Article on Taxes

AstroProdigy · June 7, 2008

I never said pure socialism works, but a turn towards more socialist principles would work as shown by those other countries. You cite a whole slew of dysfunctional countries that have had dictators and massive corruption in the past and present or have had such high population densities and have only recently come out of colonialism. In fact many of these countries are so poor because of a system that favors the rich. Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria all have a history of dictatorships and unregulated capitalism and little to no history of socialism. China and India have huge population densities and very turbulent histories with little natural resources per capita. Russia relatively recently came out of a total economic collapse followed by another collapse caused by unregulated, US promoted capitalism. The reason you list only the countries with the biggest populations as the only possible example that could disprove you is that most of these countries are so poor they can't possibly disprove you for decades no matter what they do. The closest is Russia, but I can guarantee you that you'd only argue that Russia only did it because of all its resources and thus we have to wait for Brazil China to beat us by which point the US would have fallen very far behind with its current system. The reason I cited France was that is has a large population and a higher population density than the US yet with all the bad policies they have that make their labor force inflexible they still beat us in human development despite a much lower GDP and higher unemployment because they at least invest in their own citizens. Edited June 7, 2008 by AstroProdigy

NBVegita · June 7, 2008

And yet the top 2 countries on your list are free trade economies which are the epitome of capitalism.

I just cited the countries you listed above to show you that in comparison to our population we do a !@#$%^&* good job.

Also as stated, France has been vastly moving away from governmental interference in their economy over the last 25 years. Being their economy has been growing stronger since the 's, which is congruent with the disposing of socialism, it would go to show that socialism actually was worse for the French.

China does a !@#$%^&* good job for the population they have.

As I've stated in prior posts when this is brought up, there are dozens of simply population related factors that contribute to your GDP, let alone more factors that have nothing to do with our economic practices.

!@#$%^&* if we moved into true communism our GDP and HDI would be number 1.

AstroProdigy · June 7, 2008

Both the top 2 countries are strong welfare states.

If we came under the same conditions as those other countries I'd agree. Otherwise you're completely ignoring everything else to create an overly simplistic comparison. We did better than Nigeria? WELL GOSH THAT MEANS SUCCESS!

France has been relatively stagnant in recent years actually which is blamed on the inflexible work conditions. I never said we should have pure socialist economies. All I said was the US needs more aspects of socialism in its system. Under a more socialist system France had high growth rates, but that's related to reconstruction after WWII and I won't try to use something I know doesn't prove my argument to make an argument the way you do.

China is massively corrupt and it's current model for growth will only get them up to a certain point.

I gave you an example of a country with a large population and even higher population density.

When did I say to move into true communism? True communism is likely impossible to achieve.

SeVeR · June 7, 2008

I should have been more specific...

When have i ever talked about socialist economies? I am making a distinction between socialist principles such as proportional taxation, welfare and government health care, and socialist economies where the government takes control over private business.

Most of the countries on the various lists that you and Astro discuss employ these socialist principles and reap the rewards. That is the point i think everyone is trying to get you to realise.

"As for my populations I'm stating that simply because you can get a high GDP and HDI with a very small country does not mean that if you scale that countries population by ~6000% that they would still have a high GDP and HDI."

So you're not certain... or even vaguely sure that population size has an effect on the effectiveness of socialist principles? I wonder why you bring it up. Then i realise that America is by far the most populated country among the rich nations of the world, and i see why. Lets blame the Middle East's abundance of sand for their aggression. A unique characteristic of a country doesn't have to coincide with a unique effect.

-EDIT- From Astro's post:

"Otherwise you're completely ignoring everything else to create an overly simplistic comparison."

Is exactly what i was thinking. My reply being the same:

"I never said we should have pure socialist economies. All I said was the US needs more aspects of socialism in its system."

Edited June 7, 2008 by SeVeR

NBVegita · June 7, 2008

I've never stated that either of you stated a pure socialistic economy. For the most no economy is purely anything. So I do agree.

Astro note that everything I say in a post doesn't mean I'm implying you said it.

As for the population there are a direct correlation between larger metropolitan areas and poverty rate. The higher the population, in most cases and surely in the above case, you have exponentially more metropolitan areas. Sever we've been in this argument before on many other topics where I've detailed all of my information correlating population to crime and economy.

