demand is important. Supply Side economics works a little bit (increased supply always lowers prices), but you still need a demand. if supply side economics were fully correct, than unemployment couldn't exist, as there would be a massive, cheap supply of labor. Instead, you need a demand for any good, service, or labor.
That's why taxing the rich works: it takes money that is not being used for consumption, and uses it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The becomes a philisophical policy discussion over whether the economy should serve only the richest/most talented, or if it should benefit all workers broadly.
ZOMBIE CAT wrote:2. fewer restrictions on buisneses
Yeah, THAT has worked SO well for us in the last ten years.
Considering Bush passed 50K new regulations you're right it absolutely has gotten us into this mess. Don't believe the propaganda coming out of the donkey's agitprop anymore than the one coming out of the elephants.
How to encourage producers to invest in American business and create jobs.
1. Scrap the income tax, replace with a consumption tax like the fair tax.
2. Scrap the income tax, replace with a consumption tax like the fair tax.
3. Scrap the income tax, replace with a consumption tax like the fair tax.
4. Reenact Glass-Steagall
5. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley.
Dice Monkey wrote:1. Scrap the income tax, replace with a consumption tax like the fair tax. 2. Scrap the income tax, replace with a consumption tax like the fair tax. 3. Scrap the income tax, replace with a consumption tax like the fair tax.
Consumption tax would only further devalue the economy as it is effectively a regressive tax, sot he average consumer would be essentially paying more as a percentage of their income in tax than those at the top, pushing the burden on them and thus reducing their buying power.
Polonius wrote:Well, that's actually one of the problems we face in this country: not enough for people to do. Production simply isn't a problem: we have all the goods and services we could want available, we just can't all afford them all.
No we don't have "all the goods and services we could want." I still don't have a sushi restaurant within walking distance of my house. Nor is there a good pre-civilization sci-fi plastic wargame available (I would call it Cavemen vs. Aliens).
There are lots of goods and services people will want (3 years ago nobody wanted an iPad, 10 years ago nobody wanted an iPhone, 20 years ago people were happy with beepers, 30 years ago nobody needed cell phones...) that haven't been developed or produced yet.
Polonius wrote:Thats' why demand is important. Supply Side economics works a little bit (increased supply always lowers prices), but you still need a demand. if supply side economics were fully correct, than unemployment couldn't exist, as there would be a massive, cheap supply of labor. Instead, you need a demand for any good, service, or labor.
Well, unemployment could exist because there's a lower limit to unemployment based on shifts in worker demographics, and some people who aren't willing to work for what the market says they should be paid. But when you add a minimum wage, you increase the level of unemployment because some employees won't provide enough value to pay them that wage.
Polonius wrote:That's why taxing the rich works: it takes money that is not being used for consumption, and uses it.
I disagree. Capital is a necessary component to business. The economy can't survive on consumption alone.
Frazzled wrote:When you have an open border minimum wage is almost meaningless to anything outside of government positions.
Not true. Union wages are often built on minimum wage laws.
Of course, given the severe drop in private-sector Unions, your point might be an accurate prediction.
There might not be every concievable good or service, but the only reason you don't have a sushi restaurant near you is that there isn't demand for not, not because (demand aside), it's economically unfeasible.
What I mean by adequete production is that we have enough food, shelter, clothing, entertainment, health care, education, and luxury goods to provide every American with lots of all of those. We are no longer limited by the speed of production.
There are future products, to be sure. But even so... outside of the very short term, nobody is worried that we can't make mass produce smart phones at a price that average people can afford.
And yes, capital is essential to business. Which is why the difficutly in accessing credit is such a current stumbling block for entrepeneurs.
But there's a huge different between raising taxes, and taking all of the capital from the wealthy.
You might be excited about the prospect of a dystopia where the wealthy and uber talented live well, while everybody else is mired in poverty (which is what the free market will do, by the way)... but most people aren't.
By taxing the wealthy, sure, you disincentivize their labor. But... you free up capital and money that enables more people to become at least a little wealthy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the other hand, I do love the way people can frame an issue. The hiriing of immigrants isn't "illegal hiring by a firm," it's the result of "open borders."
What about drug use? Is that not the fault of drug dealers and user, but rather lax enforcement at the border?
The flood of illegal immigrants has far mor to do with massive conspriacy by businesses and individuals to evade wage and hour laws, not to mention payroll taxes, than any government action or inaction.
Polonius wrote:the only reason you don't have a sushi restaurant near you is that there isn't demand for not, not because (demand aside), it's economically unfeasible.
There is demand for it. I would likely visit that restaurant at least 1-2 times a week and spend upwards of $10 each time. That means that there is an unfulfilled demand that is not being met by the current system. It's economically unfeasable because there isn't sufficient demand to make such a venture profitable.
Polonius wrote:What I mean by adequete production is that we have enough food, shelter, clothing, entertainment, health care, education, and luxury goods to provide every American with lots of all of those. We are no longer limited by the speed of production.
Yes, we could easily provide everyone with enough food, shelter etc. But to what end? If we could produce enough necessities with 50% of the population working, is it fair to them that they should work while the remainder enjoy the fruits of their labor? Ultimately, that's the question. In my opinion, those who contribute to society in the greatest amount should enjoy the greatest reward. Those who don't contribute don't deserve to starve, but they are living at the expense of the producers.
Polonius wrote:But there's a huge different between raising taxes, and taking all of the capital from the wealthy.
You said that the money should be taken from non-consumption to provide for consumption. If capital is necessary, by taking it from those who have it you're reducing the market for capital.
Polonius wrote:You might be excited about the prospect of a dystopia where the wealthy and uber talented live well, while everybody else is mired in poverty (which is what the free market will do, by the way)... but most people aren't.
You're taking a false assertion (the free market will create sharp class divisions between the rich and the poor) and using it to prop up a straw man. I don't think that a free market economy would create a dystopia, rather it would create a world where luxury products are widely available and inexpensive. Like they are in the United States where even someone living at the poverty line can have disposable income, savings and even some 'luxury' goods (like a flat screen TV or a cell phone).
Polonius wrote:By taxing the wealthy, sure, you disincentivize their labor. But... you free up capital and money that enables more people to become at least a little wealthy.
When you tax the wealthy it doesn't "free up" money, it simply moves it from one person to another. It doesn't increase the net amount of wealth. It also takes that wealth from a higher utility to a lower utility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:The flood of illegal immigrants has far mor to do with massive conspriacy by businesses and individuals to evade wage and hour laws, not to mention payroll taxes, than any government action or inaction.
Yes-ish. But the government, by not strictly enforcing the immigration and wage and hour laws has allowed this environment to survive.
I agree that State and the Federal governments need to crack down not solely on illegal immigrants but on employers who refuse to abide by employment laws.
Dice Monkey wrote:1. Scrap the income tax, replace with a consumption tax like the fair tax.
2. Scrap the income tax, replace with a consumption tax like the fair tax.
3. Scrap the income tax, replace with a consumption tax like the fair tax.
Consumption tax would only further devalue the economy as it is effectively a regressive tax, sot he average consumer would be essentially paying more as a percentage of their income in tax than those at the top, pushing the burden on them and thus reducing their buying power.
They already pay that percentage in higher cost that businesses pass on to the consumer. This is on top of the federal taxes they are already charged. You have to realize that businesses will never pay taxes, they will simply mark that as an additional cost and hand that to the poor people you claim to be concerned about. If you removed the income tax you would basically smash away the shackles that have businesses fleeing to places like the Caribbean and Singapore. On the obverse you would have expansion in all sectors except accounting and Tax law (which makes up a good percentage of lobbying in the country).
You would also remove a wedge issue from both sides, no one would dare raise taxes when everyone would be able to feel them.
And yes, capital is essential to business. Which is why the difficutly in accessing credit is such a current stumbling block for entrepeneurs.
Accessing cheap easy credit is the problem that got us into the mess in the first place. My making it accessible you create a false demand and cause a bubble which will eventually burst. If you want real growth don't interfere by trying to create a new bubble. Entrepreneurs like myself are much more weighed down by taxes, regulations and trying to comply with all of those things than finding credit.
By taxing the wealthy, sure, you disincentivize their labor. But... you free up capital and money that enables more people to become at least a little wealthy.
The wealthy are the ones who start business and invest their capital which fuels the economy, what you are advocating is the same thing that has failed since it's inception in the 20th century. There is a reason why the 1920 depression lasted a year despite being more severe than the 1929 and 1932 downturns. Care to venture what that is?
1. Invade Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica (in that order). We now own the poles baby! If you see anything alienlike in a block of ice, leave it the &*%^% alone.
1. Invade Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica (in that order). We now own the poles baby! If you see anything alienlike in a block of ice, leave it the &*%^% alone.
Better send Kurt Russel along, just in case.
And a flame thrower. Belay that. Lots of flame throwers.
Polonius wrote:the only reason you don't have a sushi restaurant near you is that there isn't demand for not, not because (demand aside), it's economically unfeasible.
There is demand for it. I would likely visit that restaurant at least 1-2 times a week and spend upwards of $10 each time. That means that there is an unfulfilled demand that is not being met by the current system. It's economically unfeasable because there isn't sufficient demand to make such a venture profitable.
right, but it's not because there isn't enough rice, fish, or well trained sushi chefs. That's all my point was.
Yes, we could easily provide everyone with enough food, shelter etc. But to what end? If we could produce enough necessities with 50% of the population working, is it fair to them that they should work while the remainder enjoy the fruits of their labor? Ultimately, that's the question. In my opinion, those who contribute to society in the greatest amount should enjoy the greatest reward. Those who don't contribute don't deserve to starve, but they are living at the expense of the producers.
I could care less what other people do. I want to work, and so do a lot of people. Most people enjoy having a job.
