Liberals? Dems? Would you support this? (wage, health care, Boxer, Canada)

[James Bond 007]

No NY_refugee, you are trying to make it sound less complicated than it realistically needs to be.

[le roi]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

No NY_refugee, you are trying to make it sound less complicated than it realistically needs to be.

Don't you see? We can just squeeze everybody's job duties into GOVERNMENT FORMS

It's SO EASY

[Sharks With Lasers]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

There is alot of fake outrage over Trump Tax Plan.
Without being condescending and without being insulting or Rude would you support this?

Taxes NY_Refugee style.

First and foremost. END of Capital Gains tax. Completely. Done. If you buy a house, fix it, sell it in a year a month break even, make profit, whatever, go you! Or we can Limit the capital gains tax (feed back I am looking for feedback.)

0-5% Federal corporate tax rate. This rate is too low to fund our government effectively.
To qualify for this a corporation must
1. Prove 100% employment of American Citizens. While hiring American citizens is good, this is not letting the market drive demand.
2. Provide a plan of expansion (much like when you or I walk in for a small business loan) Not all businesses need to expand. Some provide essential, consistent services.
3. Must Prove at the least 60% of employees in Non Management roles clearing 55-65k per year. While I'm all for decent wage jobs, this requirement interferes with market demand for employment, and is not realistic given our current average wages.
4. Must have on the job training. Deductions for paying for employee training/certification/license fees if covered. The incentive will be to circumvent spending YOUR money on college. Kind of like how a hospital will take on a CNA and pay for their ongoing education earn and learn program. With proof of a fair wage.
Doesn't have to be for skilled trades. Could be a software programmer/code writer to customer service agent/representative/hotline/helpline. Whatever. No longer have to completely rely on a mandatory college degree to be able to make it. Goal isn't to kill college. Goal is to get more folks opportunity. I'm okay with a tax break for corporations that provide on the job training.
5. Must have On shore In the country Production. No more sweat shops. No more running to foreign lands to produce goods to have final assembly occur here in the states. Total start to finish. Not 98% done in country x and the final assembly occur here. I mean total complete start to finish Made In America. Laudable, but again, not realistic with market demand. People aren't going to buy $37 t-shirts to support #3, for example.

Keeping the Plan Trump put in place to undo Bill Clintons write off for 1 million+ in salaries. Meaning no more board members clearing 7-8-9 figure incomes and being a deduction. If GM were to file bankruptcy again. Sorry Buddy. Should have marketed your stuff better. Maybe if you spent some of that money on Research and Development and bringing vehicles to market that would have sold, instead of giving your CEO CFO multi million dollar raises...

Sorry Not going to bail you out unless you can make an appeal to congress and be okay with subject to scrutiny and oversight. And that's ONLY if the PUBLIC supports such.
(Goal here is to end fat cats getting fatter crying their poor decisions bankrupted them and they need a hand out to get back in the market)

Simplified Taxes.
25k and under. No taxes on Income earned from work.
If you make 25k and less on hand outs no tax return for you. Whether single. Married. Kids. No Kids. You're riding the gravy train. You simply are On the system.
28k-45k single-5% married jointly-8% Single and Kid(s) 800 per kid for a deduction. Married and Kid(s) 2k deduction.
(why the gap for 25-28k? Because you could be able to deduct from 27 to 25k same goes for the next examples Big gap for 45-90k right? If you earn closer to 45k you fall in that rate. If you earn closer to 90k you get taxed at that rate)
90k-205k single-8% Married Jointly-12% Kids are no longer a deduction after 150k. Same rates apply as above.
225k-500k single 10% Married Jointly 14% Kids are no longer a deduction. Unless you have like 10+
500k-1 Million Single-15% Married Jointly 18% Kids are not a deduction, again unless you have like 10+
1 Million and up Single 15% Married Jointly 20% Kids are not a deduction.
I believe these tax rates are too low across the board and also at the top, contributing to income inequality.

I would have forms for various trades.

Mechanics/tradesmen who have to buy tools pertinent to their employment.
Caregivers/First responders who have to buy/pay for their uniforms pertinent to their employment.
Teachers. Yadda Yadda.