What I was implying by my statement "sounds a lot like socialism" is that if we implemented the ideals you are talking about, coupled with the already socialist policies we have, we'd be more of a socialist economy than a capitalist economy.

Under a more socialist system France had high growth rates

citation please.

Otherwise you're completely ignoring everything else to create an overly simplistic comparison.

As I've stated in prior posts when this is brought up, there are dozens of simply population related factors that contribute to your GDP, let alone more factors that have nothing to do with our economic practices.

I was merely pointing out ONE condition for the difference in our HDI's. Never did I imply that it was the only. What is the point of making posts if you don't read every statement I make. I mean cmon that post of mine was what 8 sentences?

SeVeR · June 7, 2008

The poverty rate of America is actually less than the UK (Nationmaster), i think i said that last time. Do you think other countries don't also have "metropolitan areas" at a number proportional with their population size too? Either way, there is nothing special about America's poverty rate with a higher population. I don't see how a larger population makes employing socialist health and welfare more difficult. It's a bigger job, but there is bigger man-power and bigger resources, making it an identical amount of effort for the country as a whole. America has more wealth per person than many of the countries where these systems work.

What I was implying by my statement "sounds a lot like socialism" is that if we implemented the ideals you are talking about, coupled with the already socialist policies we have, we'd be more of a socialist economy than a capitalist economy.

This is the main point. What exactly about welfare, government health-care and proportional taxation makes a country have a socialist economy? No-one is saying the government should take control of all private business, get rid of the stock markets, and nationalise the energy industry. Just look at the UK, which is doing fine with employing these socialist principles in a capitalist economy. There is nothing socialist about the UK economy.

AstroProdigy · June 7, 2008

QUOTE
Under a more socialist system France had high growth rates

citation please.

Well you said France has been moving away from socialism for 25 years and I pointed out that before that France had higher growth rates which were attributable to reconstruction and not necessarily more socialist leaning principles. I didn't even argue that you're wrong there so I don't see why you're asking me to prove it. If you want proof you can get it yourself I'm not looking for sources of the Marshall Plan and post WWII era reconstruction for you.

Edited June 7, 2008 by AstroProdigy

NBVegita · June 8, 2008

Sever, as I said I did all the research in multiple other topics about population/poverty things. I'm not willing to do it again, as I believe this would be 4 times, for this topic so lets either accept or deny my statements and be done with it.

What exactly about welfare, government health-care and proportional taxation makes a country have a socialist economy?

First off, taxes. the U.S. tax system is not as in proportionate as you would seem to imply. It would take a very small change to make it fairly proportionate. It would take a lot for it to be drastically in proportionate, meaning the wealthy being over taxed.

Spoiler! --Click here to view--

How is welfare not socialism?

Welfare allows the government to control the money incoming, what you can spend you money on, limits productivity of lower class citizens and for all intensive purpose gives the government full control of the economy and lives of the lower class. It's already at the point, in NY state, where if you get on welfare it behooves you to stay on welfare instead of trying to find a job. Welfare will pay for your house, help with your car, food and spending money. As stated multiple times in other posts, if you add universal health care, why would someone in the lower class choose to work their !@#$%^&* off in a hot kitchen fryer for no benefits and a worse living style than the government would provide.

Nothing better than taxing all of the people who actually work for their money and give it away to the poor? Nice of you to try to play robin hood, but if we expanded welfare added universal health care the middle class will be the ones hurt most. Your solution to this is to create a radical tax on the wealthy, which along with being unfair, simply makes it impossible for the middle class to move out of the middle class. What would help more would be to find ways to regulate people like Steve Jobs whose salary is $1 a year. Through various incentives and "gifts" from the board he is a ridiculously wealthy. Raise the taxes on him, he doesn't care as he evades the majority of our tax laws already.

Universal health care I've yet again argued multiple times, with you, in other topics.

F. A. Hayek; “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century”. Ironically this man was a stark classical liberal.

PaRa$iTe · June 8, 2008

According to the original meanings of "the grand three" - conservatism, liberalism, and socialism - socialism is WAY more extreme than welfare.

