65 posts
I assume some of you probably saw this on Facebook or wherever, but if you haven't, you should:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Tripper
So, what do you think we should do about that?
Understand how wages are traded for tax cuts and that there is no patriotism in business.
Sure.... but what should we do about that, is the question.
It's less about what you can do than about what gets done to you...
Hookbender — Mar 07, 2013Sure.... but what should we do about that, is the question.
we gotta do what Eddie Murphy says do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtuYWlh6fJ4
Hookbender — Mar 07, 2013So, what do you think we should do about that?
Heavy progressive taxation is a good start. Raise the minimum wage and modify federal labor laws to eliminate the ways they get around paying workers fairly.
Ban lobbyists. Publicly fund all elections so legislators can legislate and not just fund-raise.
Get the money out of politics and you'll see a lot more laws passed that favor the people instead of the wealthy.
Tripper
(although I have to admit that Eddie Murphy's idea was amusing...)
Tripper
Instead of just taxing the crap out of the rich (which only means that unqualified idiots in government and their buddies end up mis-spending the money), I'd say to add tax-avoidance incentives that actually help the lower classes. For example:
1) Hiring additional employees for business owners (they get a break for each one - perhaps based on the time the person stays employed)
2) Funding (re)education for the unemployed
3) Providing start-up capital for small businesses
4) Helping fund housing needs, etc.
In other words, give them the option of donating a less than 100% amount to something like the examples above instead of sending the 100% amount they owe in extra taxes.
Pretty sure they gotz easier ways of getting out of paying taxes.
We have an attitude that excuses anything, no matter how nasty, as understandable, because it's "just business"... I think that's gotta change. People have to not accept it.
My suggestion is that to help the poor and instead of just the normal tax the rich thing.....
I would suggest a flat tax after so much income.
Next, I would come up with a figure, say 1 or 2 million in income, get a average cost of a college education, and make each person pwho makes that much pay for 1 persons college education on a per year basis. The only exemption would be if you were paying your own childs educational needs, with the idea that a person making 4 million could easily afford 1 more education. Something like that.
The only hope in really fixing the inequality of wealth is by educating the poor, not taxing the rich. If you give more money to government, they will spend more money on bullshit. Any raise in taxes for the rich should be directly aimed at educating those that cost the government, taxpayer the most, the poor. Best long term solid fix is to educate people so they can do more than flip burgers or sit on their ass.
It wasn't about just the poor. It was about how wealth has been systematically funnelled to a very small group of people. They will not move that money around. They cannot move money/resouces around like the bulk of the population. The poor and middle class have accepted credit and tax cuts as if they were raises to keep up with the cost of life for the last 30 or so while wages have been pretty flat. The tax cuts always give a lil to the masses and a lot the tiniest high end while they keep increasing their own pay. Part of these savings are used to pay for the legistlation that gives the breaks. Power is flexed and pays off big tyme.
Much of our system is built on a facade that keeps resources flowing here.
My point is, that taxing the rich isn't the answer without aimed benefits for the poor. If the money goes through government, the tax hikes will do no good at all. Education of the people who can't afford education on their own stimulates the economy in the long run. Simply taxing the rich to increase governments income does't help anyone.
The only cure for ignorance, that I'm aware of, is knowledge. Knowledge seems to me, the quickest way of getting people out of poverty, which is dependent on education. Taking money from the rich and throwing it in the lake is useless politics that have never worked.
The lake being the government.
What stimulates the economy is more people being able to spend money. Again, it's not just the poor, it's people with jobs already, the shrinking middle class...
All I can say is I'd like to see the curve that 92% of the respondents would like to see. I don't know how we get there, but I'd like to live in a country more like that.
We'd have a stronger economy, most likely a lot less crime, and maybe even more of a sense of shared responsibility since everything is more equitable.
Tripper
How do you know the economy would be stronger?
BINGEWOOD — Mar 09, 2013What stimulates the economy is more people being able to spend money. Again, it's not just the poor, it's people with jobs already, the shrinking middle class...
