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.
I’d vote for that, in exchange for the following policy:
1) On every pay stub, every company must display the profit per employee for that pay period.
2) The dollar value of #1 must be added to the value of the paycheck and displayed on a separate line, along with the following statement: “this is how much money you would have made this period if the company paid you for the full value of your labor.”
I’d also accept the following option:
1) Calculate the total value of the person’s labor, which is simply the value of the paycheck plus the profit per employee for that pay period.
2) Then show the profit per employee for that pay period as a deduction or tax.
That way, employees can see how much of their labor value is captured (or “taxed”) by their employers.
Deal?
I was not aware there was a legal reason for a person to be paid based upon the company's profit, or that somehow all companies were supposed to be non-profits.
I mean, there's inane (completely do away with SS & Medicare) and then there's insane. You've added the S.
Now, change your line to read "Here's how much of the Federal government debt is your fair share" and I might agree.
Immigration is not within a states' rights. Our state, along with others, have passed laws to stop any entity in the state from becoming a sanctuary city though, which is well within their rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee
seems like some don't understand how SCOTUS works. they don't pick and choose laws or former rulings and change them.
Yes, even with abortion, how long has the push to get it before the SC been going on? A long, long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Lets start with marriage. Overturn federally protected same sex and interracial marriages. That should get the ball rolling.
You are talking about "apples and oranges". Interracial marriage was based on (for the 2nd time)
"The Supreme Court announced its ruling in Loving v. Virginia on June 12, 1967. In a unanimous decision, the justices found that Virginia’s interracial marriage law violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."
You are dealing with "Jim Crow" when it came to interracial marriage/sex. This not letting them marry was a carry over from the hostility of losing their slave labor. Funny how white slave owners had sex with their black slaves, yet their governments forbid marriage between whites and blacks, also consenual sex.
The case of the Lovings is very interesting, and there is a long history of others before them as far as individual states.
I have no issue with gay marriage, but let's get the facts the straight as they are not identical in nature, when you include "Jim Crow" laws into the equation.
1) On every pay stub, every company must display the profit per employee for that pay period.
2) The dollar value of #1 must be added to the value of the paycheck and displayed on a separate line, along with the following statement: “this is how much money you would have made this period if the company paid you for the full value of your labor.”
Did you miss the part where I said excluding people who physically cannot work? I'm not opposed to some version of assistance, but it needs to be much more difficult to obtain.
There are plenty of people who game the system. They game the healthcare system by faking injuries (typically back since it's the most difficult to diagnose) in order to get on disability. See it all the time. They game the welfare system as well. All of these social safety nets that were designed to help people who really need it are also being used by people who just do not want to work.
We were on vacation last week. Neighbor in the condo next to us (our age). 6 kids... all under 8 years old. She knocked on our door the next morning to ask my oldest son and I to help her bring up their luggage. We obliged. Get to her car (pretty new Mercedes SUV) and she's parked in a handicapped spot with a handicapped placard, but had no issues using the stairs to climb 7 floors since the elevators were packed with people checking in. Car reeked of weed, and as we were unloading her suitcases and her box of bottles of liquor, she asked us if we knew whether or not the local grocery stores took WIC.
She's gaming the system(s) plain and simple. People like us who work every day and pay our way foot the bills.
Yes, people game the system. That would be disability or some other welfare assistance, not healthcare or regular Social Security. I asked your age because nobody who is even close to retirement is willing to give up money and benefits that are rightfully theirs.
So SS is an entitlement since people were required to pay into the system that cost them tens of thousands of dollars. And Medicare is an entitlement too even though many are paying premiums that add up to more than what they were paying while working with private ins. Nice to know. Nonsense.
I didn't define them that way, the government did. If you think it is nonsense, take it up with them.
Except it's our money. I'm not okay with not getting my money. Maybe you are.
I'd be tilted as f**k about not getting back at least what they stole from me by force, but they explain how you don't have any right to your "entitlement" right on their own website.
Keep being pissed at me if you like, but I didn't create either Ponzi scheme, and I didn't write the rule that no Congress is beholden to the promises of prior Congresses.
Chances are good you'll get yours and I'll get mine, but they can take it away any time they want and you have zero recourse if they do. Go read their own documents that explain that concept.
I'd be tilted as f**k about not getting back at least what they stole from me by force, but they explain how you don't have any right to your "entitlement" right on their own website.
Keep being pissed at me if you like, but I didn't create either Ponzi scheme, and I didn't write the rule that no Congress is beholden to the promises of prior Congresses.
Chances are good you'll get yours and I'll get mine, but they can take it away any time they want and you have zero recourse if they do. Go read their own documents that explain that concept.
I'm not pissed at you. I don't even know you.
I'm sure they can take it away if they want. I don't think they'll want though, not if they're worried about keeping their jobs.
I'm sure they can take it away if they want. I don't think they'll want though, not if they're worried about keeping their jobs.
And I would agree in theory, but we are talking about tyrants who are too retarded to do basic arithmetic. Anything is possible, and the SCOTUS already ruled in Leviathan's favor on this particular hypothetical retardation.
I'd give the people all their money back, w/ a reasonable return upon investment, & allow all future wage earner to keep all their earnings, and invest as they see fit.
I'd do the same for unemployment, & medicare....no more payroll taxes or deductions...you earn $1,000/wk, you take home $1,000 a week. I could sell that easily.
Eliminate Social Security and most of the old people will move in with their children. Are you sure you want that?
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.