Also, liberalism advocates free market, so I don't see the irony, unless I failed to understand the quote, which is possible considering my weak English. Classical liberalism promotes the freedom of the individual. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism)

Welfare allows the government to control the money incoming, what you can spend you money on, limits productivity of lower class citizens and for all intensive purpose gives the government full control of the economy and lives of the lower class.

I don't know which country you have on mind. The system I live in is nowhere near what you describe. Progressive taxation, and some economic health !@#$%^&*uming you fulfill certain requirements, sure.

As stated multiple times in other posts, if you add universal health care, why would someone in the lower class choose to work their !@#$%^&* off in a hot kitchen fryer for no benefits and a worse living style than the government would provide.

Now, saying this will probably label me as a leftie, but I think there's something wrong with having to work your !@#$%^&* off in a hot kitchen fryer for no benefits and a bad living style, especially considering

Nothing better than taxing all of the people who actually work for their money and give it away to the poor?

Since the above sentence would SUPPORT lowering taxes for the fryer worker.

Nice of you to try to play robin hood, but if we expanded welfare added universal health care the middle class will be the ones hurt most. Your solution to this is to create a radical tax on the wealthy, which along with being unfair, simply makes it impossible for the middle class to move out of the middle class.

I'm a middle-class person in a welfare country, at least that's what I like to think of myself as. Yet I don't think the system hurts me. We have universal health care, and I don't mind it, though at the moment bureaucracy has caused a failure. I'm not sure where you put the limits for the middle class, but if you mean that it's unfair not everyone will be able to have a private island and two private jets, I don't see the problem. Even with this system, it's possible to lead quite a luxurious life. That said, I think you should earn something for working more.

What would help more would be to find ways to regulate people like Steve Jobs whose salary is $1 a year. Through various incentives and "gifts" from the board he is a ridiculously wealthy. Raise the taxes on him, he doesn't care as he evades the majority of our tax laws already.

Totally agree with this. Optimally, the progressive taxation should be aimed at THESE people, rather than, say, doctors or lawyers or suchlike (who, I suppose, are among those who you meant with "people who actually work"). Sure, he might have had a good idea, but I don't think one of those should be able to buy you and everyone in your vicinity everything for the rest of your life regardless if you do something anymore ever.

It's possible that I've misunderstood a thing or two, and in that case, you have my apologies.

SeVeR · June 9, 2008

If you add universal health care, then you don't have to pay as much welfare out in the first place, since the lower classes wouldn't have to pay for health insurance anymore. The fact is the health-care companies are making billions in profit from being in charge of our health. Think how much better life would be for everyone if the government ran it for no profit at all. I walked into a hospital in the UK three years ago with stomach pain, and was operated on the same evening for appendicitis. No cost, no waiting. I spent the next five days in a hospital bed recovering. No cost. I was given drugs and food. No cost. If the UK can do it, then why can't a richer country like the US do it?

Hillary Clinton tried it 15 years back, and was immediately savaged through the media by lobbyists paid for by health companies. These companies "donate" to politicians, or what any other person would call bribery. It's so incredibly corrupt.

I'm actually not much of a supporter of welfare, but your comments NBV are shockingly exagerated.

Also, wouldn't universal health care make those crappy fryer jobs WITH NO BENEFITS more attractive? Now they don't have to worry about what they're covered for, and neither does the employer.

Again you take things to the extreme with this "radical tax on the wealthy" talk. No-one has even mentioned a figure. So of course a "radical tax" is unfair... whatever you define radical as is immaterial since calling it radical immediately means its unfair...

This argument is silly because no-one is actually saying anything. We just keep advocating principles with no meaningful figures because none of us know the ins and outs of the tax system, the welfare system, or the health insurance system. It's just "Conservatism is better, bla bla bla" or "Liberal Socialism is better, bla bla bla"

Probably my last post on this argument.

NBVegita · June 9, 2008

Hey para I was saying Ironically about him being a classic liberal is because modern liberals differ much from classical liberals.

Also I'm not opposed to offering health care under strict regulations to low-income families. But I can't stand to see welfare abused, which is becoming an epidemic, at least in NYS.

