NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 15, 2011 23:10:59 GMT -5
Well, when workers form an union and offer their labor for a certain wage, they have fulfilled their responsibility. It a company accepts that wage - high as it may be - it is up to the company to make sure that it earns a profit while bearing the burden of that wage. That their responsibility. You can't make companies responsible, I have seen companies do fine ith high wages in the past who are now struggling even with low wages. By the way, I don;t believe a word of the above. I am just mirroring your argument so that you can see how ridiculous it is. So you're saying people do not have the responsibility to live within the wage they accepted? Well, there might be an issue right there... And the union thing is a fun little play on my previous post, but with unions now protesting and suing the government (and businesses) from being responsible and declining their wage/benefit offers, I'd say that your response is pretty poor. I am saying that the free market will often push wages down - especially at the low skill end - to an extent where people are reduced to subsistence. They still accept that, as something is better than nothing. But for a human being to stand by and do nothing when another human being is living in such wretched condition is, well, inhuman.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 16, 2011 8:24:45 GMT -5
So you're saying people do not have the responsibility to live within the wage they accepted? Well, there might be an issue right there... And the union thing is a fun little play on my previous post, but with unions now protesting and suing the government (and businesses) from being responsible and declining their wage/benefit offers, I'd say that your response is pretty poor. I am saying that the free market will often push wages down - especially at the low skill end - to an extent where people are reduced to subsistence. They still accept that, as something is better than nothing. But for a human being to stand by and do nothing when another human being is living in such wretched condition is, well, inhuman. Ummm...demanding the government step in, take money from one group and give it to another, is still pretty much standing by and doing nothing about the condition. It's like saying "would you just give them some money so I don't actually have to DO anything myself? Except not my money!!! Take that rich guy's money!"
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 16, 2011 21:41:09 GMT -5
That's the trouble living in a democracy. Greatest good for the greatest number rules. But in Pakistan only 2% pays taxes. It has very limited govt, pretty much defense and that's it. They are super conservative too, abortion is illegal, and everyone is a patriot. You like USA to be like that?
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 7:07:57 GMT -5
That's the trouble living in a democracy. Greatest good for the greatest number rules. But in Pakistan only 2% pays taxes. It has very limited govt, pretty much defense and that's it. They are super conservative too, abortion is illegal, and everyone is a patriot. You like USA to be like that? Yes when you are given aid for civil, military, and restoration projects on a yearly bases only the very wealthy need to pay taxes (because the monetary aid is going not to the people but the wealthiest people) Between 2002-2010, Pakistan received approximately 18 billion[6] in military and economic aid from the United States. In February 2010, the Obama administration requested an additional 3 billion in aid, for a total of 20.7 billion.[7] How much monetary aid does the US receive from other countries? Not how much do we borrow, how much is given to the US coffers with no strings attached?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 8:15:11 GMT -5
So you don't like Pakistan, eh? Well then you are stuck with good ole' USA with progressive taxes.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 8:16:29 GMT -5
So you don't like Pakistan, eh? Well then you are stuck with good ole' USA with progressive taxes. So are you just trolling for zero purpose this morning? In every thread you have posted 2 things Jack and squat, back to doing nothing to move a conversation along or even having a mostly coherent conversation.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 8:21:31 GMT -5
All I am doing, my friend, is reminding conservatives that as much as they complain they would rather live here than in a country like Pakistan. So, perhaps they should stop wishing that USA becomes a country like Pakistan.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 9:18:08 GMT -5
All I am doing, my friend, is reminding conservatives that as much as they complain they would rather live here than in a country like Pakistan. So, perhaps they should stop wishing that USA becomes a country like Pakistan. pointless bable.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 9:18:58 GMT -5
Do you want USA to become like Pakistan, then?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 17, 2011 10:38:37 GMT -5
The middle class living within their means. If the middle class is saving negative 3%, it's tough to build wealth that way.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 17, 2011 10:45:52 GMT -5
Pakistan has a progressive tax system. Individuals are taxed from 10-35%. But tax fraud is a major problem there. Tax fraud in the US isn't nearly as much of an issue, and to the extent it is, it's largely the middle & lower class via non reporting of income like tips or cash payments of goods and services.
