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.
Why are you advocating for money to be forcefully taken from people and given to others such as yourself?
Just to be clear, I don't recall ever needing hand-outs, and I don't anticipate ever needing them. As for "why" I'm advocating some forms of wealth-redistribution, I think I've already made myself clear in my previous posts. If you have disagreements with the specific arguments I've already offered, please let me know.
The simplest argument for "wealth redistribution" is what helps the economy more: $1 in a cash register or $1 in an overseas tax shelter?
One level up from that is what helps a restaurant more: 1 family with $1M who dine there everyday or 20 families with $50K each who dine there 3x/week?
If someone doesn't see how those examples are relevant, they don't understand how economies work.
This is not without its limitations. Pure Socialism is the endgame for wealth redistribution where all wealth is equally redistributed. This ends all incentive to do anything better, to work harder, etc. We've seen dozens of nations with such systems fail and fail miserably.
You also have to be careful about making big changes suddenly. Let's say that you increase federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. Many businesses will die long before an increase in customers can trickle towards them and save them. Many will just eliminate people wherever possible. A McDonald's crew of 25 who are all making about $8 per hour on average is vastly better for the economy than a mostly kiosk McDonald's with only 3 employees to fix kiosks and systems when they fail, all making $15 per hour. A company employing 300 people at $9 per hour is far better than that same company after it goes out of business and no longer employs anyone.
I wouldn't mind seeing a move to increase minimum wage to $15 an hour ... gradually. Do it by scheduled increments over a 10 year period. And by all means, tie minimum wage to inflation so we don't have to think about it anymore. But sudden changes are going to devastate businesses and lead to worse outcomes overall.
This is not without its limitations. Pure Socialism is the endgame for wealth redistribution where all wealth is equally redistributed. This ends all incentive to do anything better, to work harder, etc. We've seen dozens of nations with such systems fail and fail miserably.
You also have to be careful about making big changes suddenly. Let's say that you increase federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. Many businesses will die long before an increase in customers can trickle towards them and save them. Many will just eliminate people wherever possible. A McDonald's crew of 25 who are all making about $8 per hour on average is vastly better for the economy than a mostly kiosk McDonald's with only 3 employees to fix kiosks and systems when they fail, all making $15 per hour. A company employing 300 people at $9 per hour is far better than that same company after it goes out of business and no longer employs anyone.
I wouldn't mind seeing a move to increase minimum wage to $15 an hour ... gradually. Do it by scheduled increments over a 10 year period. And by all means, tie minimum wage to inflation so we don't have to think about it anymore. But sudden changes are going to devastate businesses and lead to worse outcomes overall.
The minimum wage debate isn't socialism by any means.
Let's not kid ourselves here as to what the real definition of socialism is:
Pure socialism by definition means government ownership and authority over production of goods and services.
The minimum wage is not anything close to pure socialism. We're still a free market, except the government is pushing buttons and intervening where it's necessary to ensure society doesn't deteriorate as a result of the free market.
The minimum wage debate isn't socialism by any means.
Let's not kid ourselves here as to what the real definition of socialism is:
Pure socialism by definition means government ownership and authority over production of goods and services.
The minimum wage is not anything close to pure socialism. We're still a free market, except the government is pushing buttons and intervening where it's necessary to ensure society doesn't deteriorate as a result of the free market.
Pure Socialism is any system that completely redistributes all wealth. It could be purely voluntary, as we see in small communes. It could be a forced appropriation of all wealth by the government, who then redistributes all if it like we saw with Marxist Communism.
Minimum wage is a move towards Socialism. It forcibly takes money away from the employer class and gives it to the worker class. As I already stated, all economic systems exist somewhere between pure Laissez Faire Capitalism and Pure Socialism. Increasing minimum wage -- which I don't disagree with by the way -- is a move towards the Socialism end of the spectrum. All government intervention of enforcing the length of the work-week, worker safety regulations, overtime pay, etc. -- all of it moves you away from pure Capitalism and towards pure Socialism. That doesn't make them a bad thing. But it is advisable to take the fate of Marxism as a cautionary tale. When you're trying to make things better for working class Americans, you can sometimes go too far.
Pure Socialism is any system that completely redistributes all wealth. It could be purely voluntary, as we see in small communes. It could be a forced appropriation of all wealth by the government, who then redistributes all if it like we saw with Marxist Communism.