The most bang for the buck would be to fight ignorance with education, imo. You need an education in todays world, high school diploma's alone don't get it anymore. So you educate the poor and achieve 2 goals. Education leads to better employment and better chances of employment. And second, you prevent more people from depending on the government. Thats huge! Way big time huge!!!
I see, you want to keep the subject being the poor, the gov and the rich. Those unemployable, uneducated street urchins who take money from the rich through government dependency.
I think you missed the point.
BINGEWOOD — Mar 09, 2013I see, you want to keep the subject being the poor, the gov and the rich. Those unemployable, uneducated street urchins who take money from the rich through government dependency.
I think you missed the point.
I think you read way to much into my point. Thats what I think. No need to assume what I say, if your not clear just ask.
Did you see yourself in the chart?
Education is indeed important but you only have to look at the current trend of college graduates not being able to get jobs to see that it won't solve everything. We are a nation in flux. We've gone from an a nation that grows, to a nation that builds, to a consumer society based on resources flowing here and into landfills and into the air. For the longest time here there wasn't the education system we have today. You worked as child, for the most part, on the farm and later in the factory (like the goods we get now from China) Higher education was basically for the rich only. Like Lincoln, you taught yourself.
Go back to WWII, where we made our world bones, and you'll see most people had few possessions and you fixed things that broke down and kept them running as long as possible. This had been a long running trend. After WWII we saw the rapid expansion of the middle class due to gov loans (for education, housing) and employment through repurposing industries which had been built up for war production. Into the fifties we have a booming society where people expand into the new suburbs where construction was doing great. Look into the tax rates during this expansion/creation of the middle class.
We start being a consumer society during this time. The youth culture is created along with disposable income which is seen for the first time by the masses. We start getting more and more goods from Japan etc but people still feel pride in buying American. Credit is very different, more like layaway or pawn shop. There were pensions and benefits, not before the norm, unions had fought for things we take for granted today.
In the 60 we see a civil rights struggle that didn't seem like the majority of the country was behind. Can you imagine that? Not that long ago...
By the 70's and into the 80's we are dumping workers and closing factories, which continues on with American companies offshoring jobs. These job losses are felt in the lower and middle classes and extremely damage the black community. Education is part of this, access another part. But there is a new employer for many, Cocaine comes to town! By the late 80's easy credit is in effect. People keep up their end by buying and buying. Late 70's gas shortages lead us to Japanese cars as American car companies fight gas saving cars, even screwing themselves by eventually focusing on SUV's 90's/00's. By the 80's my grandparents were the only ones still buying the Zenith even if it sucked.
Just recently we saw a mass dump of workers. Many were older workers. A business dumps an older worker because they have reached top pay and the business can take on someone who can start over on the pay scale or they deem the older workers job obsolete. When that worker loses their job they go on gov assistance and look for a new job. What business will hire them over someone who starts below them getting a pay cut. Really great that the dumpoff hit when boomers are at the end of their work runs.
Education is needed but it doesn't guarantee you a job or even access. It will help a bit but it won't change that chart much. I don't think businesses will hire for tax breaks, I think they hire when they need workers. You understand that wages have been stagnant for ~30 for the middle class while not so for the 2% and the 1% has taken the lion's share of "it all", that's everything.
I completely disagree. The chart would change dramatically, imo. It's common sense.
What I got from the charts is that there is a way that most people think the country should be that is skewed towards the top, not any commie shit. Then there is a way that most people think it actually is, this is skewed even more towards the top. Finally there is the way that it actually is, where it is extremely tilted to a very small amount of people. That small amount of people count on the second graph being acceptable to the middle and lower classes. The second one, not the third...
Education is very important, but if you've been to school for any amount of time (me, not much) you know that all kinds of jobs are needed for all education levels. Hopefully many can get up to speed and we see some cool innovation. I don't see us going back to manufacturing in the way that kept society closer to a real moving economy. Looks like lotsza alt energy focus is going to China for manufacturing, we'll see.