So, it's not the existence of a progressive system but rather the lack of wide spread fraud - rendering your comment irrelevant and incorrect.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 10:47:18 GMT -5
In reality, 2% of Pakistanis pay any taxes. You can claim that there is a progressive taxation system, just like you can claim that there is heavy taxation on corporations in the USA. Both would be BS.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 10:47:46 GMT -5
The middle class living within their means. If the middle class is saving negative 3%, it's tough to build wealth that way. What if their income is not enough to live on?
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 10:48:54 GMT -5
The middle class living within their means. If the middle class is saving negative 3%, it's tough to build wealth that way. What if their income is not enough to live on? 2 options: 1. Increase income 2. Decrease out go.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 17:04:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 11:04:48 GMT -5
Comparing our tax rate & other countries tax rate is comparing apples & oranges.
First off communist & socialist countries by their very nature produce less than we do. Less goods means more taxes because you don't get to raise taxes on those goods produced when they are sold. That means we can get by with a much lower tax rate & still generate large amounts of capital for the government to spend. (Sadly our government just spends way more than they take in). I would make the general statement that no government manages money well nor do they manage programs well. The more government involvement you have the higher taxes you need because of waste & abuse.
Now one would think that the longer a program runs the more streamlined it would become & the more the people in charge could tweak the program to cut out waste & abuse. In business that could really be assumed to happen. In government programs the opposite happens. We got more waste & more abuse. We've had Medicare how long & yet we still read about abuses of that program & the same is true for the welfare system.
My guess is that most liberals have never lived overseas but rather they have read or dreamed of the systems they have heard about. Sadly those systems come at a high price & are not as efficient as our system. They offer something perceived as "free" but it comes at a great cost (both hidden & obvious). My guess is that a few years living in those systems (compared to the one in place here) & they will squeal like pigs or be so dumb that they wouldn't even understand that they were being raped.
Anything we say here is really a waste because those pushing those systems know more about them (even though they have never lived there or even truly understand the oppressive taxes charged) & feel that they know better. They also don't understand that the principles on which the U.S. government is set up have to be changed in order to pay for more of those socialist type programs. When push comes to shove we will end up with with we end up with. I predict either a path leading back to the vision of our founding fathers or one leading into the European socials type system.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 11:06:16 GMT -5
What if their income is not enough to live on? 2 options: 1. Increase income 2. Decrease out go. Increase income is a good option. You in favor of $35 minimum wage?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 11:07:48 GMT -5
Oldtex, Good point. That's why I recommend that conservatives go and live int he low tax mecca of Pakistan. It is also deeply religious with high moral values where abortion is illegal. Win-win.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 17, 2011 11:24:54 GMT -5
Being middle class, by income standards alone, means your income is high enough to live on. Maybe not the life that you **want** but "you can't always get what you want". Having grown up poor, it's easy to see the middle class pissing away all their money on useless shit.
There is heavy taxation on US companies [federal isn't the only tax]. Can you prove otherwise without posting some stupid story about a company having a low tax rate because it utilized its capital loss carry forwards? Look at the financial statements of the companies you read about. There is a tax note in the financials that explain the taxes presented in the financial statements. It's generally written at a high school level, which I know you exceed if you have an economics background.
2% of Paki's paying taxes [taking your stat as accurate] is due to tax fraud. The solution to increase that figure is to punish tax fraud, not increase tax rates. We don't have that problem in the US. You eluded that the progressive tax system is the difference between a United States versus Pakistan. That's just not true.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 17, 2011 11:27:53 GMT -5
$70k is a living wage in your opinion? Sounds like you're out of touch with reality.
I'm in favor of them working two jobs and making themselves more valuable to an employer; earning an increase income instead of requiring the government to force companies to pay employees an income they can't possibly earn.
You only end up with higher unemployment with your proposed situation. Companies are only going to spend $x on employees. If you force them to give $x to 10 employees instead of 15 then those 10 employees will finish the work of 15 people and the other 5 will be unemployed.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 17, 2011 11:34:04 GMT -5
Or a one way trip to France and the UK for liberals that want implement similar social programs here. Haven't met many that have actually lived in these types of countries that would promote the system in the US.
They begin to see that it actually costs money for these services and governments there actually tax the poor and low/mid middle class. Add in the lack of quality in the product received in return, most end up seeing that there is no such thing as a free ride.
