01-13-2016, 01:39 PM
|
#2781
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
|
Oregon Militia Organizer Asks America to Please Stop Mailing Him Sex Toys, "Bags of Dicks"
http://www.pastemagazine.com/article...please-st.html
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2016, 02:09 PM
|
#2782
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2016, 03:19 PM
|
#2783
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but are you suggesting that, from a tax perspective, everyone should be treated as being equal in terms of the results obtained from one's efforts?
|
I'm not really sure what you mean by "equal in terms of the results obtained from one's efforts."
Quote:
But isn't this exactly what you are arguing for when you stated that government should tax someone "to the point that they can be left with an identical lifestyle as if they weren't taxed at all"?
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that implicit in your statement is either:
1) People simply don't need all of the money that they earn, regardless of how much they earn; or
2) Only the high-earning people don't need all of the money that they earn.
|
Well it's obviously a function of what it costs to live and live reasonably well. It would lean more towards (2). There are studies that suggest, in the current environment in N.A., that $70K/year is all that is needed to live a comfortable life, afford decent things (clothes, computers, etc.), the odd vacation, etc.... I'm not saying that everyone should only be at this level, but that, if someone ISN'T at this level because the market doesn't deem their occupation worthy, that the adjustment needs to come from the people who are, yes, making way more money than anyone could ever possibly need, in some cases, doing so in just one year, or one month. So that needs to be adjusted back, yes by tax, to provide the ability to those who's occupations, while just as important (if not moreso), are not as lucrative.
So yes, people should be taxed to the point that they can still live their life as generally provided by their position/occupation, as if they weren't taxed at all. If you get to a point that you can afford multiple houses in multiple countries, provide education and livelihoods for your children, have a few top-end machines (cars, boats, etc..), good for you. If you could afford to do that multiple times over, those multiples should be put back into the social network of everyone else, providing basic things like healthcare and education for people who's occupation isn't deemed worthy of those things, for whatever reason.
Quote:
In any event, I am particularly leery of suggesting what any person may "need," and I think that thinking of tax policy in terms of what someone may or may not "need" conflicts, to some extent, with your discussion regarding the market setting one's income. Apparently, the market believes that someone doing X is worth Y, and maybe that person went into X simply to earn Y because X believes that it needs Y. Why should the government believe that it knows better than either X or the market and say "oh, no, you don't really need Y, you only need Y-[tax amount "T"]"?
Of course, I suppose this gets into a deeper issue of whether society should be allowed to say that X doesn't need T, but that other people (including the government) should be allowed to use T for their own benefit. Who really determines what the government and the rest of society needs?
|
We do. Through government. It's what it's designed for. And, as I will always say during discussions like these, if you don't trust the government to do it properly, you have (or should have) the power to change it in a democracy. To have this view that government just takes your money and wastes it is yours and my and everyone's fault.
I'm not saying it's not complicated, and I certainly understand that my views on this are idealistic, require a significant cognitive change in how our society views excess, money and wealth overall, and borders on (BOOGIE MAN!!!) communism. I do think that parameters could be agreed upon that eliminate redundant excess. Things like houses with 25 rooms when you have a family of 4. Well maybe you buy a house with 10 rooms and the rest goes to the government to build a school, or twin a highway. Maybe you shave 20ft off your yacht and a whole class of kids gets to go to university who otherwise couldn't.
Quote:
If you are saying that income tax shouldn't burden anyone, them I'm in reasonable agreement with you.
If, however, you are saying that income tax shouldn't burden certain selected people in society, and that one method of selecting the chosen unburdened ones is based on the amount of wages that they earn, then I disagree.
I simply believe that taxes should burden everyone equally. Either everyone in society benefits from government, or they don't. And if they do, then everyone should share in the costs of government; and if they don't, then those who don't benefit shouldn't have to pay anything.
|
See I think this is where we agree, but have different views on what it means to burden everyone equally. You seem to say it means everyone should pay the same rate. I think it means everyone should be able to afford (or be provided) basic things. And I don't just mean food, water, shelter. I mean healthcare, internet access, education, ability to play some sports, etc... It's mostly centered around giving everyone an equal launching pad from their youth, and less about helping people who have squandered their opportunities. But sometimes those people who have squandered their opportunities have had kids along the way. Do their parents mistakes mean they should be left in the dust too? I guess I should have been more clear that my perspective is more based on helping children get the same starting point as anyone else.