What this will do for wages, I'm not sure. We need jobs but many of them require an expensive education. People who can't get that education won't be able to gain access. I think we need a willingness to hire on many levels. It looks like it's happening very slowly, but where have the people with the most been focusing? On holding what they have. They are "nervous" about unleashing the funds to create jobs that would bring increased spending and less gov dependency. I didn't see any "Let's put America to work" campaign from the private sector, I saw bye bye jobs and fight taxes and consolidate and hold. Bush talked about this "nervousness" in that speech about the bailout.
You can learn through the computer, I've done it, and it will be an ever increasing part of education. Parents have to keep their kids on the ball. It's not easy. Higher education should be available everyone who is interested, but how do you do it here? We fight those kind of thoughts as socialism.
Which chart and how/why would it change dramatically?
I'm in NC. The teacher explained that our state was starting to teach math, for example, like China, I think. We are starting to implement new teaching methods that will make our young children way advanced at the end of the 5th grade, for example, over my old school teachings. I have a 1st grader, daughter. They are already using iPads and computers in the first damn grade. Damn. She will be so far advanced than I was at the end of high school that it won't be even comparable. Add college to that and holly shit. She will be able to do damn near anything, compared to me, knowledge wise.
Even simple connivence store workers are being introduced to much electronic new stuff. Computer based cash registers, all kinds of credit card machines, etc.
Even the min wage jobs require a certain amount of education these days. The difference between being a clerk at a chain of c-stores and a manager could be significant in the future. Thats a basic job with openings all over the place. Education will be a huge benefit in that one field alone. Just imagine that up the scale of jobs in the future. Doesn't matter that educated people today may find it hard to get work, just think of the uneducated persons hardship. You can't place a value on a education in todays world and especially in the future.
I don't disagree. I am for education in all forms. That's not what the last graph was saying. It wasn't due to education alone that the top got skewed so far. A willingness to move money/resources around is needed. It's how a healthy economy works.
How do the Chinese teach math? Izzat where the parents kick the kid's ass and s/he sees work camps around her/him?
It's gonna be hard for me to explain, but I'll try to simplify what she said.
In the past, math was taught like using numbers 1 thru 1000, extremely wide range of numbers. Limited teachings.
Now, with this new method, they are going to teach, for example, 1 thru 100. They will teach everything you can do with those numbers. No need to stretch it out to 1000 and not teach all the capabilities as we did in the past.
Thats not a good explanation. Tried to shorten it a bit.
Hookbender — Mar 09, 2013How do you know the economy would be stronger?
Prediction based on history. A stronger middle class (meaning one with a more equitable share of the country's wealth) = a more healthy economic outlook for more people.
Tripper
Hookbender — Mar 10, 2013I completely disagree. The chart would change dramatically, imo. It's common sense.
How would more education make the chart change if the pay of these educated workers isn't growing? You go off on how even the minimum-wage jobs require more math, etc., but then don't explain how education has anything to do with wealth accumulation. Your point actually kind of refutes the original point you're making, in that more education doesn't do much - it just guarantees people the same minimum wage, and the same poverty because our system is fundamentally fucked up.
Education and wealth accumulation have practically NOTHING to do with one another, ultimately, with the exception of your entry-level salary perhaps being a bit higher and that if you're wealthy to begin with, connections you make through your education might enable you to maintain that wealth and maybe take even more because you've got money to invest. You started on third base and have only 90 feet to go for that "home run" (or at least that's what you'll call it).
Tripper
Tripper — Mar 11, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1362660410/0#20 date=1362879179]I completely disagree. The chart would change dramatically, imo. It's common sense.
How would more education make the chart change if the pay of these educated workers isn't growing? You go off on how even the minimum-wage jobs require more math, etc., but then don't explain how education has anything to do with wealth accumulation. Your point actually kind of refutes the original point you're making, in that more education doesn't do much - it just guarantees people the same minimum wage, and the same poverty because our system is fundamentally fucked up.