Whatever Is spent whether 2 dollars or 20k relevant to your trade it is deducted from your income. So If you spent 2k or 12k in a year on tools/equipment and grossed 50k thats deducted from your Gross? No That's deducted from after what you have been paying after tax. Unless you withhold taxes and pay at April 15th. Including anything that was financed-Its price PLUS interest and sales tax. (Snap-On MAC Matco etc)

The goal here is to curb single parent households. Why should the kids get hurt though?
The goal here is to stop taxing those who are smart and responsible. Why? Smart and responsible people are part of our country, and should be equal contributors to funding the world as dumb and irresponsible people are. The latter will be hurt anyhow.
The goal here is to stop pushing business/industry over seas while helping create jobs/trades/careers.
The goal here is to take a minimal wage job and not tax it. If you are a dishwasher making minimal wage, why be taxed if you earn 25 26 27k per year? You need to keep all of the money you can get! Why shouldn't minimum wage jobs be taxed?

Federal budget would be totally revised. First things first. I am going after the EPA. They have 1 year to conduct real science test their theory. If they need to use NASAs huge vacuum chamber to replicate a small scale of air pollution with barometric and humidity put to the test fine. No more silly spending on "research" without testing.
They then have 6 months to produce an Air filtration implement, have a budget for operating and maintaining them. Same with water. If EPA wants to exist. It will have to prove its claims of climate change, man made or natural. Without partisan sway one way or the other. Apolitical purely scientific.
I don't think you understand how science works. Many experiments require multiple years to get adequate evaluations - think of agricultural research and different weather conditions, for example. Let the scientists and the peer review process handle this.

The next would be the cutting of Federal bureaus that are not pertinent to the functioning of government.
Followed by a re-boot to NASA (because I want Jetsons flying cars damn it! LOL)
Seriously though it might pay to go do some mining out in outer-space and explore more of our solar system. Who knows... Might find a rare alloy that isn't here on earth. May find an abundance of raw materials never before seen with benefits to the biomedical field? or with benefits to the automotive industry? If the goal is alternative fuel sources. Perhaps there is an abundance of rare earth materials elsewhere. Perhaps there is lithium for your tablet/phone batteries just sitting out there on Mars/lumbering around in an asteroid or on a moon of Jupiter? Titanium etc. I think this is a NYRefugee87 fantasy, but if you're in charge of the world, why not throw it in?

I would legalize Marijuana for medical purposes and research. SO long as you idiots don't screw it up and sell out to big pharmaceutical companies to profiteer from it... You sell your weed ranch to Pfizer don't cry when they make a tablet that treats some disorder trade marked and licensed and beats yours out to market and costs $150 per pill.
Department of agriculture would have oversight that no Pesticides, no Herbicides are used to grow. Period. Purely natural or stimulated with natural minerals in hydroponics only. Absolutely no foreign chemicals are to be used what so ever. For all intents and purposes, farmers would be the only ones who pay a "tax" in the form of a Federal License to grow for medicinal purposes.
Want recreational dope? Fine. 2.5-15% tax on the sale of it. Shall never exceed 15%
Why a fluctuation?
15% on a small amount.
2.5% on a large amount.

It would pay for you pot heads to buy the devils lettuce in pounds.

If your intention is to engage in interstate commerce, selling dope online from state to state, you only pay your federal tax, plus whatever your state is going to tax it IF they want to tax it. It would be beneficial if they didn't tax the sale...

It would be treated like Alcohol. 0 tolerance policy for driving under the influence under 21. Harsh penalties for smoking and driving. Would have to contact a biomedical company to develop an accurate "breathalyzer" tester for police to be issued. Opposed to needing an intrusive blood test/urine test.
Employers would have the right to hire and fire as they please. If they want to lay off/fire workers for smoking after hours. That is their right. It is your right to seek employment that does not frown upon your habits. Can argue the whole... Muh weed and they get to drink still! Its up to them whether they allow it or not...
Also to keep folks from abusing programs designed to be a hand up and not a hand out, MANDATORY drug testing. No ifs ands or buts about it. Test positive for a substance/narcotic you were not prescribed. No assistance for you until clean and sober.

