Republicans survive Recall effort in WI, what will happen in PA, PGH? (foreclosed, credit)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by hnsq

Oh, personally I have researched the justifications for progressive taxation, but they all seemed like people with less money whining about not having as much as those with more.

Some very rich people have made the case for progressive taxation. We've even been discussing such a person in this thread.

In fact, I'd dare say it is really the opposite that is more common. Most of the arguments for progressive taxation are not really punitive in nature at all. But some of the people who pay higher marginal taxes start "whining" about the unfairness of it all--although again, many wealthy people are actually fine with it, and in fact argue for it.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by hnsq

I think the recent financial crises should have showed anyone that Friedman and co. got it wrong regarding economic theory...

Well, certainly Greenspan (a Randian) did.

Edit: By the way, I think it is sort of amusing that we have decades of an increasingly top-heavy income distribution preceding a huge recession, and the response of some people is "We need even more of that!"

Hair of the dog, I guess.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

sick leave and vacations, etc. begin to disappear.

These two are already happening, at least at a local level. I've worked at corporations at various points in my career with zero PTO of any kind. I did the only thing I could, told them to go f*ck themselves and got a new job with better benefits. It's incredibly risky financially but you have no other choice if you want to increase your quality of life.

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Well, certainly Greenspan (a Randian) did.

Edit: By the way, I think it is sort of amusing that we have decades of an increasingly top-heavy income distribution preceding a huge recession, and the response of some people is "We need even more of that!"

Hair of the dog, I guess.

I am looking at things from a fairness point of view. I have the mindset that the more we hand out to people, the less incentive they have to earn anything for themselves. For example, why do you think so many people on UI never even look for jobs under $10/hr?

If there was a 3 mo. max on UI, those who are unemployed would actually have an incentive to look for work. That is just one example, but I think you get the picture.

I support fairness and personal responsibility. Unfortunately those are two things that most people don't want today.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by hnsq

For example, why do you think so many people on UI never even look for jobs under $10/hr?

So wait, you would want people making more on unemployment benefits (that they've paid into their entire working lives) to look for a job that pays them less and could potentially hurt their career? That's a bad investment and no logical person would hurt themselves further financially just on principle.

I just think people need a priority check when it comes to issues like this. They're going after the wrong targets and its easy to see how the "divide and conquer" class warfare strategy is being used with great success.

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

So wait, you would want people making more on unemployment benefits (that they've paid into their entire working lives) to look for a job that pays them less and could potentially hurt their career? That's a bad investment and no logical person would hurt themselves further financially just on principle.

I just think people need a priority check when it comes to issues like this. They're going after the wrong targets and its easy to see how the "divide and conquer" class warfare strategy is being used with great success.

I would want people making the same on a monthly basis as they do now, but to not get benefits for nearly two years. If a person is actually trying, it does not take two years to find a job.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

So wait, you would want people making more on unemployment benefits (that they've paid into their entire working lives) to look for a job that pays them less and could potentially hurt their career? That's a bad investment and no logical person would hurt themselves further financially just on principle.
.

I believe the employer pays the UI and being unemployed arguably looks worse on the resume.

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Some very rich people have made the case for progressive taxation. We've even been discussing such a person in this thread.

In fact, I'd dare say it is really the opposite that is more common. Most of the arguments for progressive taxation are not really punitive in nature at all. But some of the people who pay higher marginal taxes start "whining" about the unfairness of it all--although again, many wealthy people are actually fine with it, and in fact argue for it.

Some very rich people have called for progressive taxation, and look at what it has gotten us? A bloated underclass that does not know how to rely on itself! Maybe it is time to try something different for a change.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Some very rich people have made the case for progressive taxation. We've even been discussing such a person in this thread.

In fact, I'd dare say it is really the opposite that is more common. Most of the arguments for progressive taxation are not really punitive in nature at all. But some of the people who pay higher marginal taxes start "whining" about the unfairness of it all--although again, many wealthy people are actually fine with it, and in fact argue for it.

Are you sure it's "many" that are fine with it, and only "some" that whine?

I recall what inspired George Harrison's song "Taxman" was when he discovered that his earnings placed him in the 95% tax bracket in the UK. He did whine about it being unfair.

I just don't see how taking a large portion of a high income earner's wealth can be construed as "fair". Why is the government entitled to taking a larger portion as a percentage than from others?

[ditchdigger]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

I see the gradual decline of the middle class.

The rich are getting richer and the middle class, the working class, and the poor are getting poorer.

We are slowly inching our way back to the year 1890.

Not only do I see the decline in unions and collective bargaining, but I can see things like Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Medicare, paid sick leave and vacations, etc. begin to disappear. It won't happen overnight, but it's happening.

Notice: Sweeping generalizations follow...

In the not so very distant past, Dad worked and supported Mom and all the kids. When junior needed braces, the hard decision came, and the family had to forego that new car for a couple of years. That was life in the middle class, and nobody really had a problem with the fact that the company that Dad worked for was owned by a millionaire.

Today, Mom and Dad both work, and junior's going to grow up with crooked teeth, because the hard decision is whether to pay the electric bill, or put gas in the 10 year old car. That's life in the middle class. The CEO is a billionaire.

How surprising that some people have a problem with that...