Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as wages, you're right. It's not cheating. But we can't have a min wage several times higher than the market rate in China and expect that not to cause a shortage of jobs here. So we either don't have a min wage or we have tariffs. But American labor is more valuable. Even without min wage, our wages would be higher than China. As far as environmental regulations, we should tax imports, if they aren't green enough.
Or instead of having a min wage, don't allow anyone who can work to collect unemployment or welfare. They should work in factories at lower than min wage and then they can receive unemployment or welfare to cover the gap between their wages and the cost of living.
Which is an attractive policy, "gas, *** or grass, no one rides for free"! But, I wonder what impact such a policy might have on competing business models? Might that not drive wages down? Or might it bring Nike factories back to the states?
By subsidizing private business are you then creating a state run economy? maybe not the simple solution it appears.
but evening out the wealth in America? as in taxing the top 10% more?
That's just wrong. pschhhhhhh.
that's socialism / communism / unnecessary / goes against the American Dream / stops economic growth (BS) / and the real kicker, UNAMERICAN.
Really? How do you feel about taxing them less?
You figure they are taxed just the perfect amount right now? How'd that happen? Happenstance?
Which is an attractive policy, "gas, *** or grass, no one rides for free"! But, I wonder what impact such a policy might have on competing business models? Might that not drive wages down? Or might it bring Nike factories back to the states?
By subsidizing private business are you then creating a state run economy? maybe not the simple solution it appears.
You're right. But that's what food stamps does, right? If you are employed and have a low enough income, you get food stamps. That's fine by me. They are working. So they should be able to eat.
I heard somewhere that min wage (by markets) is essentially the same as slavery. They both need to keep workers alive so they can continue to work. Crude, but true.
Semantics aside, I would suggest that creating a tax code that favors dividend and capital gains recipients is in practice a "purposeful (re)distribution". Unless you surmise that those who wrote those changes were too stupid to understand the implications.
A strong reason for that is the money has already been taxed as corporate profits and is now being taxed again when distributed to shareholders. Capital Gains are taxed lower to encourage investment in business giving them the capital base to expand etc etc etc. Remember companies go public to raise cash to work with to further develop the business. My buying that stock comes with a risk of losing money not associated with earned income wages. There is more to all of this than just paying taxes to fund government operations.
As far as wages, you're right. It's not cheating. But we can't have a min wage several times higher than the market rate in China and expect that not to cause a shortage of jobs here. So we either don't have a min wage or we have tariffs. But American labor is more valuable. Even without min wage, our wages would be higher than China. As far as environmental regulations, we should tax imports, if they aren't green enough.
Or instead of having a min wage, don't allow anyone who can work to collect unemployment or welfare. They should work in factories at lower than min wage and then they can receive unemployment or welfare to cover the gap between their wages and the cost of living.
So across America companies get smart and start laying workers off at their current salaries. They become unemployed and now come back to work at lower than minimum wage? How long do you thing it would take business owners to figure this out? So then the cost of getting wages up to minimum wage becomes a greater societal burden instead of the employer paying them?
Take a professional couple making $250K a year, after exemptions and deductions they will still pay 28% on the amount over $142,700. Twice what the 15% a wealthy investor pays on capital gains. Whether you think that 15% rate is a good thing or not, it can hardly be considered "progressive", by comparison.
15% tax is incentive for the professional couple to invest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
You do realize that "true conservatives" consider that $23,850 the taxpayers (your employer) put into your pension account to be socialism at work, right? Thank goodness for liberals or you'd be forced to subsist solely on those other "socialist" programs, Medicare and Social Security. But, hey no worries, you should be able to save enough on your $45.5 salary to be rich someday,given the power of "compounding".
There are likely plenty of "conservatives" supporting employer investment/match in their employees' retirement profit-plans, as it is a major way to shelter owners' income and grow their wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelieveIt
nothing will change unless we vote people INTO OFFICE who studied mathematics, economics, statistics, and so
These people know they'll make more money staying in the business sector, while still being able to heavily influence govt. policy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Which is an attractive policy, "gas, *** or grass, no one rides for free"! But, I wonder what impact such a policy might have on competing business models? Might that not drive wages down?