Coming from someone who worked out of the lower class, they are not taxed that much. I do support raising taxes SOME on the rich, but a program as expansive as Uni Health would raise taxes on everyone. And as stated before government regulated health care is not as good as private health care. So if you want good coverage for your family, you will have to pay more. Not saying Uni health care would be terrible, but I've got family in Canada who drive all the way into the U.S. and pay for U.S. health care because of the difference in quality. Maybe that is an isolated case, but it doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

As for the fryer, unfortunately everyone isn't born with a golden s!@#$%^&* in their mouths. I guarantee that if you polled the majority of americans they've worked !@#$%^&*ty jobs just to pay the rent and put food on the table. But then people complain that the immigrants are taking the jobs and the unemployment rate is so high simply because it's easier, and more profitable to be unemployed (at least in NYS) that to be employed in most of lower class situations.

We just keep advocating principles with no meaningful figures because none of us know the ins and outs of the tax system, the welfare system, or the health insurance system.

Agreed, except I don't support modern conservatism or liberalism.

PaRa$iTe · June 9, 2008

Well yeah, debates like this rarely end before empirical experiments are conducted (and often not even then).

I am well aware that a lot of people have to work unreasonably hard to earn their living; my point was that ideally, they shouldn't have to, or at least, conditions should be as humane as possible.

Oh well. People being people, I guess no taxation would truly work, except in some kind of utopia. It's all about priorities. I'm aware that welfare can be abused; nevertheless, I prefer the system, knowing that at least some of the people really need the aid they recieve, and if some of the taxes I pay go to parasites - so be it. Others might prefer the legislation to allow for individual success if you work hard, and think that paying for leeches conflicts with their views of justice. Can't say which one is correct, but in the end, the principles seem to be mostly about this. Or then again, I may be wrong.

NBVegita · June 10, 2008

I do concede that my viewpoints on this matter are very strong because I worked from a low class family into a strong middle class standing, upper middle class when you combine my fiance and I. When I was 18 and I moved out I ate ramen twice a day because I couldn't afford anything else. Yet I kept working and fighting to improve my quality of life. Which gives me a really bitter taste when I see the money that I had to bust my !@#$%^&* to get, being handed off to the lazy sob's abusing it.

I do agree that welfare is a good thing for the people who honestly need a little help to get back on their feet. But coming from a low income area, I've seen the ultimate abuse of welfare and how rediculously easy it is to abuse the system (at least in NY state) I've only met a handful of people in my life who actually deserve the welfare they're getting.

As stated not that I don't see the need for strictly regulated welfare, but if you've got a broken, abused system in place already, shouldn't you focus on fixing and limiting the abuse before you expand it further?

FMBI · June 10, 2008

Veg, perhaps you'd like to explain something to me that nobody else seems able to. Why are Republicans all for the people that "need to get on their feet," you claim to support the "Entrepreneurial Spirit," and yet you do everything possible to make it harder for the people at the bottom to get to the top? There is absolutely no logical reason for such behavior. Unless, of course, you really do believe that people like Andrew Carnegie somehow had a better chance of getting rich than the children of robber barons (if I recall, 96% of the rich from that period were born rich?) - in which case you really need to check up on your history.

It's still possible to get ahead in America, yes, but it requires an incredible amount of effort - and the current state of affairs is not necessary. Europe and Japan (and even a few of the more socially stable third-world countries) take a completely different view of the world from what we do. High quality jobs, universal education, cheap healthcare (I'll get back to this another time) - those are all still realities in other countries, even though they don't exist here anymore. Essentially, the American Dream that we hear about every 2 seconds from politicians does not exist anymore, in the sense that anyone can get into the game with a little bit of effort and borrowed money. If you truly support that, then why do you also support a party that has deregulated and detaxed company after company, in an effort to drive startups and entrepreneurs into the ground? How can you support a party that happily claimed estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and gift taxes "hurt the poor" when in reality, their repeal / decrease has led only to a windfall for the rich? Unless you yourself plan to one day be a multimillionaire, it seems mildly absurd to believe that you are somehow gaining a benefit from such idiotic policies.

But then, what's logic got to do with it? My father has never made more than $25,000 a year, he's always insisted those on welfare "get a free ride," and yet when he was laid off for less than 3 months, he suddenly found out that welfare covers an infinitesimal portion of the average family's needs. Maybe we need to go hunt down more of those "welfare queens" that Reagan lied about. Hmm?

