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.
You don't have to and to be honest, if you don't want to, those who are willing would rather not have you there anyway. I know I wouldn't want you by my side in defense of our soil if that is the way you thought.
That aside, for your own selfish reasons you might want to do it because who is to say that you wont be next? Your choice, your freedom to choose.
But I would,I believe there are some things that I do for my country that is more important than my own personal gain.There has to be balance.There has to be ethics.Im saying that total freedom from government and government control can both lead to corruption.
Im saying those that argue that government intervention is always evil or that capitolism is always evill and can't see that both are needed are seeing things only black and white with no grey.
Im arguing the point that those that say freedom to practice your business and decide for yourself what you do to maintain profit is nobodies business including government.....always.
Im arguing that the thought of a person who has a successful enterprise has no duty to his country and can gain profit despite the hardship it puts on others and that a person as a individual specially with power only has responsibility to themself.
Ultimately, people aren't responsible and thats the real issue here. There is no US and THEM with these companies, they are US and any increasing immoral attitudes are simply a reflection of the immorality of its people. One can't expect a missionary from a den of thieves, yet people expect this every day. Problem isn't the system, its the people and the best way to protect the people is to let them decide, let them have the freedom to choose. Regulation takes away choice.
Not always. The people being regulated may have less choice but the regulation can also increase choice for the people for whose benefit the regulation is created. For example, anti-trust regulations help to ensure that consumers have more than one choice of producer when they want a good or service.
But I would,I believe there are some things that I do for my country that is more important than my own personal gain.There has to be balance.There has to be ethics.Im saying that total freedom from government and government control can both lead to corruption.
Im saying those that argue that government intervention is always evil or that capitolism is always evill and can't see that both are needed are seeing things only black and white with no grey.
Im arguing the point that those that say freedom to practice your business and decide for yourself what you do to maintain profit is nobodies business including government.....always.
Im arguing that the thought of a person who has a successful enterprise has no duty to his country and can gain profit despite the hardship it puts on others and that a person as a individual specially with power only has responsibility to themself.
You can teach someone to be good, show them all the aspects of it, but in the end it is that old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink." You can't force anyone to do "good", you can force them from doing bad, but that is far as you can go without becoming the bad yourself. Someone who doesn't do good, doesn't make them bad necessarily.
I know what you are saying, but the fact remains that you can't force people to do it. You have to lead by example, encourage through incentives, build ethical grounds in the youth in hopes that they will make good decisions. Forcing never produces good and more often than not results in evil by the one forcing.
I know its hard to see people not help, but you have to remember that sometimes the right thing to do is also the hardest thing. People have to want to help themselves and if more people take action on their own, without that prod from others, without forced integration and conformation, they will want to help of their own accord.
Keep in mind though that this is a two way street. People who mention those who are lazy, abusive, and refusing to put in effort are not made up. They exist as well and when you force someone to help someone who refuses to help themselves, you end up with a serious problem. Let people decide, let people regulate themselves. Keep them from purposefully harming others, but don't penalize them because they don't purposefully help. The nature of evil is to force ones will on another regardless of how good those intentions are.
Not always. The people being regulated may have less choice but the regulation can also increase choice for the people for whose benefit the regulation is created. For example, anti-trust regulations help to ensure that consumers have more than one choice of producer when they want a good or service.
Take from one and give to another. Forcing the hand so to speak, all for the sake of good intentions I am sure and we have pages of history books filled with the results of this bad idea. Though, as they say, history is bound to repeat itself.
Obama's plan is a start in the right direction. We need to get back to the tax code in effect under Pesident Esenhower.
I have proposed a Federal Income Tax Code that would count all income fron all sources and only apply tax the income over teh 85th percentile on a sliding scale from 50 to 90%. I figure the people that own the government should pay for it.
more taxes?! That is just a horrible idea. The government receives enough money to give healthcare to all and to fix our infrastructure. I guess if you don't realize that almost half, and it will be half soon, of our tax money goes to pay off the interest of the debt and defense spending. There is no more need for higher taxes on any one person in this country. There must be government accountability of the spending of tax payer money. Whom only consist of half of the working class in this country.
Right, we could do away with taxes altogether. Why should we pay government workers, politicians, the military? Why pay for upkeep on roads, trade regulation, court systems?
Obama's plan is a start in the right direction. We need to get back to the tax code in effect under Pesident Esenhower.
I have proposed a Federal Income Tax Code that would count all income fron all sources and only apply tax the income over teh 85th percentile on a sliding scale from 50 to 90%. I figure the people that own the government should pay for it.
I really hope I am reading this wrong, but are you saying that an individual should be required to pay anywhere from 50-90% of their income as tax if they make "too much" by some arbitrary criteria?