Education and wealth accumulation have practically NOTHING to do with one another, ultimately, with the exception of your entry-level salary perhaps being a bit higher and that if you're wealthy to begin with, connections you make through your education might enable you to maintain that wealth and maybe take even more because you've got money to invest. You started on third base and have only 90 feet to go for that "home run" (or at least that's what you'll call it).
Tripper
Well, first off, this is my opinion.
I think if you educate the poor, their chances of employment increases tremendously. If they get a decent education, they will have much more opportunity for employment, and most likely make more money in the field of their choice. Doesn't guarantee anything, necessarily. The more people educated, hopefully the more people will be working, not to mention doing a better job, which means less dependency on government services..... in a perfect world of course.
You can't snap your fingers and fix this problem. Obama has mentioned investing in education during these hard times to hopefully prepare more people for jobs in the future, when the economy starts kicking again. I agree with him. You don't???
If your gonna tax the rich, and government gets that money, your basically taxing the rich and giving it to the rich, the government. I'm saying that because I assume your in agreement that rich folk should be taxed at higher rates. Other than educating the poor and empowering them with knowledge and confidence, not sure how to fix "spreading the wealth" issues. I would certainly disagree with any kind of tax that didn't go directly to the source needing a helping hand. And that helping hand would be aimed at educating people who can't afford it.
Thats my opinion. And what I said about even c-store clerks needing education still stands. Not sure why you want to gripe about petty stuff.
Education doesn't equal more jobs. Education means you can be qualified to do a specialized job. That doesn't mean in any way that you will get the job.
Example, many years ago my state made it mandatory that all teachers must get their masters degree. There are several things you COULD get your master's in that apply to education. Many people thought about the administration degree, because they could spend 5 years as a principal and max out their retirement. Fast forward a few years and the market for principals was tiny while the pool for potential principals was huge. It's almost impossible to get a job in administration at any level. You are competing with too large of a population for the one job in several counties that might open up.
As of this year the entire program has been redeveloped because we have an over saturation of people with master's degree trying to get a job that isn't around. I should know....I'm one of those assholes with his master's degree in administration.
So that would make you a fucking Principal fucker, eh? :D
Wow, it seems to me that requiring every teacher to have a master's is just going to make people go into some other line of work. That's an expensive degree for what is typically not a high-paying job.
Hookbender — Mar 11, 2013[quote author=Tripper link=1362660410/25#26 date=1362980590][quote author=Hookbender link=1362660410/0#20 date=1362879179]I completely disagree. The chart would change dramatically, imo. It's common sense.
How would more education make the chart change if the pay of these educated workers isn't growing? You go off on how even the minimum-wage jobs require more math, etc., but then don't explain how education has anything to do with wealth accumulation. Your point actually kind of refutes the original point you're making, in that more education doesn't do much - it just guarantees people the same minimum wage, and the same poverty because our system is fundamentally fucked up.
Education and wealth accumulation have practically NOTHING to do with one another, ultimately, with the exception of your entry-level salary perhaps being a bit higher and that if you're wealthy to begin with, connections you make through your education might enable you to maintain that wealth and maybe take even more because you've got money to invest. You started on third base and have only 90 feet to go for that "home run" (or at least that's what you'll call it).
Tripper
Well, first off, this is my opinion.
I know. And I treated it as such.
I think if you educate the poor, their chances of employment increases tremendously. If they get a decent education, they will have much more opportunity for employment, and most likely make more money in the field of their choice. Doesn't guarantee anything, necessarily. The more people educated, hopefully the more people will be working, not to mention doing a better job, which means less dependency on government services..... in a perfect world of course.
It helps to a certain point, but if companies have no incentive to employ people, raise their wages to a living level, or make their employment stable, we have a problem.
I completely agree that we should educate people better, though. It should be a foundation of our society. I do think there are things that we don't educate people in that we should, like money management, critical thinking, parenting, and social responsibility. Access to a good education is paramount for future success. But it doesn't mean that opportunities to increase the average wealth of the middle class will present themselves as the wealth goes to fewer and fewer people and the rest of us (even those of us with educations) fight over the leftover shitty-salary crumbs and worry constantly about being fired.