NBVegita · June 10, 2008

Coming from a person who lived with in a community full of welfare abusers I've seen the abuse first person.

As for families, my dad got laid off when I was 4, and he refused welfare. He worked 3 minimum wage jobs, 18 hours a day, just to put pasta and hotdogs on the table (cheapest food at that time). I worked my way through college on a retail management job where as stated prior I ate ramen twice a day.

No I don't enjoy that, but I also don't evny the people who are born into money. I find it incredibly encouraging that I now make more money than both my father and my fiance's put together. All it took was hard work and determination. Never did I stand anywhere with my hand out. Never did I ask and or expect anyone to offer me help. Nor was I ever offered said help. What has the world come to where we're supposed to reward a lack of work ethic? I support lowing tuition costs for middle and lower class student, offering more scholarships and federal aid. I support giving people opportunity. I don't support supporting people.

I don't see how stricter regulations on welfare makes it harder for the lower class? I think all governments, state and federal should be held to the mandate of 5 years maximum for welfare. (Example, NYS picks up where the federal government leaves off after 5 years and for an indefinate period of time). I have a problem when you're too lazy to get a job, or too proud to say shovel manure, so that now I have to support you.

Tell me how its so hard to get ahead in America? If you go to school, do your homework the federal government will pay for at least a community college. As long as your grades were not terrible you may even get a scholarship. Even if you have to get a job to support your college, once you have your degree you are golden. Or if you're not book smart, do a trade. Mechanics make great money. Not a glorious 9-5 job, but it's a good days wage.

PaRa$iTe · June 10, 2008

There are lots of abusers. But there are also lots of people who put a LOT of effort in, and work three shifts, and never get OUT of that stage. Maybe they just don't get picked among those 100 applicants, though they try again and again and again. At one point, people will start wondering why they don't have any previous experience of anything, and they're out of work for good unless they get lucky. Or maybe you have a typical two-child family, and the father dies, the children being too young for a job. Those are people who need the support.

On a sidenote, I believe that here in Finland, you need to apply for jobs to get the unemployment support thingy. Also, university is free.

But then again, a degree means !@#$%^&* here, since 25% of the population has a post-secondary diploma. There's a downside to wide-spread education, too

NBVegita · June 10, 2008

As I've stated before, there are situations where it's very useful, thats why I advocate strict controls, not abolition.

As for applying for jobs, the sad part is, at least in NYS, all you need to do is fill out an application. It doesn't even need to be a completed application. When I managed a retail store, I'd get 15-25 welfare applicants a week. Most of the time it just provided their name and most of the time no contact information. The sad part is when the welfare board called to confirm if they applied or not, they simply asked if they handed in the application. It didn't matter to them if it was complete or not, just that they physically handed in a job application to our company.

There are thousands of jobs where if you work hard you can make something of yourself. Even something as simple as retail. The turnover in management is rediculous. You need nothing more than a highschool diploma (for most of the small - medium retail chains) to become management. Management is fully benefitted and paid a decent wage. There are hundreds of jobs like this. But if you're always late, treat your job as if you're under employed or just simply don't do a good job, then you won't get any where.

If it tells you something that I was a keyholder in a store at 16 (I was supposed to be 18 before getting the position) and made a manager immediately once I turned 18. I treated my !@#$%^&*ty minimum wage job like it was the best job in the world. Even when I became management at 18, they terribly underpaid me, but instead of getting bitter I busted my !@#$%^&* harder. In four years I worked from !@#$%^&*istant manager to store manager of the highest volume store in our district and over doubled my starting manager income.

Another option for the poor is the military. They give you a good wage, pay for everything and give you education. Before you go to the "oh great send the poor to die", they make you take an ASVAB before joining (in the U.S.). If you score any decent score they will place you out of infantry into a posistion that would better suit your skills. Example: in highschool I placed very high on mine and they wanted to have me do ROTC to become an officer and place me into intelligence or weapons development. They wouldn't even consider making me infantry.