The flip side to this question is: why make people that don't want to work, do so? I'm not advocating total social welfare (the population issue gets rough), I'm just saying that the mindset that everybody needs to work or they are morally inferior, when there isn't enough work to go around, is questionable.
You said that the money should be taken from non-consumption to provide for consumption. If capital is necessary, by taking it from those who have it you're reducing the market for capital.
I dont' really understand this, but I'm not actually an economist.
You're taking a false assertion (the free market will create sharp class divisions between the rich and the poor) and using it to prop up a straw man. I don't think that a free market economy would create a dystopia, rather it would create a world where luxury products are widely available and inexpensive. Like they are in the United States where even someone living at the poverty line can have disposable income, savings and even some 'luxury' goods (like a flat screen TV or a cell phone).
I'm not sure it's a straw man. The working poor in the US have things like disposable income and savings almost exclusively because of regulation of the market. Food subsidies keep prices low. Investment in infrastructure makes transportation cheaper. Minimum wage laws set a floor to salaries.
As Dogma once said, "most people are average, and average ain't that good." It's hard to imagine a truly free market that doesn't end with the unskilled (or wrongly skilled) being inable to provide their own sustinence. Also... free markets don't stay free. Monopolies and trusts are a nearly inevitable result of free markets.
When you tax the wealthy it doesn't "free up" money, it simply moves it from one person to another. It doesn't increase the net amount of wealth. It also takes that wealth from a higher utility to a lower utility.
Well... that's a tricky one. The law of diminishing returns would disagree. $1000 is useful to me, but it's far more useful to a person that can't afford this month's rent, and far less useful to a person that earns four times my salary.
Yes-ish. But the government, by not strictly enforcing the immigration and wage and hour laws has allowed this environment to survive.
I agree that State and the Federal governments need to crack down not solely on illegal immigrants but on employers who refuse to abide by employment laws.
Well, this is where I point out that arguing over who is bending America over more, business or government, is missing the fact that they're really pretty much the same.
Polonius wrote:right, but it's not because there isn't enough rice, fish, or well trained sushi chefs. That's all my point was.
I see. Although I think there is a shortage of sushi chefs. It's a fairly demanding set of skills.
Polonius wrote:I could care less what other people do. I want to work, and so do a lot of people. Most people enjoy having a job.
But would you work the same hours and put in the same effort if you didn't have to? I'd certainly spend at least a few hours gaming or painting rather than at work, which would reduce what I contribute. Plus, I think you would have a hard time finding people who really enjoy sweeping up vomit in elementary schools if working were voluntary.
Polonius wrote:The flip side to this question is: why make people that don't want to work, do so? I'm not advocating total social welfare (the population issue gets rough), I'm just saying that the mindset that everybody needs to work or they are morally inferior, when there isn't enough work to go around, is questionable.
Because I disagree with the idea that there isn't enough work to go around. There are a lot more productive things people can do than sit around consuming what others produce (watch TV, buy stuff).
Perhaps with an algorithimic 'desirability/verility index' one could establish the barter value of sex for goods and services. Would be more efficient, also it could be tax deducable depending on the percentage it made up of the individual's yearly income.
Dice Monkey wrote:If you removed the income tax you would basically smash away the shackles that have businesses fleeing to places like the Caribbean and Singapore.
Yeah, I'm not convinced that's a statement that's actually based on reality. The assumption that companies would lower prices because of a switch from payroll to consumption tax rings false to me. Certainly, big business isn't hiring despite all of the politicians practically lining up to spit-shine the arses of their pants.
At least my statements have mathematical reasons behind them.
Say a five percent consumption tax, and two persons. Person A makes 10 grand a year, person B makes 50 grand a year, person C makes 100 grand a year.
Person A has to live off of buying in bulk, and preparing their own meals from mass produced cheap meals, and pays on average 5 dollars a day on food. On special occasions over a year they pay an additional 180 dollars for food, for an even 2000. This is pretty marginal, and you'll probably not be able to afford too much more than fast food for "eating out". They pay 100 USD in taxes, or 1% of their income, on this food. After food and taxes, they have 7,900 for paying bills of various kinds, gas, and so on. That one hundred dollars is actually a pretty big hit to them, all things considered. Especially with the tax adding to the price of their purchases, they really can't afford at all to save.
Person B can afford slightly higher quality food, but mostly produces their own meals or the cheaper of pre-prepared meals, and pays on average 15 dollars a day on food. On special occasions over a year, they pay an additional 540 dollars for food, for an even 6000. That's quite a bit more spending money on food, especially for eating out-- luxury foods. They pay 300 USD in taxes, or .6% of their income, on this food. So despite having three times as much money to spend on food, including luxury items, they pay less taxes as a percentage of their income on it, and have more for other pursuits. After food and taxes, they have 43,700 for paying bills, gas, entertainment, and so on. While they certainly feel that 300 in taxes, it doesn't have as big of an effect on them as it did person A. They can still also afford to save some despite the tax, unlike person A.
Person C likes luxury foods, and pays on average 40 dollars a day (!) on food. They have close to 2 and a half grand (2,440) set aside for special occasions, as they like to eat at very nice restaurants. This leads to a total of 16,000 spent on food, and a total of 800 USD in taxes... or 0.8% of their income. So despite having food that's the creme of the culinary crop, they're paying less in taxes for it as a proportion of their income than the person who's barely scraping by-- and they're far less effected by the tax, which is a flat rate for every person. And they still have 83,200 left for bills, entertainment, and so on. They practically don't even notice the tax, they might even pay their waiters more on average than they pay taxes to the government. And if they don't want to pay more taxes? They can just choose to put a portion of their money in a bank have that money earn money for them with no extra work from themselves. It ain't consumption, so it ain't taxed.
This is the same reason that a flat income tax is also a bad idea.
Melissia wrote:[Yeah, I'm not convinced that's a statement that's actually based on reality. The assumption that companies would lower prices because of a switch from payroll to consumption tax rings false to me. Certainly, big business isn't hiring despite all of the politicians practically lining up to spit-shine the arses of their pants.
Well, theoretically prices are set to maximize revenue. Since the fair tax would necessarily increase the effective cost at time of sale for all goods, failing to adjust prices in concert would likely have a negative impact on demand; all else being equal.
That said, I'm skeptical as to how much of a positive economic impact that a revenue neutral fair tax would have, given that it would presumably (maybe not, I've not read the proposed legislation) affect corporate purchases as well. It would, however, reduce their administrative costs, which is something.
Im not familiar with USA's economic plans, but is it something like this...?
Side A: American cant offer jobs because the condition to create job within USA are inefficient, conclusion = probably set factories and work in asian 2nd world countries for more profits due to cheaper labor.
Side B: We'll need to jump start consumer's purchase in order to jump start companies which then creates further work opportunities. We'll do this by taxing the ones creating jobs
while the ones with less income gets more benefits. ( a tiny bit of Communism? )
Of course im probably way off, but if someone can explain.
The primary bottleneck presently is the demand side. The consumer needs to buy more. If we're going to relax restrictions on anyone, it's regular people who buy crap. You can't call a small business owner a "job creator" if nobody is coming through the door. If someone is willing to hire more employees just because they got a tax break, that person is stupid. Hiring is coupled with how much business you are ACTUALLY GETTING, not how much less you pay in taxes. If you have a small business right now, and there is some expansion you'd like to do and that expansion is profitable, then you would already have borrowed to do it. The fact that you haven't expanded yet says that expansion is a bad idea right now.
If you've got the customers to need to expand, then you can afford to expand WITHOUT a tax break. If you can't afford to expand without a tax break, then you SHOULDN'T BE EXPANDING ANYWAY. This is like business 101.
TLR, any business which is not already hiring is not in a position to hire even if they HAD the money free. Demand is the bottleneck, not supply.
If people wants lower price and cheaper item, USA company will have no choice other than hiring cheap none US labor.
Yet if they want to create jobs within USA, the consumers better be prepared to pay for way higher prices.
This is why its going back and forth isn't it?
There's nothing wrong with NON-us labor. If an american company can save tons of money by getting the labor overseas, then that represents a larger profit margin with which they can expand what business they HAVE over here. (assuming americans are buying their products, see my last post)
You need to lose the idea that hiring here is automatically better than hiring somewhere else. The economy is global, the money flows back and forth across oceans constantly. The countries we outsource to are buying just as much of our stuff right back. You can't talk about leaving business alone, then also want to force them to use expensive labor for no functional reason. When we use cheap labor, we are creating value for less investment.
Rented Tritium wrote:You need to lose the idea that hiring here is automatically better than hiring somewhere else. The economy is global, the money flows back and forth across oceans constantly. The countries we outsource to are buying just as much of our stuff right back.
Rented Tritium wrote:You need to lose the idea that hiring here is automatically better than hiring somewhere else. The economy is global, the money flows back and forth across oceans constantly. The countries we outsource to are buying just as much of our stuff right back.
No they are not actually, not by a long shot.
I agree, especially china.
They take away LOTS of potential American jobs,
And im sure the majority of the workers cannot afford to buy back what they made ( a TV may very well be their yearly salary )
Take away tax cuts for the rich. (This won't create jobs, but the fact that the people with more money have to give the government less money is ridiculous.
Also, don't listen to the bs Frazzled is saying about how Obama is to blame for this current economic climate. He'll listen to anything the Republicans tell him, like the good little Republican foot soldier he is.
Karon wrote:Take away tax cuts for the rich. (This won't create jobs, but the fact that the people with more money have to give the government less money is ridiculous.
Also, don't listen to the bs Frazzled is saying about how Obama is to blame for this current economic climate. He'll listen to anything the Republicans tell him, like the good little Republican foot soldier he is.
Thats stormtrooper to you boyo! Once we've blamed the burning of the Capital on you commies its off to the re-education facility for you!!!
I don't get how you can be super free market and want to restrict these guys as little as possible, but then at the same time tell them what country to do business in. Why SHOULDN'T a company use the cheapest labor available. Cheap labor means cheap products means more money in my pocket means buying more products. Oh, we can make those products cheaper with outsourcing as well? Awesome!
