Proposed tax cut
- Thread starter Blue2010
- Start date
She likes red wine and long dick. Just giving you a heads up.
Straying outside her race makes sense then.
Have el Harko keep her occupied till I get there! You know shopping and stuff.
Ya, Sake just can't compare to a nice Cabernet Sauvignon.
Right? Everyone knows Asian men don't like red wine. That's just a scientific fact.
Annuity??? LOL. Instead, just give 13% to me for my "advice" then put the rest in a money market at your local credit union.
And those same "disabled" 27 year old rednecks will come cut down trees in your yard or build your deck for approx $35/hour .. cash only, of course.
Yup. I just paid a well pump worker $345 for 1.5 hours of work that involved next to no materials. But since we had zero water for over 48 hours and I'd like to stay happily married, he could have charged me double that and I would not have complained. Which I'm pretty sure he knew
There is plenty of work out there if people want to work. Even at McDonald's, Walmart etc there is opportunity for advancement if you work hard.
I know people who work at Walmart. Most of them make decent. Their benefit package is what keeps them there. You will never get rich working at a place like that.
You won't teaching either but I get fricken tired of hearing teachers bitch about the pay. We get three months a year off. I'm not complaining.
WOW. good for you! i have never NOT EVER once heard a teacher say that. i'm not a teacher so i'm not going to choose a side but it's refreshing to hear that point of view from a TEACHER.
I worked in a lab for 9 years. Made much better money back then. But working 9 months, every holiday off, and free insurance, I got it made. I get so tired of those teacher union crazies.
And a good retirement.
But I thought an annuity was the answer to all my investment questions.
lol ok.
That's nonsense. Taxes didn't push them anywhere. The opportunity to hire what is essentially the equivalent of slave labor is what drew them there.
No one in this country should work 40 hours and not be able to afford basic necessities. Somebody has to do the shitty jobs too. The fact that a bunch of you believe that guy should continue to get crapped on so the richest one tenth of one percent can afford their second and third yachts astounds me.
...
It's not like the wealthy elites are struggling. They can afford to pay their laborers a living wage. But they aren't going to do it unless they're forced to.
This is where we differ. Just because you "work" for 40 hours shouldn't guarantee you a wage to support a family. If it's a mundane unskilled job then it can be suitable to teenagers and retirees looking to make a few extra bucks. If you actually provide some sort of value to a company, you'll be paid accordingly.
Do you listen to your own words? Forcing the wealthy elite to pay more money. Why should the government control more of what the elite does? They worked their way to the top. Who cares how many yachts they own? I'm a business owner. Should I be punished if I want two homes, or multiple boats. You forget, they pay the highest tax percentage already. And quit insinuating that Walmart pays all their people pitiful wages. It's just not true. Again, if they can't make it, find something else to do. You jack the minimal wage up to $15 bucks or so and it will destroy many small businesses. Why should I be forced to pay a man to tote lumber at the same rate as a mid skill worker? Either I eat the cost or I pass it to my client. McDonald's paying someone $15 bucks to flip burgers. What a joke.
Let's just add more government to the created issue and all problems will be solved
Ah, we see the classic fundamental difference in socioeconomic philosophy between conservatives and liberals in @Grayhead and @uncboy10's poasts.
- Democrats believe the rich have an obligation -- and must be forced by government to fulfill this obligation -- to pay for the rest of the country and close the wealth inequality to as egalitarian as possible.
- Republicans believe the wealthy should keep their money because they earned it through hard work and business acumen, and that wealth inequality is a natural part of a capitalist society.
- Democrats believe the rich have an obligation -- and must be forced by government to fulfill this obligation -- to pay for the rest of the country and close the wealth inequality to as egalitarian as possible.
- Republicans believe the wealthy should keep their money because they earned it through hard work and business acumen, and that wealth inequality is a natural part of a capitalist society.
I like a society that receives based on what you put into it. I do not support a system based on mooching whatever you can. It's called accountability. I know some can't help themselves. I tend to look out for those in "need" I pay my taxes, give to charity, pay my tithes to my local church, and give donations above that. I tip at restaurants based on the level of service I get. I sit on a deacon board at my church and see tons of people looking for a hand out. Lib mentality is I still owe others more because the opted for less in life.