Quote:
Of course they would. Why would they work in a job that pays, say, $1M a year if they are only going to see--and be able to spend as they see fit---half of it? At what point do you think they would say "gee, I seem to be working for the government now...." and adjust their worklife accordingly?
|
Depends on if they feel those tax dollars provide them with the basics (things mentioned above: healthcare, internet, education, etc.. would still apply to them as members of the society), and the rest is basically pure spending cash. And if all of the above is already provided by society (obviously they're paying more for it than others), and you can still spend $500K in a year, you have a severe spending problem.
Quote:
Or, perhaps, they are being rewarded---through paying less income tax---for going into a field that is lower paying.
|
This is a joke, right? So because I don't pay as much tax, my life is better somehow? Paying the highest possible tax is the best possible problem to have. Say I pay 10% and am left with $50K, you pay 90% and are left with $100M, who is better off here? Who is still being rewarded very handsomely by society for their efforts?
Quote:
That said, plenty of people go into certain career fields for the money, not because they have any burning passion for the work.
|
This IMO is a problem. I firmly believe we would be much further ahead as an overall species if people were able to pursue their talents vs leaving them behind because they need money. Your talent might be physics, mine might be art, both fields would be improved by having us, and thus, people would be improved by having us in our most effective space.
Quote:
True, but then why should it be used as a measure of what I owe someone else (indirectly through the government's imposition of income taxes)?
|
What I said is exactly why. You don't work hard enough to earn that level of money above someone working just as hard at a lower paying field. It has to be offset somehow.
I don't have time to answer the rest now but I will a little later.
__________________
|
|
|
01-13-2016, 04:30 PM
|
#2784
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
I'm not really sure what you mean by "equal in terms of the results obtained from one's efforts."
|
I appreciate your responses, but I simply fundamentally disagree with your viewpoint.
It seems to me that you believe that, for example, people only need around $70K a year to be happy and comfortable, and so that is the baseline that everyone should receive (presumably either from the free market or from income subsidies by the government) and that amounts in excess of $70K (just how much isn't clear) could be allowed but that the government should impose taxes imposed on earnings above that unspecified amount to, essentially I suppose, ensure fairness and equality.
And, I guess, because people who earn above that unspecified amount don't really need the extra money anyway.
And if that is your viewpoint, then I just fundamentally disagree with it.
It isn't the government's role to state what anyone needs. It isn't the government's role to subsidize people who choose to enter careers that are not as financially rewarding as some other career. It isn't the government's role to restrict its citizens' freedom of choice---which includes the right to make really bad choices.
And using tax policy to restrict, or punish, or even incentivize one's choices is simply something that I do not agree with. Which is why I'm against allowing deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
We do. Through government. It's what it's designed for. And, as I will always say during discussions like these, if you don't trust the government to do it properly, you have (or should have) the power to change it in a democracy. To have this view that government just takes your money and wastes it is yours and my and everyone's fault.
|
And that is my fundamental problem with Sanders (and other politicians):
Offering the majority of people something that only a minority of people will have to pay for is not good policy, tax wise or government wise.
But it likely helps a candidate win a lot of votes and elections and, of course, the majority will likely never care about the burdens that they are imposing upon the minority, even as the burdens continue to pile up and become unsustainable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
I guess I should have been more clear that my perspective is more based on helping children get the same starting point as anyone else.
|
I agree that children should not be punished or burdened for the poor decisions or bad luck of their parents, and that government should attempt--as may be reasonably possible--to put all children at the same starting line and ensure that the track is no longer or shorter for any one child.