It's called capitalism guys. I'm really surprised an invisible hand guy like you isn't better at understanding it. Forget about those "jobs" that are invisibly flying over the ocean or whatever you think is happening. A company is maximizing the bottom line and creating more value for less input. This is how economies function. You want the government to tell someone where they're allowed to manufacture their products, what are you, a socialist?
o_o Rented Tritium, i don't think anyone is confused about capitalism here.
But as you can see, if Americans don't have work, they wont be able to afford anything even if the product is made cheaper by hiring none US workers.
Rented Tritium wrote:I don't get how you can be super free market and want to restrict these guys as little as possible, but then at the same time tell them what country to do business in. Why SHOULDN'T a company use the cheapest labor available. Cheap labor means cheap products means more money in my pocket means buying more products. Oh, we can make those products cheaper with outsourcing as well? Awesome!
It's called capitalism guys. I'm really surprised an invisible hand guy like you isn't better at understanding it. Forget about those "jobs" that are invisibly flying over the ocean or whatever you think is happening. A company is maximizing the bottom line and creating more value for less input. This is how economies function. You want the government to tell someone where they're allowed to manufacture their products, what are you, a socialist?
Capitalism works best in a closed system. Open systems which we are in currently, where countries can manipulate their currency, less so. After all, not every country, region, or industry has a comparable advantage.
Probably completely unrelated but this discussion sorta reminded me of it.
Was a short documentary a bit ago, about jobs and immigrants here in the UK. Basically, the main thrust was that there were many, minimum wage jobs available, but with long hours requiring hard work. When offered said jobs, the people at job seekers immdiately went "feth that, we're worth more", whilst immigrants were quite happy to take them.
Which amused me slightly, as the inflated opinion of the job "seekers" meant they expected easy, well paying jobs and so they refused to try low paying harder jobs. Naturally, this hardly applies to everyone ever who is unemployed.
MrDwhitey wrote:Probably completely unrelated but this discussion sorta reminded me of it.
Was a short documentary a bit ago, about jobs and immigrants here in the UK. Basically, the main thrust was that there were many, minimum wage jobs available, but with long hours requiring hard work. When offered said jobs, the people at job seekers immdiately went "feth that, we're worth more", whilst immigrants were quite happy to take them.
Which amused me slightly, as the inflated opinion of the job "seekers" meant they expected easy, well paying jobs and so they refused to try low paying harder jobs. Naturally, this hardly applies to everyone ever who is unemployed.
John Stewart had a skit on this just last night regarding Mexican workers for USA/ let me see if i can find it
LunaHound wrote:o_o Rented Tritium, i don't think anyone is confused about capitalism here.
But as you can see, if Americans don't have work, they wont be able to afford anything even if the product is made cheaper by hiring none US workers.
Someone is selling those things, someone is sorting the warehouse full of those things. Someone is managing the purchasing and distribution of those things. Someone is designing those things.
Which brings me to another economics myth: The economy is powered by physically making objects and selling them
Apply your logic to a state and you'll see how silly it is. Why should new york buy food from nebraska? That's just shipping new york jobs to nebraska.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:I don't get how you can be super free market and want to restrict these guys as little as possible, but then at the same time tell them what country to do business in. Why SHOULDN'T a company use the cheapest labor available. Cheap labor means cheap products means more money in my pocket means buying more products. Oh, we can make those products cheaper with outsourcing as well? Awesome!
It's called capitalism guys. I'm really surprised an invisible hand guy like you isn't better at understanding it. Forget about those "jobs" that are invisibly flying over the ocean or whatever you think is happening. A company is maximizing the bottom line and creating more value for less input. This is how economies function. You want the government to tell someone where they're allowed to manufacture their products, what are you, a socialist?
Capitalism works best in a closed system. Open systems which we are in currently, where countries can manipulate their currency, less so. After all, not every country, region, or industry has a comparable advantage.
Ask Spain.
Then you should definitely be lobbying to stop texas from shipping jobs to california and florida. Capitalism works best in a closed system after all.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, I'm not convinced that's a statement that's actually based on reality. The assumption that companies would lower prices because of a switch from payroll to consumption tax rings false to me.
Companies would have to lower prices to stay competitive, you see this everyday in micro economics. Watch one gas station have gas 5 cents cheaper and tell me what happens. Which one gets more business and what does the other business need to do in order to compete?
Melissia wrote:Certainly, big business isn't hiring despite all of the politicians practically lining up to spit-shine the arses of their pants.
Big business made deep deep cuts and is still living off of reduced labor cost and overhead. All you have to do is go to the grocery store to see this in practice, have you not noticed the aisles are wider and there is less products on the shelves
Melissia wrote: At least my statements have mathematical reasons behind them.
Yours are theoretical and not based on any real number crunching. The fair tax is around 27% that replaces the 15% income tax, the 7.65% payroll tax and the 5.65% combined SSI and Medicare/caid tax. So you would get an automatic 28% increase in pay plus if you fall within the income guidelines you would get a prebate to cover essentials like food, water toilet paper. People considered poor would be affected 0% with the exception of having more income due to the lack of any federal taxes and their monthly prebate So far as businesses they would not have to pay taxes but also would be able save on tax compliance which is a huge cost in any business for example
As you can see all those cost go back into the the company to invest in itself, give raises or hire more people.
Consumption is also a much more stable source of income than taxing wages because consumption does not swing as wildly. The only people who would not be happy are ones who enjoy using taxes as a bludgeon on political or ideological opponents, people who profit from the current system (sorry H & R Block), and the lobbying firms who buy votes for tax exceptions.
A consumption tax means everyone has a stake in the tax and it is as transparent as you can make a tax. When they made the proposal they interviewed several fortune 500 companies 60 percent said they would expand operations in the US the other 40 said they would relocate their headquarters in the US. That is a fairly good indicator of were investment would go in the world.
Dice Monkey wrote:Companies would have to lower prices to stay competitive, you see this everyday in micro economics.
In some parts, yes, but not everywhere. Not all companies followthe same economic ideas, and decreased price is not always the best way to increased profits.
Dice Monkey wrote:Big business made deep deep cuts and is still living off of reduced labor cost and overhead.
Big business is doing pretty well for itself, what with their records profits, and sitting on billions of dollars which goes unspent.
Big business is not the answer to the problem; in many ways, they ARE the problem, or more accurately a sizable part of it.
Dice Monkey wrote:Yours are theoretical and not based on any real number crunching. The fair tax is
Not at all fair.
Dice Monkey wrote:People considered poor would be affected 0% with the exception of having more income due to the lack of any federal taxes and their monthly prebate
If the method described was used, then frankly that wouldn't change anything for them except which government system they use to get out of paying taxes. But in the end, the more I think about it, the more the so-called "fair tax" really just comes across as most beneficial to those whom are already rich, and I'm not yet convinced it is a good idea for anyone else. Anyone who is rich enough that they can save and start to make money off of money-- IE, definitely NOT most Americans-- can game the system all the same unless you tax more than merely consumption.
Speaking of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert also ran a bit where a big farm in New York (the state) was hiring and giving jobs out to anyone who wanted them, no interview or anything, to just do farm work and pick vegetables, etc etc. It only paid a dollar or two above minimum wage, but it was a job.
About 8 other people besides himself showed up to do the work, even though it was widely known in the surrounding area.
Man, I would have taken that job. Certainly I've done more or at least similarly demanding work (groundskeeping, including quite a bit of digging because the college was replacing a lot of shrubberies).
Consumption taxes are suuuuper unfair to the poor. I consume with 100% of my income. I would be taxed at the highest rate under any consumption based tax scheme. People who promote those are generally the ones who live off dividends.
Why the world (including the US) is a mess:
1. Overreaching govt. For instance, the US is no longer governed by the constitution, but by bureaucrats and the courts;
2. Unions. These had a place in the early 1900s, but now they are interested in getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible;
3. Colleges have been taken over by socialists/marxists, whose principles they teach to kids who are impressionable.
The idea that you can achieve prosperity by taxing the rich is a pipe dream of the ignorant and those that want to punish success. There is no economic benefit from removing money from the private sector, run it through the government waste filter, and then put what is left back in the private sector. No country in history ever taxed itself to prosperity.
Under any tax system, someone that makes more money will pay more in taxes, unless it's the most FAIR system where each person pays the same amount. The next most fair system is a flat rate.
A progressive or punitive tax system might satisfy liberal notions of utopian shared equal misery, but it goes against history, logic, and human nature. A liberal cannot point to a shining example of where it has worked, nor can they declare what exactly is a "fair" amount.
The constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it does not guarantee happiness. Only liberals promise "fairness"with other people's money.
You know what we need to do. We need to stop having the chinese do the jobs for us. It may be cheaper but overtime it devalues the dollar. Give americans back their jobs by becoming its own self supporting nation, that is just my opinion of course I am 17. So It really doesn't matter what i say does it?
Phanatik wrote:Why the world (including the US) is a mess:
1. Overreaching govt. For instance, the US is no longer governed by the constitution, but by bureaucrats and the courts;
2. Unions. These had a place in the early 1900s, but now they are interested in getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible;
3. Colleges have been taken over by socialists/marxists, whose principles they teach to kids who are impressionable.
The idea that you can achieve prosperity by taxing the rich is a pipe dream of the ignorant and those that want to punish success. There is no economic benefit from removing money from the private sector, run it through the government waste filter, and then put what is left back in the private sector. No country in history ever taxed itself to prosperity.
Under any tax system, someone that makes more money will pay more in taxes, unless it's the most FAIR system where each person pays the same amount. The next most fair system is a flat rate.
A progressive or punitive tax system might satisfy liberal notions of utopian shared equal misery, but it goes against history, logic, and human nature. A liberal cannot point to a shining example of where it has worked, nor can they declare what exactly is a "fair" amount.
The constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it does not guarantee happiness. Only liberals promise "fairness"with other people's money.
Conservative, liberal hating flagbearer right here.
Its certainly fair that Jimmy Buffet the rockstar pays less taxes than a common secretary, amirite?
Are you implying Socialism is a bad thing? England and Sweden disagree.
Phanatik wrote:Why the world (including the US) is a mess:
1. Overreaching govt. For instance, the US is no longer governed by the constitution, but by bureaucrats and the courts;
The constitution is the highest law of the land, but even it envisioned that a government, not a document, would actually govern. In doing so, it actually explicitly empowered both bureaucrats and courts.
Speaking of which, the courts are really the only place where governmental overreaching is stopped. So, I'm lead to believe that your problem isn't so much that the courts (which are a full branch of the government in their own right) have power as you disagree with their decisions.
2. Unions. These had a place in the early 1900s, but now they are interested in getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible;
Yes, because wanting to maximize output and minimize input is downright un-American!
I'll never understand why unions need to play by different ethics than every other entity. When a CEO makes as much money as possible for as little effort, he gets a bonus!
3. Colleges have been taken over by socialists/marxists, whose principles they teach to kids who are impressionable.
Is this a leftover rant from 1980?
I dunno, I went to an elite private school for undergrad, where I think I heard a professor speak on politics maybe once or twice (and I was a philosophy major). I then went to a third tier law school at a state university, where my professors ranged from ACLU litigators to an Originalist scholar. My experience does not mesh with yours.
Although I'm interested to see how your views on the impressionable nature of children applies to, say, the liberal movement to minimize violence on television...
The idea that you can achieve prosperity by taxing the rich is a pipe dream of the ignorant and those that want to punish success. There is no economic benefit from removing money from the private sector, run it through the government waste filter, and then put what is left back in the private sector. No country in history ever taxed itself to prosperity.
Except Scandinavian ones.
Under any tax system, someone that makes more money will pay more in taxes, unless it's the most FAIR system where each person pays the same amount. The next most fair system is a flat rate.
Why are those fair? The moral and legal arguments for progressive taxation are, at best, murky. But not more so than the arguments against. And, as always, tie goes to what will work.
Spoiler:
It's not a flat tax
progressive or punitive tax system might satisfy liberal notions of utopian shared equal misery, but it goes against history, logic, and human nature. A liberal cannot point to a shining example of where it has worked, nor can they declare what exactly is a "fair" amount.
Well, post-war America seemed to do all right, and had tax rates in the low 90's.
The constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it does not guarantee happiness. Only liberals promise "fairness"with other people's money.
Well... liberals are broadly represented on all points of the socioeconomic spectrum. So it's not all other people's money.
Phanatik wrote:Why the world (including the US) is a mess:
3. Colleges have been taken over by socialists/marxists, whose principles they teach to kids who are impressionable.
Like Polonius, I did my undergrad at an elite private school. Like Polonius, my teachers rarely spoke about politics, and when they did it wasn't in any normative sense; even the political science professors. I'm now a PhD candidate in a political science department at a major state school, and its basically the same way. Hell, I would probably characterize nearly half of the department as libertarian.
Phanatik wrote:
No country in history ever taxed itself to prosperity.
And very few countries have managed to sustain any significant growth without tax funded social programs. Just ask Pinochet and the Chicago Boys.
Phanatik wrote:
Under any tax system, someone that makes more money will pay more in taxes, unless it's the most FAIR system where each person pays the same amount. The next most fair system is a flat rate.
Oh, this game again.
Alright, round 1: How do we decide how we're going to determine what is fair?
Phanatik wrote:
A progressive or punitive tax system might satisfy liberal notions of utopian shared equal misery, but it goes against history, logic, and human nature.
If it goes against human nature, then why do humans advocate it?
biccat wrote:Repealing minimum wage laws would lead to more jobs created.
They would be low-paying jobs, but IMO it's better to have productive citizens at low-paying jobs than non-productive citizens with no jobs.
The difference may be taken up by welfare and/or private charity.
As someone who works two minimum wage jobs, I would have to respectfully disagree with repealing minimum wage laws.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:
Under any tax system, someone that makes more money will pay more in taxes, unless it's the most FAIR system where each person pays the same amount. The next most fair system is a flat rate.
So in a tax system where everyone pays the exact same. . .
If I had to pay the same amount of taxes as mega-millionaires, I would have to go into debt to pay them, and I would never be able to get out. I wouldn't have money for anything BUT taxes.
If mega-millionaires paid the same amount as I do, the country would be more broke than it already is.
LunaHound wrote:o_o Rented Tritium, i don't think anyone is confused about capitalism here.
But as you can see, if Americans don't have work, they wont be able to afford anything even if the product is made cheaper by hiring none US workers.
Someone is selling those things, someone is sorting the warehouse full of those things. Someone is managing the purchasing and distribution of those things. Someone is designing those things.
Which brings me to another economics myth: The economy is powered by physically making objects and selling them
Apply your logic to a state and you'll see how silly it is. Why should new york buy food from nebraska? That's just shipping new york jobs to nebraska.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:I don't get how you can be super free market and want to restrict these guys as little as possible, but then at the same time tell them what country to do business in. Why SHOULDN'T a company use the cheapest labor available. Cheap labor means cheap products means more money in my pocket means buying more products. Oh, we can make those products cheaper with outsourcing as well? Awesome!
It's called capitalism guys. I'm really surprised an invisible hand guy like you isn't better at understanding it. Forget about those "jobs" that are invisibly flying over the ocean or whatever you think is happening. A company is maximizing the bottom line and creating more value for less input. This is how economies function. You want the government to tell someone where they're allowed to manufacture their products, what are you, a socialist?
Capitalism works best in a closed system. Open systems which we are in currently, where countries can manipulate their currency, less so. After all, not every country, region, or industry has a comparable advantage.
Ask Spain.
Then you should definitely be lobbying to stop texas from shipping jobs to california and florida. Capitalism works best in a closed system after all.
Texas is stomping. Michigan is getting hammered. Is capitalism working best for all? right back atcha.
Phanatik wrote:2. Unions. These had a place in the early 1900s, but now they are interested in getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible;
Funny, our productivity per capita is higher than almost every other nation of note-- only three nations have a higher gdp per hour worked than we do-- norway, Luxembourg, and Netherlands. So this isn't true. At all. Congratulations on being wrong.
I'll do you a favor and ignore the idiocty that was your point 3... no. No, they aren't.
Phanatik wrote:2. Unions. These had a place in the early 1900s, but now they are interested in getting paid as much as possible for as little work as possible;
Funny, our productivity per capita is higher than almost every other nation of note-- only three nations have a higher gdp per hour worked than we do-- norway, Luxembourg, and Netherlands. So this isn't true. At all. Congratulations on being wrong.
I'll do you a favor and ignore the idiocty that was your point 3... no. No, they aren't.
Funny, that there are some companies, like GM, that went (or needed to go) into bankruptcy because they had to pay thousands of union employees large salaries to sit around watching t.v. because their jobs had been eliminated, but they couldn't fire them. The efficiency in the system comes from non-union companies.
Funny, your favor might have had better effect had it been spelled correctly, coupled with a few facts.
"College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says. "
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html[url/]
As for the courts, the problem is that liberals know they can't get much of their agenda past the American people via the legislative process (or through elections), so liberal activist judges legislate from the bench. That's how we ended up with R v. W and a lot of other crap. Surely, this isn't news?
If liberalism/socialism were a good thing or actually worked, Obama would be far higher in the polls because the economy would be thriving and un-employment would be much lower. But it's not, is it? Every (liberal/socialist) thing he's tried has failed. Normally, it would only take about 18 months for the U.S. to come out of a recession. What's the clock say?
RE: Fairest tax - everyone would pay the same amount, say $5000. The government would have to fund it's constitutional duties from that and tariffs, or starve. If liberals want to fund liberal boondoggles like the welfare state from their own money, then do so. Leave my money alone!
Yes, I'm happily a conservative. I believe people should get to keep what they earn, and exhibit personal responsibility for themselves and their family.
Liberals, who don't seem to actually be happy in their liberalism, think everyone should be equally miserable and are not responsible for their actions, and should be controlled by the Elite Intelligentsia. (count me out)
I win on style:
"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! "
[url]http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm[url/]
I've heard Green Energy could provide jobs, but I truly don't believe that it would produce enough openings to make any difference. How many engineers and structural mechanics are out of a job?
I love when people scream "DEPORTATION". That definitely isn't the solution. If you take out a large chunk of the labor force (like construction, repair, service, food service, etc), you're encouraging the businesses that abused them to go under, which, hurrdurr, is removing jobs.
I think our problem stems from much deeper than a lack of jobs. The whole american mindset of "Go to college or live a life of mediocrity and failure" is quite discouraging.
First off, I had to fix your link. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump on other's typos if you intend to make your own.
Second, identification as politically liberal, or as being affiliated with a particular political party, does not indicate an intention, or tendency, to indoctrinate students. Its also important to note that surveys of this type rarely capture the meaning of "liberal" being utilized, especially when administered to people who basically get paid to think about things in extreme detail.
However, it is interesting that the partisan identification presented aligns roughly with my experience regarding college professors. About half Democrats, few Republicans, and lots of other/apathetic (many college professors don't vote at all).
Phanatik wrote:
As for the courts, the problem is that liberals know they can't get much of their agenda past the American people via the legislative process (or through elections), so liberal activist judges legislate from the bench. That's how we ended up with R v. W and a lot of other crap. Surely, this isn't news?
Its also how we ended up without limits on corporate campaign contributions, and the current Court is not a liberal one. Arguably, Bush v. Gore fits here as well. Judicial activism is not confined to one side of the aisle, and that's before we get into a conversation about whether or not it means anything beyond "decision I don't like."
