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.
Is it so extreme? "I had a idea, I worked on it, worked hard on it, you the people and the government have no right to regulate or fine me because that is government interfering in freedom and America is a land of the free to work hard and keep what I earn and government interferes in profit".
Should business and shareholders have freedom from government regulation and from the judgment of the American people? Is "government a tyranny if it regulates business" a excuse to not allow this? Look I have criticism for government as well and I do believe there are things to be done to make business flourish better with less government but at the same time government also stands for people not just business and business are not always on the moral or just side of things.Business are just as well likely to use influence in government for personal gain as someone trying to influence government to give them steady welfare checks with no checks and balance.
Allowing a few to become more powerful and richer with practices that hurt the country as a whole in economic terms can be as destructive as dealing weapons to a unfriendly country or entity. It is no surprise that everyday Jane and John will stand up against it at some point.
Instead of a "free market" I propose a well regulated,"free enterprise system". I propose that minumum wages be at least $10 dollars per hour in the USA. Anything less and the owner of the company does not have a viable business. What he has is just a Exploitation method.
I propose profits in excess of a certain % be heavily taxed unless reinvested in some other work producing enterprise.
I propose the American justice department starts to persue all corporate lawbreakers as is their responsibility to do.
I propose that all shareholders of corporations cut back on executive pay by a huge margin .If those managers want more money then let them put their own capital into the enterprise.
WE have highly successful public corporations here in Canada. Some of them are the largest businesses of their kind in the world like the LCBO. The largest booze retailer on earth. The CEOs of this and other companys like it do not make more than 2 million a year. That is enough for anyone who is a manager and not an owner. These CEOs in the USA that make 50 or 100 million a year are just beyond belief. Why the stockholders stand for it I don't know. They are in my opion just raping the business.
I agree with most of your post except the first two paragraphs.
A $10 minimum wage would end up negatively affecting the average worker. A company forced to have that minimum wage would be less likely to hire more employees. And would be less likely to buy a luxury, like a yacht. Which would affect those who build, insure, maintain and sell yachts.
Heavily taxing profits over a certain % would also backfire. Again, employers would be less likely to hire employees and would put more of their earnings in tax-free investments which means the government would receive less income tax revenue.
I don't have any problems with rich people having a nice car. That is reasonable. What is not reasonable is when they can't decide whether their 5th car will be a Ferrari or a Porche.
Peace,
brian
I disagree with this. I don't care if someone has 5 Ferrari's and 5 airplanes and more wealth that anybody can imagine. As long as they didn't get it by diminishing the lives of others and destroying the balance of their country.
It is dangerous to decide for others what is reasonable when it comes to their possessions, wealth and lifestyle. One could easily do the same to you.
Please think about that.
What I mention in my responses is my concern that some are willing to drive down their fellow countrymen into ruin and poverty to become even richer than they were before. One example would be multi millionaire shareholders who approve of tripling insurance premiums so they can become even more wealthy while the everyday person then struggles to afford the jacked premiums. It comes to no surprise to me in cases like that when the everyday people band together and take control of government to counteract such a thing.
He's wrong. The top 5% MAY have represented 40% of the nations wealth in the 80s. Now it is only the top 1%. This makes sense when you think about how jobs have been lost; CEO who once were in the top 5% in the 80'd were forced to retire early. The other 4% who used to be in the top 5% owning 40% of the nations wealth have been forced down to lower echelons. They may still be in the top five percent but their wealth is now part of the lower 60% of the nations wealth. THAT my friends is what laws and "free" trade agreements results in. Fewer and fewer controlling more and more.
I disagree with this. I don't care if someone has 5 Ferrari's and 5 airplanes and more wealth that anybody can imagine. As long as they didn't get it by diminishing the lives of others and destroying the balance of their country.
It is dangerous to decide for others what is reasonable when it comes to their possessions, wealth and lifestyle. One could easily do the same to you.
Please think about that.
What I mention in my responses is my concern that some are willing to drive down their fellow countrymen into ruin and poverty to become even richer than they were before. One example would be multi millionaire shareholders who approve of tripling insurance premiums so they can become even more wealthy while the everyday person then struggles to afford the jacked premiums. It comes to no surprise to me in cases like that when the everyday people band together and take control of government to counteract such a thing.