Yes, that is exactly what is happening in certain industries that use free prison labor - wages and product prices are being brought down - putting their U.S. competitors out of business and local, non-prison employees out of a job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
A strong reason for that is the money has already been taxed as corporate profits and is now being taxed again when distributed to shareholders. Capital Gains are taxed lower to encourage investment in business giving them the capital base to expand etc etc etc. Remember companies go public to raise cash to work with to further develop the business. My buying that stock comes with a risk of losing money not associated with earned income wages. There is more to all of this than just paying taxes to fund government operations.
Agree- capital gains should be lower as an incentive to take on the risk of investing in business...
Again local and state government has found wealth is mobile and can move away from you to avoid taxation. As we are learning with corporate taxes wealth can move away from you to avoid taxation. As we may soon be learning national wealth can easily move away to avoid taxes. Just as there are local and state governments welcoming wealth with open arms and lower taxes their are countries doing the same. Just follow the ads for Belize and watch what England and others are trying to do to attract wealth in Europe. Singapore and Hong Kong are great this time of year and the list goes on. Heck just follow the retirement forum for awhile and see how many of geezers are looking for LOW tax places to retire and take our bucks to. Look at the states that have done away with and those considering doing away state income tax and minimum if any corporate tax to attract folks. Yup a higher sales tax that everyone pays their share of.
nothing will change unless we vote people INTO OFFICE who studied mathematics, economics, statistics, and so INSTEAD of people who did political science, history, english, pre-law and such.
Take a good luck at your supervisors, mayors, governors, senators, representatives.........
They're usually lawyers. or trust fund babies who deal under the table.
but evening out the wealth in America? as in taxing the top 10% more?
That's just wrong. pschhhhhhh.
that's socialism / communism / unnecessary / goes against the American Dream / stops economic growth (BS) / and the real kicker, UNAMERICAN.
As technology advances, the 21st century might look more like the 19th, with the bulk of the populace living as peasants or laborers, a small middle class of merchants and artisans, and the moneyed aristocracy on top.
<snip>
I don’t want to live in a vast world of have-nots run by a thin sliver of overlords, but have we given due consideration that precisely such a world has been the normal and natural human condition for the past 5000 years?
DISCLAIMER: As I said in my OP, I am no expert on economics. The following post contains my thoughts on how it "seems to me." Feel free to correct me (gently please)
Now, in reference to ohio_peasants statements which I quoted:
But with all of the technological advances, why should anyone live like 19th century peasants? Everything from food to to clothing to lumber for houses can now be produced with far fewer man-hours than in the past, so it seems there should be plenty of low-cost "stuff" for everyone to have a decent standard of living.
However, a big part of the problem seems to be precisely BECAUSE of that technology. BECAUSE fewer man-hours are needed to produce "stuff," there is higher unemployment. The people who created the technology, the people who are in management and higher positions, have generally prospered. But yesteryear's factory workers, laborers, etc.. who made a decent living once upon a time, are hurting. High unemployment = less income tax paid, less sales tax collected. That leads to govt budget woes, right? And now it has led to sequestration?
I was reading an article just this week about sequestration causing thousands of teachers to possibly lose their jobs. So, with so many people unemployed, even if there is plenty of "low cost stuff" like I mentioned above, these folks won't have income to buy ANYTHING.
It just seems like a vicious cycle, spiraling out of control. And then when I see a video like the one in my original post, it all seems so wrong and frustrating. Instead of "the rich getting richer while the poor are getting poorer," it seems like we should all be able to rise. NOT that we should all have income equality or wealth equality. But everyone's standard of living should be rising in today's technologically advanced world.
That's my non-expert opinion. Or maybe just my wishful thinking.
If I earn $100,000 a year and someone else earns $1,000,000 a year, yes there is wealth disparity but so what? And it's a factor of 10 but so what? I should be able to do fine with my $100,000.
All you have to do is look around and see that almost everyone, including kids in middle school today have cell phones, and most of the so-called poor have cable television, very many of the so-called poor today have air conditioners, big screen televisions. There is an abundance of clothes, the poor shop at the same malls as the upper class. No one has holes in their shoes, no one sews on patches any more. Many of the so-called poor drive cars that are newer than 5 years old, many so-called wealthy drive cars that are older than 15 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