Phanatik wrote:
If liberalism/socialism were a good thing or actually worked, Obama would be far higher in the polls because the economy would be thriving and un-employment would be much lower.
You're assuming all the current policies of government are liberal/socialist, which is a poor assumption. The President does not decide everything related to governance, and certainly does not decide everything related to the economy; though he will generally take the blame/credit for both.
Phanatik wrote:
Normally, it would only take about 18 months for the U.S. to come out of a recession.
Actually, its generally less than that, about 8-12 months. The present recession has actually lasted less than 8 months, unless you're connecting it to the previous recession, which lasted 16.
Phanatik wrote:
RE: Fairest tax - everyone would pay the same amount, say $5000.
Why is everyone paying the same gross amount the most fair option? Specifically, why is that metric for determining fairness superior to any other, like, say, everyone paying an equal percentage of their income or everyone paying a percentage of their income that is commensurate with their income?
I mean, this isn't a difficult question to answer, unless your only answer is "Because that's what I want!"
Phanatik wrote:
Yes, I'm happily a conservative. I believe people should get to keep what they earn, and exhibit personal responsibility for themselves and their family.
Liberals, who don't seem to actually be happy in their liberalism, think everyone should be equally miserable and are not responsible for their actions, and should be controlled by the Elite Intelligentsia. (count me out)
So, basically, you're upset that people believe things that are different from the things you believe, and are going to develop caricatures of those beliefs (and probably your own as well, relative to actual practice) to make yourself feel morally superior.
I reckon you could create some jobs by having people on wellfare do some menial tasks in exchange for their check.
Our infrastructure is not in good shape. There are bridge that need to be repainted. This isn't rocket science and doesn't require a high degree of skill. Instead of paying a guy unemployment, pay him to paint the bridge and *poof*, now he's employed.
One reason that we have the unemployment that we have is because we're spending the money that we could spend on paying people to do necessary work to pay them because they're not working.
Phanatik wrote:
Funny, that there are some companies, like GM, that went (or needed to go) into bankruptcy because they had to pay thousands of union employees large salaries to sit around watching t.v. because their jobs had been eliminated, but they couldn't fire them. The efficiency in the system comes from non-union companies.
Except... GM signed those contracts. Freely. Without compulsion other than a strike (which only works if the workers are actually difficult to replace).
In other words, a company made a business decision in the free market. I'm not sure how this is the fault of the union, whose sole goal is to get higher wages, less hours, etc.
Do you not see the disconnect between advocacy of profit seeking for companies, and then villifying unions for the exact same thing?
Funny, your favor might have had better effect had it been spelled correctly, coupled with a few facts.
"College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says. "
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html[url/]
Liberal is not socialist/marxist. When all you see is rage, it's easy to make that distinction. About the more lefty thing the piece suggested on an economic scale is increased environmental protection (something that's not socialist) and full employment (which is a pretty weak form of socialism).
As for the courts, the problem is that liberals know they can't get much of their agenda past the American people via the legislative process (or through elections), so liberal activist judges legislate from the bench. That's how we ended up with R v. W and a lot of other crap. Surely, this isn't news?
You realize that Roe v. Wade's majority opinion included one Eisenhower and three Nixon appointees? None of which were considered particulalry liberal? I'm not sure how you want to link lifelong Republicans to some liberal consipracy that controls them. It's also possible that judges, you know, actually make decisions based on the law and the facts.
If liberalism/socialism were a good thing or actually worked, Obama would be far higher in the polls because the economy would be thriving and un-employment would be much lower. But it's not, is it? Every (liberal/socialist) thing he's tried has failed. Normally, it would only take about 18 months for the U.S. to come out of a recession. What's the clock say?
RE: Fairest tax - everyone would pay the same amount, say $5000. The government would have to fund it's constitutional duties from that and tariffs, or starve. If liberals want to fund liberal boondoggles like the welfare state from their own money, then do so. Leave my money alone!
One of Congress's enumerated powers is to "tax and spend for the general welfare." Congress has the power to spend as they will. Unless you disagree with Alexander Hamilton.
Yes, I'm happily a conservative. I believe people should get to keep what they earn, and exhibit personal responsibility for themselves and their family.
Liberals, who don't seem to actually be happy in their liberalism, think everyone should be equally miserable and are not responsible for their actions, and should be controlled by the Elite Intelligentsia. (count me out)
I'm actually pretty happy in my liberalism.
But yes, I hold the shocking belief that smart, educated people do a better job at running things than the ignorant and dumb.
Phanatik wrote:Funny, that there are some companies, like GM, that went (or needed to go) into bankruptcy
Oh, there were FAR more important reasons why they're failing than that.
Such as their refusal to innovate, their inability to keep up with demand, their "do the same thing we've been doingand we'll continue to profit" attitude, and so on...
dogma wrote:
Its also how we ended up without limits on corporate campaign contributions, and the current Court is not a liberal one. Arguably, Bush v. Gore fits here as well. Judicial activism is not confined to one side of the aisle, and that's before we get into a conversation about whether or not it means anything beyond "decision I don't like."
"Activist judges" is one of the signs that a person is actually pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. Judicial review has been part of the Common Law of the US for over 200 years now.
Polonius wrote:Except... GM signed those contracts. Freely. Without compulsion other than a strike (which only works if the workers are actually difficult to replace).
That's not entirely correct. Labor law provides a lot of protection for striking employees. You can't fire them and in some cases you aren't allowed to retain those you hire to replace them.
Polonius wrote:In other words, a company made a business decision in the free market. I'm not sure how this is the fault of the union, whose sole goal is to get higher wages, less hours, etc.
Do you not see the disconnect between advocacy of profit seeking for companies, and then villifying unions for the exact same thing?
The most important distinction between labor unions and companies is that labor unions are largely non-competitive. They monopolize labor in a business (their market) and therefore enjoy all of the problems involved with monopolies. They also offer union membership as a virtually unlimited resource, which makes it worthless as a commodity but provides an extremely valuable benefit.
Plus, arguing that GM agreed to the union as a business decision obscures the history of the labor movement in the US. The movement is rife with violence and property destruction. GM even had their share of riots at the Fisher Body plant.
Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?
The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.
Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?
The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.
They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.
Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?
The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.
They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.
Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.
Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?
The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.
They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.
Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.
Where do you think the loopholes came from? They didn't get written into the tax code by themselves.
dogma wrote:
Why is everyone paying the same gross amount the most fair option? Specifically, why is that metric for determining fairness superior to any other, like, say, everyone paying an equal percentage of their income or everyone paying a percentage of their income that is commensurate with their income?
I mean, this isn't a difficult question to answer, unless your only answer is "Because that's what I want!"
Lets see if I can manage something more than just what I want.
A federal income tax is paid by a citizen of the U.S. to fund the activities of the federal government. Someone in Turkey, for instance, generally doesn't pay a federal income tax to the U.S. government because he isn't a citizen of the U.S. The fairest tax is one where all citizens pay the exact same amount, as all citizens are equally citizens. It should not matter that the amount is a smaller percentage of a successful person's income, as compared to a minimum wage employee's income. They are both equally citizens, they each get one vote. Even so-called "poor" people should be required to pay some tax, because if you don't have skin in the game, you don't care as much. Also, it'd be a free ride.
The next fairest tax would be the same rate, say 10%. A person 10x as successful as someone would be paying 10x the amount, whatever the rate, which is unfortunately only a start for liberals who want to punish success. They can't logically state what "fairness" is, so rates have been as high as the 90s in the past. In what warped sense of logic does it seem fair to take 90% of what a person owns? One of the reasons for the foundation of the U.S. was to secure the right to property. The income someone earns IS property. If someone pays 10x the amount as someone else, are they 10x a citizen? Do they get 10x the votes?
And for another poster: yes, liberals are socialists/marxists, if you look at the agenda of liberals today. if you consider yourself a liberal and the truth hurts, then perhaps you should re-evaluate what you think you believe.
P.S. Oh, thanks for fixing the link that the website didn't activate properly. I'm not certain of my culpability in this matter. I'm certain it doesn't change my perspective.
Best,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:"Activist judges" is one of the signs that a person is actually pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. Judicial review has been part of the Common Law of the US for over 200 years now.
actually, this statement shows how a person is pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. you must think every decision happens in a vacuum. The U.S. 9th(?) Circuit court in California is the most overturned court in the U.S. Why? Because it has a majority of liberal activist judges that rule against the law. cases must then be sent over their heads (higher up the legal food chain) to be brought back into line with the law (reality).
Polonius wrote:"You realize that Roe v. Wade's majority opinion included one Eisenhower and three Nixon appointees? None of which were considered particulalry liberal? I'm not sure how you want to link lifelong Republicans to some liberal consipracy that controls them. It's also possible that judges, you know, actually make decisions based on the law and the facts.
Please open a copy of the constitution, turn to the page that covers the right of a woman to have an abortion, and tell me which paragraph it is. <waiting> I've read the constitution, and I can't find it. English is my native language, and I have a 151 IQ. I don't care which party nominated whom, or what their golf handicap was, etc. They invented a right that doesn't exist, that more properly should have been handled through the legislative process.
It's also amazing that the same people that somehow see a right to kill a baby in the constitution can't seem to understand the 2nd amendment. And, often these same people who see a right to kill an innocent baby will protest the death penalty for heinous crimes. so, if a man rapes a woman, she can kill the baby, but supposedly we shouldn't execute the rapist that fathered the baby.
It's an exercise in futility to expect logic from a liberal, as liberalism isn't rooted in reality. Liberalism is a lot like religions, in that there is no real world evidence that they are true or actually reflect reality, yet they have adherents that can border on the fanatic. Liberalism is a Secular Religion for those that poo poo the judaeo-christian philosophy.
Best,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.