I do not, however, believe that government should provide that same level of equality, or work to ensure the same level of fairness, when it comes to adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
And if all of the above is already provided by society (obviously they're paying more for it than others), and you can still spend $500K in a year, you have a severe spending problem.
|
Respectfully, I tend to think that someone only has a spending problem if they are spending more than what they earn. If someone is earning $2M a year and spends $500K, what's the problem? It is their money and shouldn't they be able to do what they please with it (subject to legal restrictions, like not paying for murder hits and the like)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
This is a joke, right? So because I don't pay as much tax, my life is better somehow?
|
Well, certainly in some circumstances, yes. Look at the current US tax code and see how it treats capital income differently than earned income (I realize that I'm changing gears a bit here), but the government rewards (to some extent) those who have invested well, lived below their means, and are no longer part of the workforce, and penalizes those who rely on earned income to live. The same type of reward/punishment exists with low-earners and high-earners.
In any event, paying more tax is not a good problem to have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
What I said is exactly why. You don't work hard enough to earn that level of money above someone working just as hard at a lower paying field. It has to be offset somehow.
|
This response strikes me as being awfully similar to Obama's "You Didn't Build That" statement. And I think it is borderline offensive (not personally, mind you, and offensive probably isn't the right word...).
|
|
|
01-13-2016, 07:54 PM
|
#2785
|
wittyusertitle
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate
No, no, and no (at least not through government directive or intervention).
|
And why exactly is this? Because from what I can see, if those low wage earners are suddenly making enough to survive--and even to afford some luxuries in their lives, that also means that those low wage earners who once paid no federal income taxes are then paying into it, thus less of the burden is on someone who, such as yourself, is making more money. Then your tax dollars aren't going to help those people. The pooled tax dollars from yourself and those others can now go to paying off the debt, into research and development for curing diseases and grants to increase our technology, that money goes into infrastructure so we all have safe roads and bridges.
(Though most of that money will continue to go into bloated contracts to for the Department of Defense, but that's a whole other can of worms.)
As of now companies have less than no incentive to better pay their workers. The executives and shareholders take home the lion's sum of profits, while leaving workers making such small sums that the rest of us get to pay for them via SNAP, subsidized housing, etc. You're not paying welfare for poor people--you're paying welfare to Walmart so they can leave their employees on a starvation wage.
Quote:
No, not every one "deserves" to own a home, and not everyone "deserves" to have children.
|
There is no state in the US where one can afford a two bedroom apartment on minimum wage. Not even for rent, let alone home ownership. So you think some people just deserve to be homeless? Even if they're working class people?
Quote:
So how much more in federal income taxes should I pay to sufficiently evidence that I respect others as human beings?
|
Did you miss the whole section where I mentioned raising wages? The part about keeping CEOs from taking obscene bonuses while giving their lowest paid workers a 50 cent raise once a year? I didn't say anything about raising taxes, I said that these jobs are still essential jobs, and thus they should be compensated as such. Those people getting paid more doesn't mean you'd pay more federal income tax--hell, you might get a tax cut if enough low wage earners suddenly were making 40, 50, 60k a year rather than the 15,080 dollars a year that someone working 40 hrs a week on minimum wage makes now (assuming 40 hrs a week, every week, no time off for illness, for vacation, etc).
This isn't about raising taxes. This is about stopping corporations from taking advantage of government programs by paying their employees obscenely, inhumanely low wages. Companies aren't going to magically pay employees well out of the goodness of their hearts, so without some kind of cap on CEO/executive pay, these companies are going to just keep shoving low wage workers farther and farther into poverty, more and more low wage workers are going to depend on the government to cover their basic needs, and then people like you and me get to pay the difference.
But if we make these multinational corporations pay decent wages, then that takes a lot of pressure off of the government and taxpayers. Let Walmart pay their own workers, they've got the money. Because when Walmart pays their employees properly--those employees have more money and can afford to shop somewhere other than Walmart. Those employees now have spending power to buy new cars, new homes, to go on vacation. Those employees now have disposable income that goes back into the economy, and when they spend those extra dollars, they also pay sales tax on those dollars, which increases overall tax revenue, which decreases the amount that higher wage earners need to pay.