You can't snap your fingers and fix this problem.
I never said we could. I just suggested ideas that could move us back toward a distribution that allows for more upward class mobility.
Obama has mentioned investing in education during these hard times to hopefully prepare more people for jobs in the future, when the economy starts kicking again. I agree with him. You don't???
I'm sorry, where exactly do you get that from what I wrote? I think people should be educated well. I also think that it's got very little to do with flattening the curve and creating a more equal society. It's great once we convince the wealthiest (those who have benefited the most from being Americans) to reinvest in our society, but if they don't, we have to take measures to make sure they do, and to curb their means for continuing to amass wealth the way they have since 1980.
If your gonna tax the rich, and government gets that money, your basically taxing the rich and giving it to the rich, the government.
Which is why in another post I suggested a number of ways to get the influence of the owners of this country OUT of government.
I'm saying that because I assume your in agreement that rich folk should be taxed at higher rates.
But of course. Especially the richest people.
Other than educating the poor and empowering them with knowledge and confidence, not sure how to fix "spreading the wealth" issues. I would certainly disagree with any kind of tax that didn't go directly to the source needing a helping hand. And that helping hand would be aimed at educating people who can't afford it.
I made some suggestions I think would work. My opinions based on what has worked historically. I agree that education can help, but it's not a guarantee if other things aren't fixed first.
Thats my opinion. And what I said about even c-store clerks needing education still stands. Not sure why you want to gripe about petty stuff.
You said that "it's common sense" and implied (in your broad dissent of Bingewood's points in his previous post) that education would change the curve. I disagreed with that, and made a case for my disagreement. That's not griping about petty stuff.
The overall point I was trying to make to you is that education is wonderful and necessary and often completely divorced from how much someone is going to be paid for performing a certain job. More people making more money, especially in the income brackets where people spend most of their money instead of hoarding it like the upper class does, stimulates the economy like nothing else. You could have a pile of morons who were paid well and it would get it closer to the 92%-liked curve. Or you could have what we have, which is a lot of people with good educations who are paid DICK.
:)
Tripper
I understand your point.
This is a little write up kinda saying what I said, much better of course. Not exactly my point, but close.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/college-degree-required-by-increasing-number-of-companies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Tripper — Mar 11, 2013 I'm saying that because I assume your in agreement that rich folk should be taxed at higher rates.
But of course. Especially the richest people.
Tripper
My biggest problem with this "solution" is that it simply takes money from one problem area and moves it to another problem area which, thanks to all the good 'ol boy stuff that goes on in the politics of the two major parties, probably means that same rich guy ends up getting most of it back some other way anyway...
As far as I'm concerned, the government doesn't have a fucking clue how to manage money so, giving them more, just gives them more power to screw with the masses. That's why I think having cost effective alternatives that don't necessarily allow the government to get their paws on the money could be viable. The money needs to be in the hands of small business IMO - not sitting there for the government to waste.
CraigBert — Mar 12, 2013[quote author=Tripper link=1362660410/25#31 date=1363035254] I'm saying that because I assume your in agreement that rich folk should be taxed at higher rates.
But of course. Especially the richest people.
Tripper
My biggest problem with this "solution" is that it simply takes money from one problem area and moves it to another problem area which, thanks to all the good 'ol boy stuff that goes on in the politics of the two major parties, probably means that same rich guy ends up getting most of it back some other way anyway...
As far as I'm concerned, the government doesn't have a fucking clue how to manage money so, giving them more, just gives them more power to screw with the masses. That's why I think having cost effective alternatives that don't necessarily allow the government to get their paws on the money could be viable. The money needs to be in the hands of small business IMO - not sitting there for the government to waste.