Here is a fundamental mistake the left always seems to make while engaging in class warfare/anti-capitalism. Corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do. The Left in their infinite wisdom hates Big Oil, for example, because they had the good sense to pick the right business to be in. So, they often call for special taxes or the raising of tax rates to confiscate some/all of their profits. If they double or triple, or whatever, the tax burden on Big Oil, Big Oil will simply pass along the cost to their customers. Thus, the Left will actually hurt the little guy, which they purport to be the champion of. But then, logic doesn't enter into the thinking of the Left.
Phanatik wrote:
And for another poster: yes, liberals are socialists/marxists, if you look at the agenda of liberals today. if you consider yourself a liberal and the truth hurts, then perhaps you should re-evaluate what you think you believe.
Well, I'd suggest that you re-think the same thing, but I'm guessing that's pretty unlikely. Since I don't advocate for state ownership of the means of production, I'm actually not a socialist. Words have meanings. I believe that government regulation is essential to a truly free market, which places me roughly in line with nearly every economic or political thinker imaginable. I might want more regulation than you do, but wanting more government regulation no more immediately makes one a socialist than wanting to eat less meat makes you a vegetarian.
Polonius wrote:"Activist judges" is one of the signs that a person is actually pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. Judicial review has been part of the Common Law of the US for over 200 years now.
actually, this statement shows how a person is pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. you must think every decision happens in a vacuum. The U.S. 9th(?) Circuit court in California is the most overturned court in the U.S. Why? Because it has a majority of liberal activist judges that rule against the law. cases must then be sent over their heads (higher of the legal food chain) to be brought back into line with the law (reality).
So far, this is about the fourth time you've told me what I think, which is interesting, because it's usually a sign of either clairvoyence or assigning a convenient paradigm to an individual, and not adjusting it despite all the evidence.
I know more about jurisprudence than most people. The idea that prior judicial decisions on points of law should be respected and followed by later courts is one of the benchmarks of the common law legal system. So is judicial review. SCOTUS has struck down well over a hundred federal laws and countless state laws. The concept of judicail review is well entrenched in our legal system.
Here's a rhetoric tip, by the way. When discussing a topic with somebody that actually knows about the subject, repeating assertions like "liberal activists judges" repeatedly doesn't actually make your point.
The Ninth Circuit is the most often overturned. I'm not sure how that helps your point, though. It's also by far the largest circuit, and thus hears the most cases.
And if you think reality and the law are the same thing... I don't know what to tell you. When you look at most SCOTUS cases, there is law to support both sides. First year law students can scrape up precedent to support that stuff. Some stuff is no doubt out of line, but the vast majority of decisions (that are close) could go either way.
Polonius wrote:
Please open a copy of the constitution, turn to the page that covers the right of a woman to have an abortion, and tell me which paragraph it is. <waiting> I've read the constitution, and I can't find it. English is my native language, and I have a 151 IQ. I don't care which party nominated whom, or what their golf handicap was, etc. They invented a right that doesn't exist, that more properly should have been handled through the legislative process.
Well, I have an IQ lower than that, and I understand that the decision in Roe. v. Wade is a troublesome holding that is supported by a long chain of cases with less constitutional support than it's supporters want but more than it's detractors admit.
We start with a concept called "substantive due process." Basically, it's the idea that the governemnt cannot take away from a person the right to make basic decisions about their lives, based on the idea that the government cannot restrict liberty without due process. This concept emerged when Wisconsin tried to ban religious schools, and force all students to attend public school. The court struck it down, saying that parent's had a right to decide how to raise their children. This lead to Griswold, which held that married couples had the right to decide if they want to have children, and thus bans on contraceptives were illegal.
Anyway, the parargraph is in both the Fifth and 14th amendments. "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Choosing to abort a fetus sounds like a question of liberty. And before you say anything, a fetus is not a person. Never has been under the law.
Anyways, the court in Roe didn't invent the right. It's a semi-made up right, which is tough to really accept, but also tough to just let go. I'll agree in that the decision in Roe, while good policy, was probably improperly decided. I also agree with Scalia's dissent (to an extent) in Casey that the decisions actually drew out debate on an issue that might have resolved itself in legislation.
It's also amazing that the same people that somehow see a right to kill a baby in the constitution can't seem to understand the 2nd amendment. And, often these same people who see a right to kill an innocent baby will protest the death penalty for heinous crimes. so, if a man rapes a woman, she can kill the baby, but supposedly we shouldn't execute the rapist that fathered the baby.
You can keep using terms like "kill" and "baby," and I will continue to not accept your conclusions as arguments.
I will agree that the general broadening of liberites and freedoms recognized by the courts in the every other area should extend to the 2nd Amendment as well. It's inconsistent from a civil liberties viewpoint.
The death penalty is a seperate, and equally troubling matter. There's a superficial inconsistency between being pro-choice and anti-death penalty. It's superficial because they're easily distinguished.
On a different level, though, the problems with death penalty, IMO, are less theoretical or legal than they are practical. In practice, it tends to be sloppily and inconsistently applied.
It's an exercise in futility to expect logic from a liberal, as liberalism isn't rooted in reality. Liberalism is a lot like religions, in that there is no real world evidence that they are true or actually reflect reality, yet they have adherents that can border on the fanatic. Liberalism is a Secular Religion for those that poo poo the judaeo-christian philosophy.
Wow. This is just insulting. It's insulting to me, to be sure, but I think it also shows a severe lack of insight on your own part, particulalry for a person claiming a genius level IQ.
I think that liberalism (the concept that equal rights and liberty are imporant) is actually backbone to modern Western thought. You probably mean modern liberal/progressive thinking, not the broader definition, but that's still about as rooted in logic and reality as any other doctrine.
I do appreciate you insulting my religious views, which I think crosses the line between healthy debate and being rude. I think you'll notice I've not said one negative thing about conservativism, or made allegations about your charcter or intellect because of the ideology you support.
Here is a fundamental mistake the left always seems to make while engaging in class warfare/anti-capitalism. Corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do. The Left in their infinite wisdom hates Big Oil, for example, because they had the good sense to pick the right business to be in. So, they often call for special taxes or the raising of tax rates to confiscate some/all of their profits. If they double or triple, or whatever, the tax burden on Big Oil, Big Oil will simply pass along the cost to their customers. Thus, the Left will actually hurt the little guy, which they purport to be the champion of. But then, logic doesn't enter into the thinking of the Left.
Best,
You do realize that while excise taxes (taxes on products like gasoline or tobacco) are passed directly onto consumers, income taxes come from profits, right? Corporations, just like individuals, make money thanks to the economic structure set up by our government, and so should pay to support it.
Phanatik wrote:so rates have been as high as the 90s in the past. In what warped sense of logic does it seem fair to take 90% of what a person owns?
OOOOOH, now I get it. You have no idea how brackets actually work.
Well, marginal rates are tricky.
Nobody is seriously arguing that a 90% rate would be good. But... it's an example of showing how society somehow prospered greatly, with broad economic growth, social mobility, and a rising standard of living despite a brutally progressive tax rate.
So when we want to raise the upper bracket to, say, 48%, it's a little ridiculous to claim that society will suffer.
Yeah, the cases where we've been at 90 have involved some really unusual circumstances nothing like what we've got now.
Also, a 90% rate does not mean taking 90% of what someone owns. It means taking 90% of the dollars made above a certain point when measured in a certain way and only from certain sources of income.
I don't know what the optimal rate is, but it's higher than it is right now and way less that the hyperbolic 90% that phanatik is yelling about.
Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, the cases where we've been at 90 have involved some really unusual circumstances nothing like what we've got now.
Also, a 90% rate does not mean taking 90% of what someone owns. It means taking 90% of the dollars made above a certain point when measured in a certain way and only from certain sources of income.
I don't know what the optimal rate is, but it's higher than it is right now and way less that the hyperbolic 90% that phanatik is yelling about.
I took a class on tax policy in law school. We read hundreds of pages on progressivity vs. flat tax. At the end, the result is always the same "progressive taxation might not be the most fair, but it's the only system that actually works."
Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, the cases where we've been at 90 have involved some really unusual circumstances nothing like what we've got now.
Also, a 90% rate does not mean taking 90% of what someone owns. It means taking 90% of the dollars made above a certain point when measured in a certain way and only from certain sources of income.
I don't know what the optimal rate is, but it's higher than it is right now and way less that the hyperbolic 90% that phanatik is yelling about.
I took a class on tax policy in law school. We read hundreds of pages on progressivity vs. flat tax. At the end, the result is always the same "progressive taxation might not be the most fair, but it's the only system that actually works."
It's also why the so-called "fair tax" isn't actually at all fair, as it's regressive towards those whom have to spend most of their income just to make ends meet.
Polonius wrote: At the end, the result is always the same "progressive taxation might not be the most fair, but it's the only system that actually works."
So since you were shown progressive taxes work, what is the next best way of taxation that could be implemented? I assume flat tax and progressive taxation are not the only two methods out there.
Polonius wrote: At the end, the result is always the same "progressive taxation might not be the most fair, but it's the only system that actually works."
So since you were shown progressive taxes work, what is the next best way of taxation that could be implemented? I assume flat tax and progressive taxation are not the only two methods out there.
Umm, actually... you'd be surprised. Obviously you can eliminated the income tax altogether and implement an added value tax, but for the most part, income taxes are either flat or progressive.
Fun Fact: income taxes have been progressive for as long as they have existed.
Nobody thinks our current tax code works well, but you tax people that make more money at a higher rate for the same reason you rob banks: it's where the money is.
Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?
The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.
They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.
Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.
Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?
The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.
They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.
Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.
You don't believe in ethics, then?
What?
No dude, if you are a CEO and there is a loophole to improve your bottom line, it's unethical NOT to take it. You have an ethical and legal obligation to your shareholders to maximize return. If there is a loophole sitting there and you don't take it, you are going to be in legal trouble very soon.