Trickle down economics is a disgusting, blatant failure. The economy grows from the bottom and the middle up, and political policy needs to encourage that.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2016, 08:37 PM
|
#2786
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2016, 09:02 PM
|
#2787
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate
And using tax policy to restrict, or punish, or even incentivize one's choices is simply something that I do not agree with. Which is why I'm against allowing deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest and so on.
|
I'm in fairly vehement disagreement with Sanders on a bunch of things, including tax policy and his view of economics and the role of government generally... but you realize how, er, extreme this statement is, right? No incentives in tax policy? So, like, no small business deduction, no flow through shares, you're against all of that stuff?
To borrow your words, I guess I just fundamentally disagree with you. Tax policy can be a tool that can be used well or poorly, but to not use it at all seems like a wasted asset.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
01-13-2016, 09:21 PM
|
#2788
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Clinton's attack on Sanders health care and gun plans are backfiring big time. In the time since the campaign started, Sanders has raised an additional $1.4 million from individual supporters.
http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-rais...inton-attacks/
Responding to Clinton's claim that his health plan would make things difficult for millions of Americans, Sanders simply responded with the picture below while letting Politifact verify his plan as saving Americans $1200/year. Biden throws in his support for Sanders on his gun record.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sa...rticle/2580374
Nationally Sanders is now only 7 points back from Clinton, this is down from 20.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2016, 10:03 PM
|
#2789
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
I think the more they get to talking about actual policies, the more it favours Sanders. He's an old geezer and a leftie, but I think a lot of people like the sound of his individual policies. There will also be plenty of eager liberals in the internet to tell people that they are viable policies, ready to convince people who want to believe that.
(I'm not saying they are or are not viable or good ideas. I'm just wording it like that because I don't think the facts matter that much.)
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 12:30 AM
|
#2790
|
God of Hating Twitter
|
Its still quite infuriating how little coverage Sanders gets, and how the DNC is doing everything they can to help Hillary. Imagine if Sanders got even half of the coverage of what Trump gets, wow, we would be talking Obama level hype by now.
__________________
Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 06:45 AM
|
#2791
|
Has lived the dream!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where I lay my head is home...
|
Trump manufactures a lot of his own press though by saying ridiculous and hateful things. I'm not saying that's right, but that's how the media works.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-14-2016, 08:47 AM
|
#2792
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
And why exactly is this?
|
Because I do not believe that it is the government's job (or within its purview) to set wage or price caps or floors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Because from what I can see, if those low wage earners are suddenly making enough to survive--and even to afford some luxuries in their lives . . .
|
A minimum wage is not meant to provide someone with any "luxuries," and a minimum wage job is not meant to be one's permanent or life-long career.
Rather, a minimum wage job is meant to be an entry-level position, filled by low (or no) skilled workers, who are using the job as merely a stepping stone to a better paying and higher skilled position.
In my view, those who are stuck in a minimum wage job are stuck in that sort of job largely by choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
. . . that also means that those low wage earners who once paid no federal income taxes are then paying into it, thus less of the burden is on someone who, such as yourself, is making more money.
|
Perhaps in an ideal world, yes. But, as you noted, taxes on higher-earning individuals would likely not decrease, and the taxes received from such higher-earning individuals would likely not go to possibly more deserving projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
As of now companies have less than no incentive to better pay their workers.
|
Sure they do....through competition. If a competitor is paying its workers more, and the lower-paying company wishes to keep its workers, then the lower-paying company should pay its workers more.
If an employee believes that it is underpaid, the employee can either start their own business and set their wages to the amount they believe is appropriate, seek another employer that pays the wages they desire, or convince their current employer that they are worth more and should be paid more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
The executives and shareholders take home the lion's sum of profits . . .
|
Well, shareholders aren't directly taking home "the lion's share of profits," but---in any event---getting enriched as a shareholder is the entire point of being a shareholder.
Regardless, as to the executives taking "home the lion's share of profits," that is a corporate governance issue, not a tax policy one. Shareholders, indirectly, set executive pay, and if they don't like the pay rates, they can vote out the board of directors or decline to invest in the company.