I think "small business" gives us all a good feeling, but is pretty much a bullshit ideal. Small businesses, by definition are not very successful. The goal of most small businesses is probably to make one person wealthy while spending as little money as possible on other resources. So, for example, a McDonald's franchisee can make 3-400k a year--while paying maybe 30 people 5.75 an hour. Do we need a whole shitload of people making 5.75 an hour? Do we need more minimum wage jobs where the employees end up needing public assistance just to survive? Sure, there are "small businesses" like Romney ran where everyone made a million a year, but that is the exception, not the rule. On the other hand, mid-to-large businesses? for example, the Googles and Apples of the world, or companies with a thousand employees, or a couple thousand, in things like technology? You;re talking thousands of employees earning 100k a year. That's some serious spending power. This is where I find fault in the "small business" song and dance that's been going on for years. Sure, they are nice, but the idea that we should trust small business to run the country... it's like saying we should hand over professional policing to crossing guards. So no, I don;t think that's where money should go. As for the government not knowing how to run anything, that's very easy to say and I'm sure you can trot out a hundred little examples of crappy stuff the government does. But go to frigging Egypt or Namibia or Somalia or Greece, then come back here and tell me the US government can't do anything. They are the most successful organization in the country, and they get more done than any corporation anywhere in the world, every day.
CraigBert — Mar 12, 2013[quote author=Tripper link=1362660410/25#31 date=1363035254] I'm saying that because I assume your in agreement that rich folk should be taxed at higher rates.
But of course. Especially the richest people.
Tripper
My biggest problem with this "solution" is that it simply takes money from one problem area and moves it to another problem area which, thanks to all the good 'ol boy stuff that goes on in the politics of the two major parties, probably means that same rich guy ends up getting most of it back some other way anyway...
Understand the important caveat I'm making, though...I don't want just tax hikes on the richest. I want the money out of politics, too, and all the restrictions on lobbying and congress holding lobbying jobs. That helps to correct for the corruption in government. Taxing them without fixing the corruption might fill the coffers for now, but it doesn't work long-term to help the middle class and poor unless we do the other stuff, too.
As far as I'm concerned, the government doesn't have a fucking clue how to manage money so, giving them more, just gives them more power to screw with the masses. That's why I think having cost effective alternatives that don't necessarily allow the government to get their paws on the money could be viable. The money needs to be in the hands of small business IMO - not sitting there for the government to waste.
Well, if we had the government "wasting" it on investing in infrastructure projects, it'd be funneled into the hands of a lot of medium-to-small businesses to complete the projects. Just like they should have "wasted" it on helping people paying their mortgages instead of giving it directly to the banks so they could still fuck their customers over. And if they "wasted" it on universal healthcare, that'd be a lot of money that businesses wouldn't have to shell out, and more people would have good coverage.
:)
Tripper
charger — Mar 12, 2013Do we need a whole shitload of people making 5.75 an hour?
Considering that minimum wage on the Left Coast is $8.95 an hour in Oregon, $9.19 in Washington and $8.00 in California (except San Fran which is $10.55), I'd have to say that $5.75 wouldn't happen legally... ::)
Tripper — Mar 13, 2013[quote author=CraigBert link=1362660410/25#33 date=1363054506][quote author=Tripper link=1362660410/25#31 date=1363035254] I'm saying that because I assume your in agreement that rich folk should be taxed at higher rates.
But of course. Especially the richest people.
Tripper
My biggest problem with this "solution" is that it simply takes money from one problem area and moves it to another problem area which, thanks to all the good 'ol boy stuff that goes on in the politics of the two major parties, probably means that same rich guy ends up getting most of it back some other way anyway...
Understand the important caveat I'm making, though...I don't want just tax hikes on the richest. I want the money out of politics, too, and all the restrictions on lobbying and congress holding lobbying jobs. That helps to correct for the corruption in government. Taxing them without fixing the corruption might fill the coffers for now, but it doesn't work long-term to help the middle class and poor unless we do the other stuff, too.
As far as I'm concerned, the government doesn't have a fucking clue how to manage money so, giving them more, just gives them more power to screw with the masses. That's why I think having cost effective alternatives that don't necessarily allow the government to get their paws on the money could be viable. The money needs to be in the hands of small business IMO - not sitting there for the government to waste.