To insist that a CEO interpret the intent of a law rather than the letter is ludicrous. It's congress' job to fix laws.
Polo, may I call you Polo?,
I never called you out personally, so don't take anything personally. I made blanket statements regarding liberals. Perhaps you are a traditional liberal, and not in the mold of a Wilson or FDR or Obama? I did lol though when you said you took a class in college that suggested that progressive taxation is the only system that works. My o' my, how did the country survive (and prosper) until progressives foisted it on us? And this after I mentioned earlier that socialists had taken over the colleges.
Progressives can't really wake up one day and decide to impose government ownership of the means of production on a free society, just like that. <snap> They must follow the law of incrementalism, and slowly dismantle what makes this country great to achieve their utopia. Though, what would you call Obama owning GM?
Reality and the law: By reality, I meant recognizing how the law relates to the constitution, and not some pipe dream of how progressives want it to be.
Yes, as someone who pays taxes, I understand brackets, though I'm certainly not a tax lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v.
It has been proven by history that lowering taxes increases the amount of revenue received by the government. Anyone who advocates raising taxes, whether on everyone or only on certain strata is advocating a political agenda, not a fiscal one. The term "fairness" pops up here a lot, along with "social justice."
As far as legal precedent, I would defer to Polo on the benefits of it, but as a personal preference I would prefer that SCOTUS NOT rely on stare decisis, as it is the court of last resort and should only consider cases vis a vis the constitution.
Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?
The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.
They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.
Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.
You don't believe in ethics, then?
What?
No dude, if you are a CEO and there is a loophole to improve your bottom line, it's unethical NOT to take it. You have an ethical and legal obligation to your shareholders to maximize return. If there is a loophole sitting there and you don't take it, you are going to be in legal trouble very soon.
To insist that a CEO interpret the intent of a law rather than the letter is ludicrous. It's congress' job to fix laws.
Kilkrazy wrote:That is an admirably American way of thinking.
Why is it ethical to pay taxes that you're not required to pay? If it is ethical to pay more than you're required, how much above your tax rate is sufficiently ethical?
Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?
The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.
They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.
Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.
You don't believe in ethics, then?
What?
No dude, if you are a CEO and there is a loophole to improve your bottom line, it's unethical NOT to take it. You have an ethical and legal obligation to your shareholders to maximize return. If there is a loophole sitting there and you don't take it, you are going to be in legal trouble very soon.
To insist that a CEO interpret the intent of a law rather than the letter is ludicrous. It's congress' job to fix laws.
That is an admirably American way of thinking.
Why not take what you're saying to it's logical conclusion. Pay all of your money in taxes. The whole "not paying all of your money" thing is clearly a loophole.
How do you define loophole vs just a thing that is cheaper for some people. How do you define the scenario where it is ethical to pay more than the rules say you have to?
How is one of those any more or less metagame bs than the other?
I love how the argument that acting unethically is ok as long as their isn't an outside source to force one to act ethically became paying all your income in taxes is the only alternative.
Ahtman wrote:I love how the argument that acting unethically is ok as long as their isn't an outside source to force one to act ethically became paying all your income in taxes is the only alternative.
Good point. There is a third way, an ethical way. Send your income to me. I will exhaustively review the moral and philosphical treatises on the matter and withold the correct ethical amount. I will certify you are now an ethical taxpayer and return to you the remainder, less a very small management fee of course.
My dad always tells me ethics and morality are nice and such.
But they fly out the window the moment a human being have more to worry about, eg their future or lack of one.
Or if you care about ethics when you have no roof to sleep under nor food to eat.
Ahtman wrote:I love how the argument that acting unethically is ok as long as their isn't an outside source to force one to act ethically became paying all your income in taxes is the only alternative.
Good point. There is a third way, an ethical way. Send your income to me. I will exhaustively review the moral and philosphical treatises on the matter and withold the correct ethical amount. I will certify you are now an ethical taxpayer and return to you the remainder, less a very small management fee of course.
I just need to find an envelope and stamps.
LunaHound wrote:My dad always tells me ethics and morality are nice and such.
But they fly out the window the moment a human being have more to worry about, eg their future or lack of one.
Or if you care about ethics when you have no roof to sleep under nor food to eat.
People tend to say that about other people. For some it is true, for others not so much. People tend to be more complicated than either poor and ethically and morally pure or well off and spineless, money grubbing bastards thinking only of themselves.
Phanatik wrote:Polo, may I call you Polo?,
I never called you out personally, so don't take anything personally. I made blanket statements regarding liberals. Perhaps you are a traditional liberal, and not in the mold of a Wilson or FDR or Obama? I did lol though when you said you took a class in college that suggested that progressive taxation is the only system that works. My o' my, how did the country survive (and prosper) until progressives foisted it on us? And this after I mentioned earlier that socialists had taken over the colleges.
Well, it's the only form of income tax that works in a modern, industrial society. There hasn't been an income tax that wasn't at least somewhat progressive.
Progressives can't really wake up one day and decide to impose government ownership of the means of production on a free society, just like that. <snap> They must follow the law of incrementalism, and slowly dismantle what makes this country great to achieve their utopia.
Aww, I see. It's a mass conspiracy. Despite the fact that liberals are illogical and morally corrupt, they're somehow able to secretly plan a long term destruction of the country, for no particular reason. It makes sense to me!
Though, what would you call Obama owning GM?
Well, i would call it a grotesque exaggeration on nearly every possible aspect.
Reality and the law: By reality, I meant recognizing how the law relates to the constitution, and not some pipe dream of how progressives want it to be.
Ahh... yeah. Hey, I'll cop to a few bad calls by the courts, but again... those weren't liberals making those calls!
Yes, as someone who pays taxes, I understand brackets, though I'm certainly not a tax lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v.
It has been proven by history that lowering taxes increases the amount of revenue received by the government. Anyone who advocates raising taxes, whether on everyone or only on certain strata is advocating a political agenda, not a fiscal one. The term "fairness" pops up here a lot, along with "social justice."
If by "proven by history" you mean "shown to have mixed results," I'd agree.
Economists agree that there is an optimal tax rate, where if the rate is higher, lowering will actually increase revenue. the flip side is also true: if you are below the optimal rate, lowering the tax rate will only lower revenue.
Since people want lower taxes (who doesn't?) it's natural to assume that we're above the optimal point.
As far as legal precedent, I would defer to Polo on the benefits of it, but as a personal preference I would prefer that SCOTUS NOT rely on stare decisis, as it is the court of last resort and should only consider cases vis a vis the constitution.
Precedent gets overturned. Brown overturned Plessy v. Fergesun, Lochner was overturned, etc. It can (and should) happen.
Melissia wrote:In some parts, yes, but not everywhere. Not all companies followthe same economic ideas, and decreased price is not always the best way to increased profits.
Companies that cannot price competitively either have to re-brand (IE as a luxury item) or go out of business. It is not rocket science.
Melissia wrote:Big business is doing pretty well for itself, what with their records profits, and sitting on billions of dollars which goes unspent. Big business is not the answer to the problem; in many ways, they ARE the problem, or more accurately a sizable part of it.
More talking points that amount to nothing. Please show me the industries with "record profits" and a breakdown of how they were achieved. Unless it is something with a fixed profit margin like oil which goes up and down with the price, it is going to be because of cost cutting measures. Companies first and for most job is to make money for the shareholders, who are, contrary to your belief your grandmothers and grandfathers depend on those to supplemental their income.
Melissia wrote:Not at all fair.
Fair is relative term, since you think fair is being able to arbitrarily punish people who work hard, make good decisions, and save because you are envious vs a voluntary tax that everyone can see out front is awful and repressive.
Melissia wrote:If the method described was used, then frankly that wouldn't change anything for them except which government system they use to get out of paying taxes. But in the end, the more I think about it, the more the so-called "fair tax" really just comes across as most beneficial to those whom are already rich, and I'm not yet convinced it is a good idea for anyone else. Anyone who is rich enough that they can save and start to make money off of money-- IE, definitely NOT most Americans-- can game the system all the same unless you tax more than merely consumption.
Considering it worked fine for 100+ years until the progressives fresh off of killing half a million brown people (because we have to act like Europe you know) preached that rich east coast dwellers should be forced to pay for everything. Of course they promised it would never ever ever ever be a tax on anyone but millionaires like the Carnegies and Vanderbilts that lasted for about 10 years. fast forward we have a system that willl tax the hell out of me but let some lazy bum get a check back so he can go out on the town buy some rocks and plasma TV. That is 100,000% fair according to you.
Rented Tritium wrote:Consumption taxes are suuuuper unfair to the poor. I consume with 100% of my income. I would be taxed at the highest rate under any consumption based tax scheme. People who promote those are generally the ones who live off dividends.
1. You want to give the poor some impetus to lift themselves out of poverty. You should remember what Ben Franklin said.
2. If you are defining yourself as "poor" I would object to that. Actual poor people cannot afford computers, internet service or horribly overpriced luxury items like miniature gaming.
3. I myself work 70 hours a week and do not live off of dividends. My parents do live off of dividends as will I when i retire.
Polonius wrote:
Except Scandinavian ones.
It is very easy to be that way when you have populations smaller than most large cities and are sitting on top of vast natural resources
dogma wrote: I'm now a PhD candidate in a political science department
....
dogma wrote:And very few countries have managed to sustain any significant growth without tax funded social programs. Just ask Pinochet and the Chicago Boys.
Except Chilies GDP has been in constant growth since the 1980's and remains the leading economy in the region.
Melissia wrote:
Such as their refusal to innovate, their inability to keep up with demand, their "do the same thing we've been doingand we'll continue to profit" attitude, and so on...
Or the fact that they are selling cars made by people making 50 dollars an hour to people making 15 dollars an hour. You do the math.
Frazzled wrote:This is not difficult.
1. Invade Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica (in that order). We now own the poles baby! If you see anything alienlike in a block of ice, leave it the &*%^% alone.