I would cut the military budget only first and only if the following conditions are met.
1. The ties that bind the military the whole "rules of engagement" hearts and minds campaign is ended. Go in. Kick ass. Get out. No more perpetual warfare.
2. No legitimate threat exists. If one does-every branch on stand by. And congress at the ready to declare war. By legitimate threat I mean Rocket Man sends a missile and it lands near Hawaii or strikes an air base/military base/embassy in South Korea Japan etc.
I think we should be making sure that the military budget goes towards actually supporting the troops, and not well-connected contractors to build weapons that we don't need.

And I would launch an Audit for transparency of ALL "not for profits" "Charity" organisations. Along with members of congress and the senate. Make Civil Servants Civil Servants Again! Not Shills on "The Hill".

I will throw you all a bone. You guys are concerned with healthcare.

I am only concerned about the cost and availability of health insurance.

If your premise is quality of care, and "access to care" which I assure you, every single hospital I have ever visited has a disclaimer that states they will not deny you quality care regardless of your ability to pay, or whether insurance covers it or not. So you have to state your concern for me to consider a "health care reform" or improvement.

Because the only thing I am concerned with is ending the ACA. Period. I will make that known Right now but hear me out.

My goal would be: Bring back the cheaper plans that were available locally before ACA came along and put those alternatives OUT of affordable reach. And kill the requirement to carry insurance with the "mandatory penalty".

If you want insurance companies to cover your expenses and not drop your coverage Fine we can work on a consumer protection reform on health insurance. We can require the insurance companies to be fair within reason. If they claim to cover this this this and this. But do not cover one of those even though they state in their contract they do. For their sake, they had better admit to an error on their end and cover it...
Because unlike how it normally would be handled... There would be a lawyer on the federal behalf and yours to nail them to the wall. And YOU would get paid first. Not the fed.
(I would do the same with OSHA too. Your husband killed on the job? OSHA doesn't get a settlement/sue and get the proceeds. They do that on YOUR behalf and YOU get the money. Not OSHA)

Most heated arguments on ACA and killing it seems to be a confusion of care vs insurance coverage and cost. Last I checked FDA regulated drugs from/to the market. And you need a license to be in medicine that proves you know what you're doing... So Unless we have some shade tree surgeons who stayed at a holiday in last night doing triple by pass and brain surgery, and Primary Care Physicians who graduated with an online degree and never had any hands on experience...
Like Trump said (although he should have known better), health care is complex, and way too subjected to political whims of those who don't understand. I have my personal opinion about it, but it sounds like you just want to go back to the system before ACA, but without the really bad stuff. Get your experts involved, crunch some numbers, see how people will be affected, and I'd make an evaluation from there.

The Goal with My tax plan seriously is to bring back production.
Bring back jobs to areas like Detroit. Chicago. Baltimore Appalachia Flyover. Or just simply to evoke ingenuity and entrepreneurship without taxing it and regulating it to death.

Jobs that can support a family comfortably. OR reward those who have a low cost of living by being smart, keeping their knees together and don't have the cost of raising brats. That way they can spend their money on goods and services.

The goal here would be to get you all to turn against your states and local town/city taxes so that Affordable housing can be had. Even if only rental apartments.

The goal here is to shrink and reduce the cost of the government. The goal here is to offer more opportunity and for you all to keep more of what you worked for instead of going to fund federal workers pensions and bureaucratic expansion. Do we really need the CIA FBI and NSA? Could make the role of the NSA be under the CIA and have the FBI focus solely on federal crimes. Period.
Can absolve the ATF too. More on that later and other "executive" bureaus that have outlived their usefulness.

Would a Liberal/Democrat support this? Think about it. Instead of socializing debt like Bernie... I'm encouraging spreading the wealth. Not Robin Hood Economics and relying on an adult in the room to protect you from yourself. I just set the guide lines in place for companies to play fairly. If they want to profit by all means profit and do so. Just don't pee down everyone's back and tell them its rain why they have stagnant wages and the federal government has to subsidize their cost of living while you have a million-10s of million salary per year. Especially when I alleviate your tax burden so long as you play ball.