If Obama gets elected and people who make over $250k (or whatever the # is) get taxed at 50% why work hard?
What's the point? We lose our incentive to work hard.
I think this is one of the defining liberal vs. conservative arguments and I'd love to hear the liberal side.
According to Dick Morris (dickmorris.com) in one of his articles over the last couple days, it's going to be 60%. Up to about '05, (the year I shut down my business because I was sick of taxes) I was already paying nearly 50%... and that was making 60K or less.
227k-603k will get an avg. $12 increase
Everyone below that gets a decrease.
You're not counting the 13% Social Security tax. Currently, you pay about 20% for SS/MC (if you include the state taxes that pay 50% of MC costs). At about 100K, the SS portion (13%) drops off. BO is going to expand the SS obligation for those people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
this is not my opinion but I will tell you what some think about this based on haven debated them,and namely from outside countries,
They will say that these people wouldn't have made to where they are without the people who worked under them and from society in general promoting them. like customers.
They will say that a guy who lays bricks works harder than alot of pencil pushers but recieves wages barely enough to sustain themselves.
1)I think you're being dishonest. I think that is your opinion.
2)They wouldn't have gotten where they were without the people under them. However, the people "under" them sold their services and the person who is "over" them is over them because that person has the natural ability to organize them. They should be rewarded for that.
3)There are many factors that go into what makes a fair wage for a given job. The physical strain of the work is one of the least. (BTW: Brick layers make excellent money typically.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
Pride in one's work is the ONLY rational incentive to work hard.
Anything can be rational. It only requires a logical connection between premiss and conclusion. However, whether your conclusion is true depends on the trueness of your premiss. What is/are your premiss/ees?
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
And buy saying that you are showing your refusal to change your own mind for something better.
I'll have to remember that: A person holding an opinion is a demonstration of closed-mindedness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
Its what has brought us all of these overpriced celebrities and athletes. instead of working to produce art, or to entertain, they just do whatever they can to make a buck.
Yes your justification may be true, but I don't think it is a good excuse to not try to change and make something better.
You can't change human nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian
The problem in this country is that the wealth has shifted from the middle class to upper class. Ultimately, the country will fail if it kills off the middle class. I see Obama's tax increases on the wealthy as nothing more than a shift back toward a larger, better-off middle class. He's got my vote!
The middle-class is committing suicide by not being competitive in the world market. Taxing more is just another wound in the middle class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948
very interesting this thread appears to be a classic discussion between worker and management class. proliterate vs bourgeois. workers are seen as lazy and with attitude. management did in fact work long and hard to get where they are.
Pretty much. My experience has been that when I worked wage jobs, within six months, because I busted my butt, I was offered promotions. The dirtballs who want to huddle at break time and complain stayed where they were.
Workers are normally lazy... that's why they're not management.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinny
I don't know what planet you live on but to think the majority of rich have gotten there by luck of birth is just not true.
You have to know a few rich people to understand what they go through to get there. You're talking to someone who probably thinks they "deserve" a Starbucks coffee and three meals/day from restaurants and a new outfit every week and only working the number of hours they get paid... and instead of recognizing that their irresponsible money habits is why they're broke, they suspect anyone with money must be as irresponsible.
You can't argue with those types. The IQ deficiency is too hard to overcome.
If you make a contract to work for someone (ie. hire on), no matter what amount you agree to work for, you go and give that person the best days work possible. It does not matter if its at minimum wage or $1,000/hr. the employer deserves to get the best you can give. This is a real recipe for success no matter who you are or what economic level
you start at.
When I was 17 I worked at a car wash for minimum wage for a man who was hard as nails on me, but I gave him a hard days work every day I worked for him. Ten years later I was in line for a fabulous job that required an in-depth background and got the job. They told me that car wash owner gave me the best reference they had ever encountered and that was the difference in me getting the job.
If you sling hamburgers at McDonalds or are president of McDonnel Douglas Aircraft give your best and it will always pay off in the long run. There is dignity and nobility in all labor no matter what you do so do your work in a dignified and nobel way and be grateful you got a job !!!!!!!!!! End of Sermon...
Right, we could do away with taxes altogether. Why should we pay government workers, politicians, the military? Why pay for upkeep on roads, trade regulation, court systems?
Just do away with all that entirely.
Right, because that is what I said. I said "we" the government receives more than enough money that taxes would not have to be INCREASED. Like many posters have said and what Obama and Mccain are saying. TAXES DO NOT NEED TO BE INCREASED. ONCE AGAIN TAXES DO NOT NEED TO BE INCREASED.
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.