Similarly, even non-shareholders can indirectly influence executive pay, whether through direct lobbying efforts (although, good luck with that) or by simply not using the company's products or services (and convincing others to do the same).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
You're not paying welfare for poor people--you're paying welfare to Walmart so they can leave their employees on a starvation wage.
|
Which is one reason why I very rarely shop at Walmart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
There is no state in the US where one can afford a two bedroom apartment on minimum wage.
|
Well, first off, note that my comment (and your initial question) was in regards to "own[ing] a home," and had nothing to do with renting a residence. I do believe that everyone should have the right and ability to live in a safe and legal residence, but I do not believe that anyone has the right (or "deserves") to own a home.
However, and more to your immediate point, why does a minimum wage worker need a two bedroom apartment? That is one more bedroom than I have, and---regardless--as I stated above, a minimum wage job is not meant to be a life-long job.
If a minimum wage adult worker needs to live in a two bedroom apartment, then I suggest that the adult worker made a few very poor choices in their life and that it isn't really my (or the government's) responsibility to keep helping them. Harsh sentiment, but at some point, the adult needs to be, you know, an adult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Did you miss the whole section where I mentioned raising wages?
|
I interpreted your comments as suggesting that an unwillingness to pay more in taxes equated to a lack of respect for others. And I don't think that there is any connection between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
But if we make these multinational corporations pay decent wages . . .
|
Leaving aside the open-ended nature of what constitutes a "decent" wage, how do you propose doing so?
Do you really want the government telling you that you can't earn more than a certain amount of money? Do you really want the government telling you that you can't pay someone more than a certain amount of money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Let Walmart pay their own workers, they've got the money.
|
Walmart is paying its workers---I rather doubt anyone (other than maybe a few interns) is working there for free. If the workers believe that they are not being paid fairly, the workers can leave. So why aren't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Because when Walmart pays their employees properly--those employees have more money and can afford to shop somewhere other than Walmart. Those employees now have spending power to buy new cars, new homes, to go on vacation. Those employees now have disposable income that goes back into the economy, and when they spend those extra dollars, they also pay sales tax on those dollars, which increases overall tax revenue, which decreases the amount that higher wage earners need to pay.
|
In theory, your proposal sounds promising and uplifting to all.
In reality, the poor will always be among us and there will always be a bottom 10% of anything.
And by raising all wages (beyond the level that the market deems to be appropriate), all you do is essentially inflate costs for everyone, and you end up right back where you started---with the lower-income earners being unable to afford luxuries and possibly new cars, new homes, and vacations.
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 08:50 AM
|
#2793
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Tax policy can be a tool that can be used well or poorly, but to not use it at all seems like a wasted asset.
|
I suppose this gets to what one's view of government (and its use of taxes) should be:
Should the government exist to provide certain services to its citizens, and collect only the sums necessary to provide such services?
Or should the government also exist to shape and mold its citizens in a way that certain (potentially conflicting) interests deem proper and correct, and structure its tax collection methods in such a way to accomplish those goals?
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 08:56 AM
|
#2794
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Its still quite infuriating how little coverage Sanders gets, and how the DNC is doing everything they can to help Hillary. Imagine if Sanders got even half of the coverage of what Trump gets, wow, we would be talking Obama level hype by now.
|
It's not surprising though. All you need to keep in mind is that while Sanders has basically always caucused with the democrats, he is an independent. He's been independent for his entire political career (well early on he ran thrid party campaigns before going independent to win mayor of Burlington in 1981). He only joined the democratic party in 2015 to run for president.
it shouldn't be a shock that the DNC is supporting Clinton. That said, I don't get the feeling from the DNC that they wouldn't support Sanders if he wins the nomination. It's been pretty touchy feely until this week when Clinton decided to go into attack mode. And even so, while you have attack mode, Sanders gets a nice compliment from Biden.