Before you go and try to say I'm tooting my horn, I'm not asking for anyone's praise or admiration. I did what I did because I had to. If I had come from a rich family I wouldn't have had to. But being the background I come from and the experiences I've had, I know you can do it. Trust me it's not easy, but it's not as hard as people think.

AstroProdigy · June 11, 2008

What about the people who don't have the time to get education? If you're 25 and alone with 2 or 3 kids when do you suppose you'll have that time? If your manager screws you because they happen to not like you then what? Quit and hope you can get another job or otherwise you can't support your kids? Just because you personally experienced seeing people abuse welfare doesn't mean that's a universal rule or even the majority or a large minority. Considering unemployment is only a little over 5% and poverty and near poverty rates are much higher what about all of those people? I agree giving them an education is better than giving them a check, but what about neither as this administration does?

Also, when you cut taxes for the rich without balancing the budget that forces the Fed to print more money, boosting inflation, and the poor end up paying for the tax cuts with the lower value of their income. The Republican Party utterly fails in this respect which is sad because at least in the pre Reagan era they stood for a balanced budget, which is a good idea.

NBVegita · June 11, 2008

Well if you're 25, single with 2 or 3 kids and no education, you made some pretty bad life choices. So now I'm supposed to pay for the fact that you were lazy and couldn't keep your legs shut? Really now, if you put yourself in that position, I shouldn't have to pay for your mistakes. Why do you always try to tell people that it's ok if you screw your life up, we'll take care of you. Where the !@#$%^&* has accountability gone in the U.S.? Oh yeah I guess that was ruled politically incorrect.

Also keep this in mind, someone has to run that gas station. Someone has to flip the burgers you love to eat. Someone has to stock the shelves at your grocery store. Someone has to make the manure that the farmers use. I know its a hard concept.

Who says you have to quit your job to find a new one? If your manager is being unjust, well contact human resources. Either way, unless you get fired, search for a new job while you work your current one. It's always easier to find a job when you already have one.

As for welfare, 48% of people in NYS on welfare (as of 2007) had been on welfare for over 5 years. (The federal allowance is 5 years, for your entire life, NYS foots the entire rest of the bill) Of those 48%, just over 30% have been on welfare for over 10 years. that shows me that, not even including the unjustified welfare, half of the people are abusing the welfare system. Just because our state government allows it doesn't mean it's not abuse.

You seem to think that simply having a job means you get no federal help. There are DOZENS of loopholes, specially if you have kids, even having a job. A runner in our office makes 30k a year, his wife makes 20k, and he gets a state allocated food allowance for his (one) kid. That's simply Bull!@#$%^&*.

After reading these,

http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/05/13/...favor-the-poor/

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6621

please elaborate on these unfair tax cuts. Yes the rich benefited, but the poor received just as much benefit.

As for a balanced budget, I'd be happy to see that in my life time, under ANY party.

PaRa$iTe · June 11, 2008

I'd like to point out that there's not enough management spots for everyone, no matter how educated they are. In fact, managament jobs are a minority. This means that no matter what they do, a majority of the people will NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO fail to get a good job, unless someone else fails. The hard-work-leads-to-profit system that you like so much is based on an !@#$%^&*umption that most people are too lazy to try - so if I were you, I wouldn't be too angry at them

Anyway, a base fact of economics: tax cuts for everyone helps no-one, except those who sell things. Exactly the same as a general raise. Everyone having more money than before leads to increased consumtion. This in turn is a MAJOR booster of inflation, causing prices to go way high - just what happens when the government prints more money. It only leads to people having more things than before, while their savings lose value. Which is a problem for both the rich AND the poor - the rich lose more, while the poor probably end up not having enough money to buy food, not to mention paying the rent. That's what happens in a liberal economy.

Edited June 11, 2008 by PaRa$iTe

Aileron · June 11, 2008

Well, my life experience has taught me that there is a major difference between 'effort' and 'work'. In Physics, the concept of 'Work' is a vector. It has a magnitude, but it also has a direction. For example, if a 2 ton block is moved a mile to the right, then a mile to the left, no work was done because the block is still where it started.

Generally, if someone signs up for a low-wage job and tries to bust their !@#$%^&* at that job while lacking a long term career plan, he spends a lot of effort but does no work because of his lack of direction.