My answers in red.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

NY_refugee's training system seems to want to emulate Germany's apprentice system. I think most people agree it's a good system, but it's likely hard to replicate elsewhere. Part of it is embedded in the German culture. If you want to achieve something like that you'll have to change the culture, not just the laws. That is a much bigger task.

Some articles on the subject:
https://www.ft.com/content/1a82e8e0-...b-6bb07f5c8e12
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0a3a837be16b5
^
From that second link:

I don't think that's what he really has in mind.

Sort of. But one wouldn't need a union.
Hey kid want to learn how to be a welder? There's decent money in it!

Here's the deal. You work for my company at age 18 for 10 11 12 bucks an hour to start with, these are your benefits that you get or don't until you prove yourself. Pair them up with someone experienced as an apprentice/helper and in a year or 2 depending on how well you do, we will get ya into more labor intensive things, a raise, and certified/licensed. Viola.

Or my trade. Mechanic/grease monkey/auto tech.

It is exactly how I started. I had an upper hand advantage for I was playing with stock cars when I was a teenager. I spent 2 weeks on the quicklane as a lube boob and went head first in diesels. Had a mentor with very minimal oversight. All I had to do was help him when he called. Learned more by watching and paying attention asking the right questions and within a few months I was entirely on my own doing diagnosis and repairs by myself. Only asking questions if I wasn't entirely sure.

Far better than the UTI grads... they're scary. I wouldn't let them fix a sandwich let alone someone's vehicle.
Come out manufacturer certified with a piece of paper that says they know what they're doing but never worked on a live vehicle a day in their life. Get into the real world and boy oh boy do they flounder. Dealers love them though. They have an issued number to file more warranty claims through under.
Meanwhile there are kids that went to vocational programs in highschool or went to a real college and worked on real vehicles that are more experienced than they are. A little rough around the edges but easily would make the shop more money.

Matter of fact I had a kid like that in NY. He'd stand around with nothing to do on a slow day, our manager would have him push a broom. F that. I'd grab the kid and put him to work with me under my wing. Lol picked up my production he was hourly I wasnt. He asked questions and listened and paid attention. 1 hand washed the other. My flagged hours went up, he learned more than pushing a broom when the shop was slow.

Ticked off the manager but I told him where the bear poops in the woods and what a fool he was by holding the kid back. They had 5 or 6 others there doing that kind of work. He was the youngest and most eager. The others, eh, not so much. I saw alot of potential in the kid.
The kid was there for 4 or 5 years before I got there, making 10 bucks an hour to do oil changes, tires, alignments/steering suspension work, used car preps basic tune ups. He wasn't stupid by any means. I saw him being held back from his true potential.

Today, 3 years later, he's their lead diesel tech. Still calls/texts when he's in a bind or has an older 7.3 or 6.0 he can't figure out. Makes 20 an hour and is set to start manufacturer training this coming spring.

Like I said hospitals still follow that model. My sister started out as a CNA and signed on with a hospital to pick up half of her tuition costs in exchange for 6 years of labor. She worked both in the hospital and in its satellite offices/rehabilitation centers to get RN. Now she's a nurse practitioner.

I'm just looking to end that whole you need to absorb a college loan debt by providing on the job training for the employer can shape and mold the apprentice into being productive. Without having to rely on a college degree plus x years worth of expirience to become successful or desirable. Kills 2 birds with one stone. If a company were to set up in say Chicago or Detroit to do something and hired folks that knew what they were doing plus took on apprentices/trainees.

Why not reward the company/corporation with lower taxes for investing in the community by providing jobs and on the job education?

Basically the opportunity I had but for everyone. Granted I had to do a summer internship for college. But I earned and learned.
Opposed to UTI buttering a kid up oh you'll make 6 figures a year with our paper and a manufacturers certification.