You're capable of better. At least try to act like you actually have some objective understanding of other's ideas.
IF we're gonna play this stupid game then its my turn.
Republicans/conservatives think that our government should be for sale, and that businesses should be able to do unlimited harm without any repercussions or oversight. They are market fundamentalists that believe in economic theories that have been repeatedly discredited. They think laborers who want to be paid a working wage are lazy scum. Obviously that's the only excuse for not making more money. They have no concept of wealth inequality, and like to pretend that it has been static for all of human history. All facts on the current economic conditions of working class people are a lie. Inflation is a lie. People should totally be able to survive on 7 bucks an hour and pollution is a myth. Hydrocarbons are good for the environment and atmosphere and we should burn as much coal as we possibly can.
This kind of shit is a waste of time.
Trying to minimize the cost of labor to increase somebody else's profits has to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen working class people do. I mean those corporate/banking executives are REALLY struggling, and they work sooooooo hard.... All these corporations making record profits definitely could not afford to pay people a living wage... (eye roll)
The hell are you on about? All I did was spell out the basic philosophical belief of each party.
Republicans --> government believes it should minimize taxation and thus individuals keep more of their wealth
Democrats --> government has a responsibility to shrink income inequality, believing the wealthiest citizens should carry the taxation burden
Both philosophies believe their approach is the best way to improve the lives of the entire populace.
Tip: calm the fukk down before talking politics. I don't even WANT to get in a heated argument, and now I'm forced to because your hostility level is at a 10 right from the start.
It's pretty basic economic theory and common sense to know that you have to regulate and unionize to force capitalists to pay people a working wage. They won't ever do it out of the goodness of their hearts, because the corporate model is based off of a single principle, maximizing profit. They will pay employees the lowest wages they can possibly get away with, to the point of outsourcing every damn job they have. Force them to pay more, and force them to hire American or tax every damn good they produce at 99% when it re-enters the country. Dont like it? Do business elsewhere. There are plenty of businessmen out there with the actual skills to create profit without needed underpaid labor.
...
There are three primary variables for understanding macroeconomics. The price of labor, the price of goods, and the profit extracted by capitalists. For Z (profit) to remain the same, and for X (wages) to increase, then Y (the costs of goods) has to go up. The problem is, Z has gone through the roof. Corporate profits have completely tipped the scales in one direction. All of the evidence shows this. Corporate profits are at record highs. Buying power for average wages as well as minimum wage has plummeted with inflation yet the wages have remained static. This really isn't that complicated.
...
There are three primary variables for understanding macroeconomics. The price of labor, the price of goods, and the profit extracted by capitalists. For Z (profit) to remain the same, and for X (wages) to increase, then Y (the costs of goods) has to go up. The problem is, Z has gone through the roof. Corporate profits have completely tipped the scales in one direction. All of the evidence shows this. Corporate profits are at record highs. Buying power for average wages as well as minimum wage has plummeted with inflation yet the wages have remained static. This really isn't that complicated.
Well you can't just cut out the part where I say "If were gonna play this stupid game"
No, you spelled out your highly biased view of what those philosophies are in an attempt to clearly paint one in a negative light. If you want to make your arguments that way then that's fine. But don't try to act like you're establishing some objective baseline for opposing viewpoints on economic theory.
Your understanding of economics is as narrow as the gap between your eyes. Yeah exactly. FORCING the wealthy elite to pay working class people a wage they can actually live on. Because greedy pigs aren't going to give up those wages voluntarily. No they'll cry about how there's nothing wrong with wanting that second yacht, then turn around in the next sentence and tell you they can't afford higher wages because it'll put them out of business. Sound familiar?
Haha how is it that all these rich businessmen can't afford to pay people living wages, but can afford extreme luxuries? Weird.
.....I pretty much painted as broadly as possible with my definitions. I was intentionally trying to be neutral. Oh hwell.
This just isn't true. You don't need to regulate or unionize to get corporations to pay commensurate value to employees. If you'd like them to be paid more than they're worth - then yes, you need to artificially intervene with the market forces and mandate higher wages.
Correct. They won't give up profits out of the goodness of their hearts. And honestly - why should they? Why is it the business' responsibility to make sure that the guy that takes out the trash in the warehouse can afford a car and a house? He's certainly not giving them a car and house's worth of value. If a business makes $100, and can produce its product/service at a cost of $20 and take profit of $80 - why should they say, let's just split it 50-50?