Here, here....
I agree 100%. I have worked hard am am fairly well to do. However, most of the people in my neighborhood are VERY WELL TO DO. Am I jealous of them? Not at all. I am very happy with the progress I have made academically and financially within the limits of my beginnings and am not envious of the financial standing of others.
Leftists, ironically, given that they proclaim to be devoid of seeking greater material gain, ALWAYS seek more material gain and compare their economic standing relative to others. It is the definition of hypocrisy, in that they claim to not cherish material possessions, yet are enraged by disparities in wealth, despite their relative wealth to the rest of the world. It is singularly peculiar and suggests that leftists would strive for poverty and economic misery, as long as everyone was equal. That seem to be their goal - uniform economic misery.
I, personally, do not care whether my next door neighbor is richer than me (they all are). I am more concerned with the absolute economic status of myself and my family and do not care whether there are people who are "richer" than me. Any sane person would realize and understand this, yet it appears as though liberals will only be happy when everyone is reduce to Stone Age economic status, at which point a more advanced power will conquer and subject us to economic serfdom. This seems to be the desired goal of liberliism- economic serfdom for the nation.
I agree with most of your post except the first two paragraphs.
A $10 minimum wage would end up negatively affecting the average worker. A company forced to have that minimum wage would be less likely to hire more employees. And would be less likely to buy a luxury, like a yacht. Which would affect those who build, insure, maintain and sell yachts.
Heavily taxing profits over a certain % would also backfire. Again, employers would be less likely to hire employees and would put more of their earnings in tax-free investments which means the government would receive less income tax revenue.
The minimum wage here is $10 and it has not effected employment levels at all. We have less unemployment than the USA does. Have you never noticed that the places with the lowest wages are also the places with the highest unemployment? You should be able to see that your reasoning is totally wrong. Before the recent recession when basically there was 0% unemployment in Alberta you could get a job at MacDonalds for $20 a hour. The MacDonalds owners had trouble filling jobs even at that rate. This entire idea of a higher minimum wage killing jobs is nothing more than right wing propaganda. Like most of their lies it seems reasonable until the facts of the matter are researched. It's the same thing with their assertion about higher taxes killing jobs. It sounds reasonable but in fact it's false. Many studies have proven over and over again that there really is no correlation between tax rate and job creation. The right spouts these things like they are just the inalterable law of the universe and that is the way they operate to get their falsehoods generally accepted as facts.
You misunderstood my idea about reinvestment. The reinvestment would have to be income producing production type investment.
Winston Churchill had a good idea although it was never implemented. Large pools of capital like are owned by many heirs of the extreme wealthy would be taxed at different rates. Non productive wealth would be taxed at a much higher rate than money invested in businesses producing jobs. You would also be heavily taxed on money used to establish business in foreign countries if you were taking that money out of the UK to invest elsewhere.
That doesn't change anything. It is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to become rich. In order for there to be rich people, you must also have poor people. The only "equality" could be a median standard of living for everyone. But no economy allows everyone to be rich. There isn't (and can't be) enough currency.
I am amazed at how many poor Americans sit and dream of the American Dream! Poor all the way to the grave... They are hypnotized. (And the rich are happy about that!)
Peace,
brian
If everyone was rich who would clean the toilets, mow the grass, drive the trucks, etc.?
I think everyone already knows that not everyone can be rich. You are stating the obvious.
But the chance of obtaining wealth is much greater here in the U.S. than in a ghetto in Africa.
Many people who never thought they would be rich did become rich. In other words, their dream did become a reality.
So we all have a chance to become rich by playing the lottery too. Nearly impossible odds but the ones who did become rich off lottery had better odds than becoming rich the old fashioned way.
Any corporation should only be allowed to write off as an expense executive compensation up to a maximum of let's say 5 million a year. In other words if you have a CEO that makes 10 million a year then the company will have to claim the additional 5 million over the max as income. If this was the law of the land you would soon see those obscene 100 million pay packages go the way of the dodo bird. This is an idea that has been floated by progressives for a long time but of course it would never fly in a country that is owned and controlled by those very same people who get the 100 million pay cheques.
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.