[James Bond 007]

At some point you would need to have an entity regulate and supervise all those apprentices. It sounds nice if it's something done just occasionally by a company out of the kindness of their hearts, but when you make it mandatory or even semi-mandatory you're going to get a lot of companies that aren't interested in participating (or, smaller companies that can't realistically participate), and thus, you'll need some sort of enforcement mechanism to enforce the law on the companies that aren't particularly willing to participate. That means either a union or a government bureaucracy. Like in Germany.

If you don't make it mandatory or semi-mandatory most companies won't bother participating in it and you'll basically gain nothing. The companies that want to, and are able to, train apprentices mostly already are doing so.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

At some point you would need to have an entity regulate and supervise all those apprentices. It sounds nice if it's something done just occasionally by a company out of the kindness of their hearts, but when you make it mandatory or even semi-mandatory you're going to get a lot of companies that aren't interested in participating (or, smaller companies that can't realistically participate), and thus, you'll need some sort of enforcement mechanism to enforce the law on the companies that aren't particularly willing to participate. That means either a union or a government bureaucracy. Like in Germany.

If you don't make it mandatory or semi-mandatory most companies won't bother participating in it and you'll basically gain nothing. The companies that want to, and are able to, train apprentices mostly already are doing so.

They want the tax cut. They participate, if not no big tax cut.

There does not need to be government regulation/supervision.

Everyone benefits.

I made it without any help from a union. Others have made it without a union.

There does not need to be a union or government regulation. You say that because you picture company A sets up in location A with a number of experienced/skilled people and has an influx of job applicants with no prior expirience in a field. What you see is a company would need to hire on every pulse that comes walking through the door. Or be inundated with trainees/apprentices.

Not exactly. Remember, the company is still private, they're still in control of hiring practices. They're still in control. They can hire as many as they want obviously they would need more than 1 or 2 "trainees" on the books to get the tax incentive.

Then there's probably your other concern with stuck being an apprentice or trainee for the rest of one's life. That may be a legitimate concern for a company that would take advantage of such an opportunity... hmm... guess could make it part of the tax code to make it mandatory that the trainee be moved up after x years.
Pay grade and employment code corresponding on the employees end.

Like say ford were to start back up in Detroit and took on 1,000s of already experienced workers and took on 250-500 apprentices. But there are 1,000s still without jobs right? Well what happens for the areas that are not populated the "bad part" of Detroit?

Get someone like me in there to scoop up the houses to either renovate or bulldoze and put up new ones. Workers at the factory need a place somewhat local right? Because I take eye sores and take on some experienced guys and apprentices. Clean up the "bad part" for housing. Someone else comes along slinging solar panels to the area. They pick up some apprentices to install.

Plumbers come along and electricians come along and housing developers come along picking up and training in various trades/skilled labor.


Which is better.

Handouts from the government due to no jobs in the area?
Hand up from the employers to the employee with earn and learn to rebuild an impoverished area?

Nobody is saying or implying you must stick with that company.
Or that that company must take on an unrealistic number of apprentices. They're still private entities with their own hiring practices in place. They're just rewarded for participating in providing opportunities. I didn't say unlimited/unrealistic numbers of trainees/apprentices. Or only 2 or 3 suffice to benefit.

Guess the 3rd concern would be... with all these licensed skilled professionals they up and leave their place of employment, there would be a flood of licensed plumbers electricians welders so on so forth to become independent LLCs and putting current businesses out. That's the employers fault for not making them sign a contract promising x years of service for the company.

Odd how say Walmart got a pass at that, gobbling up local retailers and I doubt Walmart answers to any regulation or union... There are 5 within a 10 mile radius from me. 5 Super centers. Never mind Walmart gas stations, neighborhood markets and Sam's Club. Effing really? Can't sling a dead cat without nailing a Walmart... alot of property wasted that I'd have made into some sort of factory or housing. Lots of worthless jobs around. Not many lucrative or decent ones, I feel bad for the kids down here. Their opportunities are bar tender, waiter/waitress, retail, customer service, few different low wage trades, or Walmart.
But that's alright though. Maybe that's one of the concerns for regulation and unions? Over Saturation?