Frazzie, turn the map 90 degrees.
Now the sunny bits you want to invade are central America, Central Africa India and South East Asia.
Frazzled wrote:
2. Pump out Greenhouse gases like no tomorrow.
You can consider that box ticked.
Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, genetically create anklosaurs and Utah raptors. Parachute them over North Korea. Video for our amusement.
You forgot that raptors are commie. Ankylosaurs are a biological tank, and from what we know of north Korea would probably be considered a tech upgrade.
I figured it out. Fire the elderly. Anyone over 60...no...55 will be let go and all those positions will be suddenly open. On top of that it will create new jobs that deal with the hordes of indigent old people that swarm the country. It is a bulletproof idea.
Phanatik wrote:
A federal income tax is paid by a citizen of the U.S. to fund the activities of the federal government. Someone in Turkey, for instance, generally doesn't pay a federal income tax to the U.S. government because he isn't a citizen of the U.S. The fairest tax is one where all citizens pay the exact same amount, as all citizens are equally citizens. It should not matter that the amount is a smaller percentage of a successful person's income, as compared to a minimum wage employee's income. They are both equally citizens, they each get one vote.
So, you're essentially arguing that every citizen receives the same benefit from the activities of federal government, and so should pay the same amount?
If that is your point, then the counter-argument is simply that your initial assumption if flawed. This is true if we're arguing from either material benefits of federal activities, or political influence (votes).
Phanatik wrote:
Even so-called "poor" people should be required to pay some tax, because if you don't have skin in the game, you don't care as much. Also, it'd be a free ride.
Per your example, "skin in the game" would be determined by citizenship, not fiscal contribution, as any particular shift in tax policy would have the potential to impact any given citizen.
Phanatik wrote:
The next fairest tax would be the same rate, say 10%. A person 10x as successful as someone would be paying 10x the amount, whatever the rate, which is unfortunately only a start for liberals who want to punish success. They can't logically state what "fairness" is, so rates have been as high as the 90s in the past.
Of course they can, there exist a nearly unlimited amount of ways to reasonably determine fairness, its an extremely vague idea. The common one being based on a blend of ability to pay, and derived benefit.
Either way, that's all secondary, because fairness is only relevant to tax policy insofar as it can be used to rhetorically generate support for a given tax code.
Phanatik wrote:
In what warped sense of logic does it seem fair to take 90% of what a person owns?
Fairness isn't defined by logic, logic determines whether or not an argument regarding the nature of fairness is valid. The question you want to ask is "What sort of fairness allows for 90% of a person's income to be taken in taxes?"
The answer is that, even though derived benefit and ability to pay can be used to justify such a move, taxation is only about fairness insofar as rhetoric is concerned. More pressing is the concern over efficient generation of revenue for the state.
Phanatik wrote:
And for another poster: yes, liberals are socialists/marxists, if you look at the agenda of liberals today. if you consider yourself a liberal and the truth hurts, then perhaps you should re-evaluate what you think you believe.
Wait, how are you determining the agenda of liberals? According to the agenda of the Democrats? If that's the case, how do you reconcile your understanding of the liberal agenda with things like No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Part D, both passed by a GOP Administration?
Are Republicans also liberal, or is "liberal" just your tag for your own personal opposition? Because, if the latter is the case, then you should really just say your opposed to Marxism and Socialism (you shouldn't use them interchangeably either, it makes you appear to not understand what each position entails).
Phanatik wrote:
P.S. Oh, thanks for fixing the link that the website didn't activate properly. I'm not certain of my culpability in this matter. I'm certain it doesn't change my perspective.
The end code for a hyperlink on dakka is [/url] not [url/], you actually made the mistake twice. Once in that post, and again in a subsequent one.
The point being, if you're going to be a stickler regarding typos, you should at least review your own posts. I mean, there is a "preview" button.
Phanatik wrote:
Actually, this statement shows how a person is pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. you must think every decision happens in a vacuum. The U.S. 9th(?) Circuit court in California is the most overturned court in the U.S. Why? Because it has a majority of liberal activist judges that rule against the law. cases must then be sent over their heads (higher up the legal food chain) to be brought back into line with the law (reality).
So, given that you ignored the larger point of Conservative activism which would fit with your definition of the term, you reall are just using it to mean "decisions I don't like".
Good work.
Dice Monkey wrote:
Except Chilies GDP has been in constant growth since the 1980's and remains the leading economy in the region.
Since 1985, if we're being specific, which coincides with the second round of economic reforms that began returning elements of socialism to Chilean economic policy. Prior to that, performance was below the regional average.
That isn't to say that opening Chile's economy wasn't important to growing the economy, it absolutely was, rather I'm claiming that state policy cannot rely on the market alone to generate long-term growth.
Another republican blaming Obama for not getting us out of the recession, and "not doing anything" when the Republicans have stated over and over they want Obama to be a one-term president. They have admitted to being an obstructionist congress, which is essentially them voting no on anything he is behind, no matter if it is good/bad/kitties.
Like, what the feth do you want him to do? He's tried to cooperate with Republicans quite a bit (enough to make his Democratic buddies calling him a Republican) and they just say "Hell no, darkie, we need Rick Perry!"
Whatever, Obama will be reelected anyways if nobody better runs for office.
rubiksnoob wrote:Well, I think it's a little soon to start thinking about replacing him. The poor guy only kicked the bucket today.
Are you posting in the wrong thread?
Is this not the thread on how America can create a new Jobs?
Mwahahahahahaha!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dice Monkey wrote:It is very easy to be that way when you have populations smaller than most large cities and are sitting on top of vast natural resources
You're confusing Norway with the rest of Scandanavia. Neither Denmark nor Sweden are noted for the natural resources, but still maintain high standards or living and fairly egalitarian societies.
Except Chilies GDP has been in constant growth since the 1980's and remains the leading economy in the region.
Except, of course, the Chilean economy collapsed under Pinochet, and that economic growth in Chile only became sustainable when left wing reform began to reduce poverty in the mid 90s.
Melissia wrote:Or the fact that they are selling cars made by people making 50 dollars an hour to people making 15 dollars an hour. You do the math.
That makes no sense. To follow your logic no doctor's office in the world would be sustainable, because they're selling their services at $150 an hour to people earning $15. You need to go back and read how trade words.
Never mind that (badly mangled or not) your point was relevant to the US car industry of 1980 and that we've seen three decades of reductions in pay and conditions for automotive workers.
Secondly give no taxes to all new SMALL/MID SIZED startups. Let them grow and then in say 5 years start taxing them. This encourages growth and gives leeway for paying employees. The tax system is so that this probably would only work in 45% of all startups, but that alone would be a boost in the economy.
We need to get back to what made us so great, our in house production. Remember the motto "Made in America?" That actually used to mean something, now it means stay away, it will fall apart faster than you can afford to replace it.
Kilkrazy wrote:That is an admirably American way of thinking.
Why is it ethical to pay taxes that you're not required to pay? If it is ethical to pay more than you're required, how much above your tax rate is sufficiently ethical?
Those are good questions and my answer is that ethical thinking demands you consider them.
Toeing the precise line of the government law is a complete abandonment of your responsibility to think ethically. You give the government the job of doing your thinking for you.
Frazzled wrote:This is not difficult.
1. Invade Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica (in that order). We now own the poles baby! If you see anything alienlike in a block of ice, leave it the &*%^% alone.
Frazzie, turn the map 90 degrees.
Now the sunny bits you want to invade are central America, Central Africa India and South East Asia.
I don't want the sunny bits. I want the cold bits, which will be come sunny bits when the GreenhouseGeddon comes. If Al Gore says it, it must be true. I'm just thinking long term baby.
At the Houston museum there is a mockup of raptors attacking an anklosaur type dinosaur. Its really cool. Made me wonder though, iof I had a remington 870 80 million years ago, would raptors taste like chicken and TRex like coconut?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:Well, I think it's a little soon to start thinking about replacing him. The poor guy only kicked the bucket today.
Are you posting in the wrong thread?
Is this not the thread on how America can create a new Jobs?
Melissia wrote:Or the fact that they are selling cars made by people making 50 dollars an hour to people making 15 dollars an hour. You do the math.
That makes no sense. To follow your logic no doctor's office in the world would be sustainable, because they're selling their services at $150 an hour to people earning $15. You need to go back and read how trade words.
Never mind that (badly mangled or not) your point was relevant to the US car industry of 1980 and that we've seen three decades of reductions in pay and conditions for automotive workers.
Wrong person sebster, that wasn't me, that was his response to me lol.
Kylis wrote:Gettin rid of the Puerto Rican and Mexican illegal immigrants is a good way to start opening new jobs for Americans. Moving to Europe is also a good move as there are many open jobs here.
I'm not sure if you're trolling, or if this is legitimate ignorance, but Puerto Ricans are American citizens, just as if they were born in Iowa or Ohio.
Additionally, the entire population of Puerto Rico is a third the population of New York City alone. If every single man, woman, and child moved from the island to the mainland it wouldn't measurably affect unemployment.
Kilkrazy wrote:That is an admirably American way of thinking.
Why is it ethical to pay taxes that you're not required to pay? If it is ethical to pay more than you're required, how much above your tax rate is sufficiently ethical?
Those are good questions and my answer is that ethical thinking demands you consider them.
Toeing the precise line of the government law is a complete abandonment of your responsibility to think ethically. You give the government the job of doing your thinking for you.
No, you don't understand. If a CEO doesn't take advantage of a tax break, whether it is a loophole or just a break, without an actual concrete business reason to do so, he can be sued by the shareholders.
He has an actual literal legal obligation to maximize shareholder value.
R, any business which is not already hiring is not in a position to hire even if they HAD the money free. Demand is the bottleneck, not supply.
that this probably would only work in 45% of all startups, but that alone would be a boost in the economy.