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 10:14 AM
|
#2795
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate
Or should the government also exist to shape and mold its citizens
|
You think providing a preferential rate to small business is the government "shaping and molding" its citizens? It seems to me that it's an attempt to improve the economy, thereby improving the average quality of life within the country.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 10:22 AM
|
#2796
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate
I appreciate your responses, but I simply fundamentally disagree with your viewpoint.
|
Yes, and vice versa, and that's ok. It's nice to have these discussions regardless. I'll just respond to the last point below:
Quote:
This response strikes me as being awfully similar to Obama's "You Didn't Build That" statement. And I think it is borderline offensive (not personally, mind you, and offensive probably isn't the right word...).
|
I find it offensive that anyone would get into their mind that their efforts are worth 10's of thousands or hundreds of thousands times more than anyone else. There's just not that discrepancy in effort put into work, regardless of what occupations you're comparing. And just because the market says it's that, doesn't mean we should just adhere to it. Men's hair growth gets a ridiculous level of research compared to some very deadly diseases, does that make it right just because the market says "we don't want to be bald"?
__________________
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 10:54 AM
|
#2797
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
You think providing a preferential rate to small business is the government "shaping and molding" its citizens? It seems to me that it's an attempt to improve the economy, thereby improving the average quality of life within the country.
|
I am not familiar with every provision of the US tax code.
However, a government that provides a preferential tax rate to anyone (small business, big business, mortgaged home-owners, etc)--and only to that group of people or entities to the exclusion of others--is very much a government that is attempting to shape and mold its citizens. Simply by offering the preferential tax rate, the government is encouraging people to go into that which gives preferential tax rates and discouraging people from doing that which is not given preferential tax rates.
And although the government--and certain citizens or segments of society--may argue that, by offering the preferential tax rate, it is merely trying to improve everyone's quality of life, it is doing so (if it is actually doing so at all!) at the expense of those who do not get the preferential tax rate.
And how is everyone's quality of life being improved when only certain people are receiving advantages--and when certain other people are the only ones who have to pay for it?
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 10:56 AM
|
#2798
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
It's nice to have these discussions regardless.
|
I appreciate the discussion that we've had. I don't think that I have anything else to write in response to your comments.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to HockeyIlliterate For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-14-2016, 12:21 PM
|
#2799
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
This isn't about raising taxes. This is about stopping corporations from taking advantage of government programs by paying their employees obscenely, inhumanely low wages. Companies aren't going to magically pay employees well out of the goodness of their hearts, so without some kind of cap on CEO/executive pay, these companies are going to just keep shoving low wage workers farther and farther into poverty, more and more low wage workers are going to depend on the government to cover their basic needs, and then people like you and me get to pay the difference.
|
While I agree CEO pay has become excessive, cutting that pay won't do anything to put more money in the pockets of average workers. $4 million split among 20,000 employees is a negligible amount. The problem is that capital has become stronger than labour in sectors where there's lots of available labour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
But if we make these multinational corporations pay decent wages, then that takes a lot of pressure off of the government and taxpayers. Let Walmart pay their own workers, they've got the money. Because when Walmart pays their employees properly--those employees have more money and can afford to shop somewhere other than Walmart. Those employees now have spending power to buy new cars, new homes, to go on vacation. Those employees now have disposable income that goes back into the economy, and when they spend those extra dollars, they also pay sales tax on those dollars, which increases overall tax revenue, which decreases the amount that higher wage earners need to pay.
|
That sounds nice and all. But: 1) How do you make multinational corporations pay decent wages? The whole point of multinationals is they have operations all over the world in different labour environments. 2) How do you get the public onboard with paying more for stuff? Because if labour costs go up, prices go up. 3) What to do about technology? Push the cost of labour high enough and it becomes more attractive to simply replace people with automation. It's already happening - self-serve checkouts everywhere from WalMart to McDonalds. Do you forbid companies from innovating with cost-saving technology? That would require massive interventions in the economy. And if you suppress innovation by Canadian and American companies., how do you stop them from being overtaken by companies in other countries that press ahead with technological advances?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
01-14-2016, 12:30 PM
|
#2800
|
Norm!
|
I think that Hillary has run a poor campaign and has looked pretty bad on the public front. On top of that, I think if you poll people that don't think she's honest.
On top of that having Bill campaigning for her makes her look weak and like she can't fight her own battles.
Sanders has had a good campaign, I think that he's the republicans greatest hope coming out of the democratic side depending on who wins the republican race.
I think that barring a miracle, Hillary has lost any momentum that she had and Sanders needs to double down on what he's doing.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:50 AM.
|
|