Well, if we had the government "wasting" it on investing in infrastructure projects, it'd be funneled into the hands of a lot of medium-to-small businesses to complete the projects. Just like they should have "wasted" it on helping people paying their mortgages instead of giving it directly to the banks so they could still fuck their customers over. And if they "wasted" it on universal healthcare, that'd be a lot of money that businesses wouldn't have to shell out, and more people would have good coverage.
:)
Tripper
I'm not directly disagreeing with the end result here, I just have ZERO confidence that the government can manage each task efficiently and cost effectively. I don't know what the numbers are now (and don't have time to research at the moment), but a few years ago it was released that only a small fraction of every dollar for use by HUD was actually going to the job they're supposed to be doing. Almost 80% was being lost in "overhead." Whatever the actual numbers are, I'm guessing it's pretty representative of other government functions. At least having inefficient healthcare will help with population control, ya? ::)
Sorry, Federal minimum wage is 7.25 an hour. If a person works at that wage every workday of the year with no vacation days or holidays, they make 15,080. By some miracle, that is actually above the poverty line for a single person. However, it's below the poverty line for a family of two. And my guess is the threshold for things like food stamps ia actually quite a bit higher than that, since it's hard to imagine many places where you could pay rent, pay utilities, pay for the bus or train or a car, and also eat on that kind of salary.
CraigBert — Mar 13, 2013[quote author=Tripper link=1362660410/25#35 date=1363181073][quote author=CraigBert link=1362660410/25#33 date=1363054506][quote author=Tripper link=1362660410/25#31 date=1363035254] I'm saying that because I assume your in agreement that rich folk should be taxed at higher rates.
But of course. Especially the richest people.
Tripper
My biggest problem with this "solution" is that it simply takes money from one problem area and moves it to another problem area which, thanks to all the good 'ol boy stuff that goes on in the politics of the two major parties, probably means that same rich guy ends up getting most of it back some other way anyway...
Understand the important caveat I'm making, though...I don't want just tax hikes on the richest. I want the money out of politics, too, and all the restrictions on lobbying and congress holding lobbying jobs. That helps to correct for the corruption in government. Taxing them without fixing the corruption might fill the coffers for now, but it doesn't work long-term to help the middle class and poor unless we do the other stuff, too.
As far as I'm concerned, the government doesn't have a fucking clue how to manage money so, giving them more, just gives them more power to screw with the masses. That's why I think having cost effective alternatives that don't necessarily allow the government to get their paws on the money could be viable. The money needs to be in the hands of small business IMO - not sitting there for the government to waste.
Well, if we had the government "wasting" it on investing in infrastructure projects, it'd be funneled into the hands of a lot of medium-to-small businesses to complete the projects. Just like they should have "wasted" it on helping people paying their mortgages instead of giving it directly to the banks so they could still fuck their customers over. And if they "wasted" it on universal healthcare, that'd be a lot of money that businesses wouldn't have to shell out, and more people would have good coverage.
:)
Tripper
I'm not directly disagreeing with the end result here, I just have ZERO confidence that the government can manage each task efficiently and cost effectively. I don't know what the numbers are now (and don't have time to research at the moment), but a few years ago it was released that only a small fraction of every dollar for use by HUD was actually going to the job they're supposed to be doing. Almost 80% was being lost in "overhead." Whatever the actual numbers are, I'm guessing it's pretty representative of other government functions. At least having inefficient healthcare will help with population control, ya? ::)
"overhead" equals wages, equals jobs, equals spending in our economy. You won't find any company anywhere that will do massive public infrastructure work for free. I wouldn't be surprised if there overhead was 80%, but I am surprised that you would characterize that as "waste"... at my company, employees are considered the primary business cost.
Except government jobs are all paid by tax payers and many get paid more than the public-sector does. So it takes several equivalent non-government jobs to pay for that one government position.
Right, most private sector wages have been stagnant for ~30 years.