If there's another company out there that finds more value in the employees, and can pay them more money while making more profit - they'll wipe out the first company anyways.
Ya, you really propped up the Republican/Conservative viewpoint in your poasts.
There are millions of people with more than adequate skills to earn a living who can't do so. Experienced, trained middle aged workers have been relegated to fast food jobs just to try to keep themselves fed. I'm sure that you're familiar with this phenomenon. The idea that all, or even most, workers are being compensated fairly based on the value they create for the company is absurd to me. The entire concept of capitalism is built on the idea of getting more production out of laborers than you are paying them for.
Corporations don't need to give up profits out of the goodness of their hearts. Its long term self interest. The working class drives production and consumption. The idea that the majority of the profit from the economic activity of 300 million people should end up in the hands of .1% of the population isn't just morally obscene, its unsustainable.
My "objective" definition of conservative economic theory was obviously sarcasm and I prefaced it as such.
Ignoring those that choose to take fast food type jobs on their own out of laziness (or less cynically: a desire for a less stressful, less demanding, easier going job with set hours) - the people to which you refer simply aren't valuable enough to warrant the pay you expect them to get. Just because they're qualified doesn't entitle them to being paid.
Suppose you pay a guy $50 to cut your lawn, and he does a very fine job cutting it on his own. Then me and THN show up at your house and say "Hey man, we've been cutting lawns since we were 5, and are really good at it, but just can't get hired anywhere else", are you all of a sudden gonna pay all 3 of us $50 each to still just cut the same lawn? That'd be stupid on your part - but is exactly what you're asking these businesses to do by employing people they don't need, and paying them all money for producing no extra value.
If you think it's unsustainable, then just let them keep doing it, and the evil corporations will destroy themselves with their own greed then. Problem solved.
However, as you know - it is certainly sustainable. Just because the top .1% is making a lot of money doesn't mean that their employees aren't making fair wages, that they'll continue to be willing to provide production in exchange for moving forward.
Your view of economics is as slanted to the left as one can be. Who do you think is going to pay for a massive minimal wage hike? It will be you in the goods you buy. Your foolish theory of let's punish the fat cats in our country is typical left speak. Your theory basically states our government needs to step in and hold these corps at gunpoint till all profits are drained, force them to over pay wages, and refuse to let them go overseas to find ways to keep their money. All the while already paying the highest tax of anyone.
How about starting your venomous rant on the government itself, to include the IRS. Especially focus on your beloved party who dabbles in this discussion for votes. Thankfully we do have a democracy that won't allow such rigid views as yours to rule.
You can't "force" companies to pay higher rates without it affecting the actual cost of goods. If you took that the cost of this yacht you keep referring to, and divide the cost between all the people Walmart employees, it would equal pennies. Forcing things like this on corps only results in them exploring ways around it.
Example: if you have full time employees and over x amount of them, you are forced to provide health insurance for them.
Corps, ok everyone now works below the full time threshold. See how forcing someone to do something works.
People aren't "choosing" to take these jobs. At least not most of them. You need to stop convincing yourself that anyone who is struggling is just lazy or unqualified. Qualified, hard working people get laid off too. I'm happy for you that you've had enough success in your life to form this bias, but it's just flat out wrong.
The .1% "making a lot of money" isn't the problem, and you know that wasn't my point. The top earners will always "make a lot of money." Its about the share of the economy they take up in proportion to the rest of the population. It certainly is not sustainable for over 90% of all new wealth to go to one tenth of one percent. Concentration of wealth will bring about the demise of capitalism long before automation and AI do if these practices keep.
...
In all seriousness what is the conservative socioeconomic solution to AI and advanced robotics essentially eliminating the need for human labor?
My theory doesn't state anything of the sort. Government should regulate prices and wages to make it impossible for these corporations to hike up prices, or pay people below a living wage. If you can't do business in those conditions then you will go out of business. Sorry, tough shit. That isn't punishment, its accountability. In the middle of the 20th century, Americans were paid wages that proportionally would take a giant $hit on what people are making today. Business did just fine.
Also less people, less taxes, less moochers on the system. People back then starved if they didn't work or planted gardens. It's different times.