A lesson that everyone should learn early.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 11:34:46 GMT -5
2 options: 1. Increase income 2. Decrease out go. Increase income is a good option. You in favor of $35 minimum wage? Nope I'm in favor of them finding 2nd or 3rd jobs.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 17, 2011 11:42:55 GMT -5
The consumer pays all corporate taxes, all taxes paid by consumer - every last one. It is a fact like gravity
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 17, 2011 11:54:37 GMT -5
This is certainly a fact but it's much easier to hide from your dumbed down citizens that you are being taxed if you present it that bad corporations are being taxed more.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 11:57:51 GMT -5
Increase income is a good option. You in favor of $35 minimum wage? Nope I'm in favor of them finding 2nd or 3rd jobs. What if there are not enough jobs for everyone, even first jobs?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 11:59:37 GMT -5
Or a one way trip to France and the UK for liberals that want implement similar social programs here. Haven't met many that have actually lived in these types of countries that would promote the system in the US. They begin to see that it actually costs money for these services and governments there actually tax the poor and low/mid middle class. Add in the lack of quality in the product received in return, most end up seeing that there is no such thing as a free ride. A lesson that everyone should learn early. You really want to compare the quality of medical care between low tax Pakistan and high tax France/UK? Seriously? I have absolutely no doubt that social safety nets cost a bunch of money. I am totally OK with higher taxes.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 12:01:15 GMT -5
$70k is a living wage in your opinion? Sounds like you're out of touch with reality. I'm in favor of them working two jobs and making themselves more valuable to an employer; earning an increase income instead of requiring the government to force companies to pay employees an income they can't possibly earn. You only end up with higher unemployment with your proposed situation. Companies are only going to spend $x on employees. If you force them to give $x to 10 employees instead of 15 then those 10 employees will finish the work of 15 people and the other 5 will be unemployed. So, when the low paid employees go find second jobs, they don't displace he employees who had those jobs as their first jobs. I see now. What if there are not even enough first jobs for everyone, like in the USA today? Will the second and third jobs fall out of the sky?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 12:06:41 GMT -5
Being middle class, by income standards alone, means your income is high enough to live on. Maybe not the life that you **want** but "you can't always get what you want". Having grown up poor, it's easy to see the middle class pissing away all their money on useless shit. There is heavy taxation on US companies [federal isn't the only tax]. Can you prove otherwise without posting some stupid story about a company having a low tax rate because it utilized its capital loss carry forwards? Look at the financial statements of the companies you read about. There is a tax note in the financials that explain the taxes presented in the financial statements. It's generally written at a high school level, which I know you exceed if you have an economics background. 2% of Paki's paying taxes [taking your stat as accurate] is due to tax fraud. The solution to increase that figure is to punish tax fraud, not increase tax rates. We don't have that problem in the US. You eluded that the progressive tax system is the difference between a United States versus Pakistan. That's just not true. reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.phpLook at the average corporate tax rate. It's less than 20%. You may whine that it is due to tax loopholes and the statutory rate is higher. Well, loopholes are reality, just as it is reality that 2% of Pakistanis pay taxes so Pakistan is a low tax haven. You want lower taxes in the USA? Live in Pakistan for a few years see the wretchedness that such a low real tax rate brings. If you think your grew up poor, live like a poor in a low tax country like Pakistan. Then we will talk about how much you love low taxes.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 17, 2011 12:10:01 GMT -5
All the created wealth in this country comes from the employment of labor and capital. Speculation and monopoly or legal special privalege drain that wealth to the detriment of labor and capital without employing either. There is no reason to have low paying jobs when the world is so undersupplied in needs and wants for a better life of its people. The only reason not enough jobs exist is because of speculation. Tax speculation into oblivion.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 12:16:35 GMT -5
All the created wealth in this country comes from the employment of labor and capital. Speculation and monopoly or legal special privalege drain that wealth to the detriment of labor and capital without employing either. There is no reason to have low paying jobs when the world is so undersupplied in needs and wants for a better life of its people. The only reason not enough jobs exist is because of speculation. Tax speculation into oblivion. What do you have against buying overpriced Florida real estate and selling them for a loss?
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 17, 2011 12:23:32 GMT -5
Nothing, overpriced real estate in all the previous depressions and recessions, including this one, was brought about by speculation. In this one, the financial system, through fraud in the securitization process encouraged the origionators etal to commit crimes for the easy (speculative) cash. - now we all carry the bag through fascist corporate policy or , if you like, corporate socialism. Sorry for not using spell check.
|
|