Minimum wage is a move towards Socialism. It forcibly takes money away from the employer class and gives it to the worker class. As I already stated, all economic systems exist somewhere between pure Laissez Faire Capitalism and Pure Socialism. Increasing minimum wage -- which I don't disagree with by the way -- is a move towards the Socialism end of the spectrum. All government intervention of enforcing the length of the work-week, worker safety regulations, overtime pay, etc. -- all of it moves you away from pure Capitalism and towards pure Socialism. That doesn't make them a bad thing. But it is advisable to take the fate of Marxism as a cautionary tale. When you're trying to make things better for working class Americans, you can sometimes go too far.
Not 100% sure I agree with you that that minimum wage is pure socialism. But what rings a bell to my head is "pure socialism" is government ownership of what would otherwise be private corporations and most of the political pundits refer to this form as "socialism".
You are right as to sometimes things goes too far. But adding the political aspect to say minimum wage. It's the easiest thing to get accomplished as the minimum wage can be set by the states.
Reforming the tax code to make it more progressive will involve class warfare and that's much tougher to do at the federal level.
Provide healthcare, education, paid leave, to everyone. Make a standard work week 36 hours instead of 40. More paid holidays, etc.. We'd work less hours, stress less about money, and spend more time with family and friends.
This right here is the problem. You don't want to work, but you want to take money away from people who have worked.
Honestly, I'm part of this country so I need to pay some taxes. I do pay an accountant a good deal of money to avoid paying any tax that I can "safely" not pay. But your attitude angers me so much, that if we were in a hypothetical scenario and it came down to giving just one penny to keep you and your entire family from starving, I wouldn't. Because at this point it's not about the money but about the principle.
Stop feeling entitled towards other people's things! You want to spend more time with family, more vacations, more time with friends? Fine, great live and let live. But then how much you earn is what you have to eat with.
This right here is the problem. You don't want to work, but you want to take money away from people who have worked.
Honestly, I'm part of this country so I need to pay some taxes. I do pay an accountant a good deal of money to avoid paying any tax that I can "safely" not pay. But your attitude angers me so much, that if we were in a hypothetical scenario and it came down to giving just one penny to keep you and your entire family from starving, I wouldn't.
Stop feeling entitled towards other people's things! You want to spend more time with family, more vacations, more time with friends? Fine, great live and let live. But then how much you earn is what you have to eat with.
1) Are wages fair across the board?
2) Are any forms of non earned income fair? I didn't work for the gains I'd get from the stock market?
Until you prove the above is fair for all Americans. You have no argument about labeling redistribution of wealth as a form of "entitlement".
1) Are wages fair across the board?
2) Are any forms of non earned income fair? I didn't work for the gains I'd get from the stock market?
Until you prove the above is fair for all Americans. You have no argument about labeling redistribution of wealth as a form of "entitlement".
There is no such thing as FAIR and there will never be. Is it fair you were born and some child died during child birth? Is it fair you were born in the USA and some child was born in Sudan?
Life is not about Fair, life is about RESULTS. It's not how hard you work (you think you worked) but about the results you PRODUCE.
So quit complaining, and everything you earned, is exactly what you deserve. No more no less.
There is no such thing as FAIR and there will never be. Is it fair you were born and some child died during child birth? Is it fair you were born in the USA and some child was born in Sudan?
Life is not about Fair, life is about RESULTS. It's not how hard you work (you think you worked) but about the results you PRODUCE.
So quit complaining, and everything you earned, is exactly what you deserve. No more no less.
That's a ridiculous argument. Your argument against redistribution of wealth is all about fairness and here you are saying life isn't fair. You make no sense.
The middle class has produced RESULTS in the past 40+ years. Employee productivity has been going up for decades now but wages has been stagnant. What gives? Is this is the "results" you're talking about?
That's a ridiculous argument. Your argument against redistribution of wealth is all about fairness and here you are saying life isn't fair. You make no sense.
The middle class has produced RESULTS in the past 40+ years. Employee productivity has been going up for decades now but wages has been stagnant. What gives? Is this is the "results" you're talking about?
My argument against wealth redistribution is it's immoral. Not about fairness.
What are employee's but people employed by someone else? People relying on someone else to employ them? If they don't like what their employer is giving them, go somewhere else.
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.
