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.
Here's where a little theology comes in handy. Stealing is wrong, obviously. But taxation (within reason) is not stealing. Governments have the right to tax and their subjects have the duty to pay taxes.
"Render under Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's".
"Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and that those that are, are ordained of God."
"Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God's sake: whether it be to the king as excelling; Or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers ..."
This is Christianity 101.
.
If you're going to attempt to use bible verses to convince that people should obey their government, may I remind you, it can come back to bite you in the azz, since Hitler and others like him were their countries 'Caesar".
The problem with discussions like this is the reduction of highly complex issues to meaningless talking points.
I have a good example of government welfare and social programmes that I'd like you to consider.
We have a large province here in Canada called Newfoundland. Newfoundland has been very very poor for most of it's history because of many factors. It's main industries are very seasonal in nature and so therefore there is a lot of intermittent unemployment. Until Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949 the people really suffered. There was a lack of almost everything. Schools, healthcare, utilities, transportation and on and on. Since 1949 life has gotten better and better for the people and that was primarily through Canada's social welfare systems.
Now, I guess many on this board would say those Newfies are lazy but they would be wrong. They are among the hardest working people I have ever known. To this day many of them leave their home and travel all over the country to where the good jobs are. They always return home to their beloved rock in the end.
Many would ask, why should the tax payers of Canada support these people who are always a net loss on the balance sheet? I would answer that Canada by allowing them to join this country is exercising an act of national sovereignity in maintaining a Canadian standard of living. If these people are part of this great country then they will recieve a standard of living that will not fall below a certain level no matter what. Otherwise, what claim do we have over this territory and it's VAST resources.
There will come a day when all Canadians will reap huge benefits from our sovereign ownership of Newfoundland. It has vast riches in minerals, oil, hydro power and tourism.
Many of the mentally challenged RWNJs on this forum would say, They should all leave Newfoundland and move to where the jobs are. Well, we want a vibrant Newfoundland, We want all the infrastructure in place for the future when this place will be a net plus on the balance sheet. We want to perserve the unique culture of this beautiful place. WE want all Canadians to know that being a Canadian means you are not alone on your own but have the entire country at your back.
There are many regions of Canada where this same story has played out. The tax payers from central Canada kept these regions and the people of these regions on their feet for a long time. Time rolls on and things change. Alberta and Saskatchewan are now paying huge dividends to the entire country. In a RWNJs mind we should have just let them starve in the dark when times were tough. Unlike the USA where such ideas have a lot of supporters you would be hard pressed to find a handfull of Canadians who would think in such self distructive ways. That is why the future belongs to us. We will continue to move forward and become a more just society while You will continue to decline and regress until we are faced with another version of Mexico on our southern border.
It will probably drop more not because of growing poverty but growing depressive tones, out of brainwashed expectations, putting up a barrier against the fundamentals in romance.
It takes money to make money. If you are earning only enough to live on (or less), you're not going to have a lot of funds for investment.
A 2 % return on $15,000 of savings is not much, a 2 % return on $25 million (the compensation of Exxon's CEO last year) is a lot of money.
Of course not everybody can invest. Investing does not mean only buy stocks. There are other ways to invest. However, if someone can't truly invest, then they can in some other ways save money for the future to say the least. I have never invested on stocks. We invested time on our kids by making sure they had good grades and good work ethics. The results? Scholarships so we did not have to save a single penny on their education. That is just one example of many we have used to take care of our future.
Now, the example on the CEO. To me that sound like simple envy. If you have a business and want to make sure it has the best odds of succeeding, who do you hire? The best you can with the money you can afford? In some cases you may even sacrifice a little more money to pay higher on someone that can produce for you and in the long run the pay off maker up for it.
The same with companies and large corporations. They pay CEOs what they think will help them succeed further and stay competitive. It is no different on what is anyone's business worth from a janitor to a CEO.
One simple example:
I while ago I was thinking of applying for a director position with the local Susan G. Komen chapter. I ended up not applying for other reasons. However, my daughter is the board of directors of the chapter. Later she told me they could not hire someone with the skills and qualifications to run the program. Why? Because they the candidates that were qualified and with the skills for such jobs did not accept the pay they were offering. They needed one. The solution? They offered higher pay and they finally found one and she is still there doing a good job.
The same with large corporations. The pay you may think is exorbitant MAY be the right pay to for the CEO to accomplish what the stock holder, from the littlest to the largest, expect him to do.
To me you are not a good standard to decide who is worth what pay, the market is. Take care
Of course not everybody can invest. Investing does not mean only buy stocks. There are other ways to invest. However, if someone can't truly invest, then they can in some other ways save money for the future to say the least. I have never invested on stocks. We invested time on our kids by making sure they had good grades and good work ethics. The results? Scholarships so we did not have to save a single penny on their education. That is just one example of many we have used to take care of our future.
Now, the example on the CEO. To me that sound like simple envy. If you have a business and want to make sure it has the best odds of succeeding, who do you hire? The best you can with the money you can afford? In some cases you may even sacrifice a little more money to pay higher on someone that can produce for you and in the long run the pay off maker up for it.
The same with companies and large corporations. They pay CEOs what they think will help them succeed further and stay competitive. It is no different on what is anyone's business worth from a janitor to a CEO.
One simple example:
I while ago I was thinking of applying for a director position with the local Susan G. Komen chapter. I ended up not applying for other reasons. However, my daughter is the board of directors of the chapter. Later she told me they could not hire someone with the skills and qualifications to run the program. Why? Because they the candidates that were qualified and with the skills for such jobs did not accept the pay they were offering. They needed one. The solution? They offered higher pay and they finally found one and she is still there doing a good job.
The same with large corporations. The pay you may think is exorbitant MAY be the right pay to for the CEO to accomplish what the stock holder, from the littlest to the largest, expect him to do.
To me you are not a good standard to decide who is worth what pay, the market is. Take care
Your points are well thought out but I believe CEO salaries are so out-of-line because of cronyism and greed, not because these individuals possess some kind of extraordinary abilities.
Last year many companies posted record earnings, not because CEOs were so ultra-skilled and smart but because of an economic recovery that is the product of much larger macro-forces than any one CEO's abilities.
The fruits of those record earnings went to CEOs and top management, not to the workers. Whereas I believe that MORE should share in the bounty more equally, not just a few lucky ones at the top.
Your points are well thought out but I believe CEO salaries are so out-of-line because of cronyism and greed, not because these individuals possess some kind of extraordinary abilities.
No, the salaries are high because that's what it takes to get the guy to work for your company instead of someone else's company.
Amazing how liberals don't understand this most basic of economic principles.
Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If they understood basic economic principles, they wouldn't be liberals.
Well that's cute you believe it just takes hard work, discipline, and commitment.
If one is not genuinely incapacitated, yes.
Quote:
That's a stupid idea.
Why? Why is it okay for some people to be parasites but not others? Are liberals afraid they're going to lose their gravy train if everyone decides to adopt liberals' belief that leeching off of the system is okay?
I'm in favor of redistribution of wealth to a greater degree than we have now because the pie-chart below shows how wealth is distributed currently. It is over-concentrated amongst a select few, whereas the vast majority of Americans share in little of the wealth. Wages have not kept pace with the increase in productivity of American workers. The extra wealth created by workers increased productivity is going to those at the top instead of more fairly being distributed to those who are actually earning it.
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it.
Faith in humanity. Obliterated.
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.