The vast majority of public sector jobs are not highly paid. For example, teachers are all public sector employees. Yes, I'd agree that the lowest-paid federal workers probably make more than the lowest-paid private sector workers. But there is no federal McDonald's or WalMart as far as I know. And I still am not finding what's so great about the fact that there are people out there who can pay less for workers... it's not a race to the bottom, and I think the more people in low to middle incomes make, the better our society gets, the less the income gap between rich and poor, etc. In the end this all gets back to, why do some small percentage of people make the majority of the money. And when you look it at on a per capita basis, why do they make so freaking much it just looks cartoonish? And should we do anything about this? Or should we just accept that most people will be poor to struggling, and say, that's okay, because some people can get rich, and fuck all those proles?
I would think that the people on the right of the graph like/foster any comparisons between the rest of the herd that leave them out.
I would think that one of them, if taxed normally, would pay for many many gov employees.
charger — Mar 13, 2013The vast majority of public sector jobs are not highly paid. For example, teachers are all public sector employees. Yes, I'd agree that the lowest-paid federal workers probably make more than the lowest-paid private sector workers. But there is no federal McDonald's or WalMart as far as I know. And I still am not finding what's so great about the fact that there are people out there who can pay less for workers... it's not a race to the bottom, and I think the more people in low to middle incomes make, the better our society gets, the less the income gap between rich and poor, etc. In the end this all gets back to, why do some small percentage of people make the majority of the money. And when you look it at on a per capita basis, why do they make so freaking much it just looks cartoonish? And should we do anything about this? Or should we just accept that most people will be poor to struggling, and say, that's okay, because some people can get rich, and fuck all those proles?
I'm not arguing that the having all the wealth concentrated on just a few super rich isn't something that needs to be addressed. However, more government jobs will only kill the country in no time at all. Find a way to get more public jobs with better wages AND REDUCE THE INFLATED GOVERNMENT.
In case you didn't notice, the government has been shedding jobs like mad. If it wasn't for the public sector job losses, unemployment would have dropped a lot faster, since the private sector has been adding jobs steadily. But you can't make the private sector pay good wages... only in competitive markets, in competitive fields is that going to happen. In non-competitive fields, in average markets, people are going to pay their workers as little as they can. That's just the way it works.
Hence my incentive comment. What the government should do is find a way to make it more attractive to provide work for Americans, even if that means penalizing outsourcing and cutting corners. What I DON'T want is to give the government more money to waste and have inept public employees trying to tell me how to live.
Business will always adjust itself to make the most profit that it can, so how do you encourage them to make quality U.S. products in America with U.S. labor while keeping money away from the government? That's the main question. Perhaps there could be penalties for outsourcing or producing sub-standard products? Maybe tax benefits for locating production in the U.S., hiring local workers at certain salary levels and hitting prespecified quality targets? I don't know. I don't have all the answers, but I know that allowing foreign workers to do all the work (and make a living on U.S. dollars) or letting the government spend more money are both very bad ideas.
I think it will take a war with China to switch production back to here (would prolly go to India first) I don't know how you beat labor conditions of 1900 (or worse). It's just business, right? Plus it's the new consumer market full of people willing to work for the company store. Those people aren't at saturation like we are. They don't have four iDevices yet and dere's lotza dem to employ/sell to...
Many of the people on the right of the graph don't hire. Many Corps get money back from the gov. It seems like the gov is still the enforcement mechanism in the incentive program, who pays for that? Who manipulates it?
The gov may be/seem inept but wasn't it the private sector that screwed the pooch and tanked the economy? Isn't it the private sector that works to skew the rules by paying the campaigns outright (or in hidden ways)? They don't mind spending 100's of millions on campaigns (who knows how much over all the campaigns) for their mouthpieces that seek to decrease their taxes even further instead of hiring. Way to show true colors "nervous" business leaders...
"The gov may be/seem inept but wasn't it the private sector that screwed the pooch and tanked the economy?"
I think not. Why would you ask that question?
What happened?
I ask the question because I don't see the leaders of the private sector as having a great track record (where the middle and lower classes are concerned) in addition to being the literal source of corruption for politicians.