True, it is impossible to be in a national state where most people have management jobs, but that's not the objective. The objective is for everyone to make enough money to meet their short term and long term needs, a state which is easy to obtain because everyone is both a worker and a consumer, but it could have two catches:

The first is indeed that if too much wealth gets held up into the super-rich, it can cause radical poverty. A rich person has no more needs and relatively few more wants than anyone else, so if you have one person with the salary of a thousand, you have 999 salaries locked up. Currently, there just aren't enough rich people to do this yet. Now, if we go back to the topic, !@#$%^&*uming the article was correct, taxing that salary would take away some of the money and permanently locking it up by effectively destroying it. I know the jury is still out on its correctness, but if it is correct, it disproves socialism on the taxing end.

Anyway, I'd rather we focus on preventing one person from making that kind of money in the first place, byp!@#$%^&*ing the socialism vs capitalism argument altogether. Generally, the weird thing about free market capitalism is that with money comes the power to take the 'free market' out of the free market system, so I'll admit we do need the government to balance out certain anti-capitalistic forces once in a while. There is certainly some anti-capitalistic force at work in the modern day, because there is no way Steve Job's talents have higher economic worth than that of a thousand mortals. It is the result of how the modern corporation is built, so the modern corporation needs to be restructured. There should be some laws written regarding corporate salaries and stock options. Maybe there should be a law stating that all jobs must pay in either cash or paid benefits, abolishing the concept of 'stock option'.

The second problem is gas. It could very well be that people won't be able to afford to drive to work for a minimum wage job in a few years.

NBVegita · June 11, 2008

True, it is impossible to be in a national state where most people have management jobs, but that's not the objective.

Exactly. Who says you need to have a management job to make good money? I was using management in a retail sense as an example. In most corporate companies there are between 12-25 employees under each manager. Each of those employees makes a !@#$%^&* good wage.

I got my first corporate job as a computer technician with no degree. I was in college but had a job making 35k a year. All it took was a little computer know how.

There are dozens of quote on quote "untrained" jobs to get you into a corporate environment.

If people just work hard they can easily find a job to sustain their lives. The problem is that people don't seem to have the motivation to work hard, and expect that you will magically be promoted to Sr. VP after 2 years with a company.

Aileron · June 11, 2008

Where exactly? I'm still looking for a decent job.

NBVegita · June 12, 2008

what's your degree in?

Sometimes to find the job you want, you need to move out of your current geographical area.

AstroProdigy · June 12, 2008

Ok let me change the analogy. Instead it's a 30 year old with 3 kids and a husband who died of cancer. Since her husband didn't have health insurance because it's so !@#$%^&* expensive the bill killed all of their savings and lost them their house. Now the wife lives alone with the 3 kids and works 2 jobs while raising them, but still can't make ends meet because pay is so !@#$%^&*ty. What if the husband ran out on her? Is that her fault too?

The objective is that everyone who works hard can at least make a wage that they can support a small family with. That's become less and less the case for decades. The only reason my family stays afloat is because my dad happened to buy a house 25 years ago when housing prices were 10 times lower and rented most of it for years to help pay off the mortgage while I slept in the same room with my 2 sisters. We all got to go to college because there was a strong state and city university system and a great deal of financial aid, which is slowly being eroded today by poor fiscal planning. The only reason this was all possible is because my parents are immigrants and had that diligent immigrant mentality that you can't possibly expect Americans to have. When you come from poverty in another country it may be easy to live with little, but as an American raised in a time when people lived with more what do you expect? It used to be that one person could work hard and all the basic luxuries of life could be provided for. Now both mother and father can work hard and longer and still be incapable of living the American dream. It has little to do with wanting a free ride and almost everything to do with one of the perils of capitalism when it isn't controlled.

Sign In

Article on Taxes

Recommended Posts

AstroProdigy

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

NBVegita

AstroProdigy

SeVeR

NBVegita

SeVeR

AstroProdigy

NBVegita

PaRa$iTe

SeVeR

NBVegita

PaRa$iTe

NBVegita

FMBI

NBVegita

PaRa$iTe

NBVegita

AstroProdigy

NBVegita

PaRa$iTe

Aileron

NBVegita

Aileron

NBVegita

AstroProdigy

Announcements

Browse

Activity