Say during the reboot of Detroit, it spawns 1200 independent licensed: electricians, 1200 plumbers, 1200 roofers. That had all started out as apprentices and became licensed professionals then independent carrying insurance. Say the reboot looses steam and lay offs occur. Okay. How many could go find employment elsewhere in a relevant field? Maybe Ford needs an electrician or 2 to be on the clock to make repairs at the plant they put up because I taxed the hell out of them for sneaking diesels from Mexico into Texas to have water pumps stitched on. Or a plumber or pipe fitter. Hear flint has nasty water... maybe go there for work...

Who says they all have to stay in Detroit?
If they're wise they can move on over to other cities and towns in Michigan...

Or maybe relocate to a different state that may acknowledge their license. Or apply for a different states license.

[reed067]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

There is alot of fake outrage over Trump Tax Plan.
Without being condescending and without being insulting or Rude would you support this?








5. Must have On shore In the country Production. No more sweat shops. No more running to foreign lands to produce goods to have final assembly occur here in the states. Total start to finish. Not 98% done in country x and the final assembly occur here. I mean total complete start to finish Made In America.

Will never happen.



Keeping the Plan Trump put in place to undo Bill Clintons write off for 1 million+ in salaries. Meaning no more board members clearing 7-8-9 figure incomes and being a deduction. If GM were to file bankruptcy again. Sorry Buddy. Should have marketed your stuff better. Maybe if you spent some of that money on Research and Development and bringing vehicles to market that would have sold, instead of giving your CEO CFO multi million dollar raises...

Sorry Not going to bail you out unless you can make an appeal to congress and be okay with subject to scrutiny and oversight. And that's ONLY if the PUBLIC supports such.
(Goal here is to end fat cats getting fatter crying their poor decisions bankrupted them and they need a hand out to get back in the market)

Trump gave tax breaks to the rich, are you going to undo those as well?



Simplified Taxes.


.


I would legalize Marijuana for medical purposes and research. SO long as you idiots don't screw it up and sell out to big pharmaceutical companies to profiteer from it... You sell your weed ranch to Pfizer don't cry when they make a tablet that treats some disorder trade marked and licensed and beats yours out to market and costs $150 per pill.
Department of agriculture would have oversight that no Pesticides, no Herbicides are used to grow. Period. Purely natural or stimulated with natural minerals in hydroponics only. Absolutely no foreign chemicals are to be used what so ever. For all intents and purposes, farmers would be the only ones who pay a "tax" in the form of a Federal License to grow for medicinal purposes.
Want recreational dope? Fine. 2.5-15% tax on the sale of it. Shall never exceed 15%


Good with this one!












Would a Liberal/Democrat support this? Think about it. Instead of socializing debt like Bernie... I'm encouraging spreading the wealth. Not Robin Hood Economics and relying on an adult in the room to protect you from yourself. I just set the guide lines in place for companies to play fairly.

What company are you going to get to play fairly?? That's a pipe dream.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by reed067

What company are you going to get to play fairly?? That's a pipe dream.

All of them.

They want a tax break a hefty one at that.
They have to play by the rules.

Leroy seems to think it would need more bureaucracy and oversight. I say absolutely not. Can use the current resources or less if streamlined and coordinated properly.

[reed067]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

All of them.

They want a tax break a hefty one at that.
They have to play by the rules.

Sounds good in theory but these companies can't/won't pay their employees a decent wage and still make a profit. Like someone else said no one is going to buy a $30.00 T-shirt and that's what they are going to have to charge to make a profit. Overseas they pay $5.00 a day and the cost of that $30 T shirt comes WAY down not to mention, I bet you wouldn't be able to touch whatever tax breaks they are getting.

[ahzzie]

I wouldn't support it because of the healthcare part alone. That may sound good on paper but could never be enforced. People would still be dropped, denied, and flat out refused coverage for whatever reason. The insurance companies have entire departments staffed by people who are paid specifically to think up reasons to deny and clever ways to get out of it. There is nothing here that would fix that.

The only real option is a universal healthcare system where everyone is covered regardless of health status similar to the ones in Europe and Canada. If you put that in there then I'd consider it. Otherwise no ****ing way would I support this.