CEO raises minimum wage to $70000, takes $70000 wage himself until profits are met.

[Deleted member 848]

If only there was a working social model provided by a society that could provide this for every child, not just the children of those who've made it. After all, why should a child have to pay for their parents mistakes?

Perhaps we'd need a robust organizational system that has the tools to make this available....

That's what I'm getting at-- the rich get less rich-- but how much does it really matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Carbon13]

Blunt question, what is the Republican justification for lower effective tax rates for the very wealthy?

 

[Carbon13]

Thats never made sense to me.

 

[Harambe]

That's what I'm getting at-- the rich get less rich-- but how much does it really matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm fine with the Rich getting richer. Really. As long as they're implementing fair business practices inside and outside their company, they should make more money. No one is talking take that right away. What I'm not ok with is treating people that have not been given a fair shake like second class citizens because "that's how it's always been". Don't we want more for ourselves?

What makes sense, at least to me, is to give all children growing up the same, fair chance at life. Why not create a welfare state for children, AND RUN IT THROUGH THE FREE MARKET? Yes, taxes are higher. But you'll make that up for that by not having to worry about your children having student loans, and you don't have to constantly pay medical bills and insurance. You still get to choose which physicians your family see's, and what school to send your kids to.

You can't deny benefits of a free market. Nor can you deny benefits of a welfare state.

Why not have both, if they can work?

 

[Deleted member 848]

I'm fine with the Rich getting richer. Really. As long as they're implementing fair business practices inside and outside their company, they should make more money. No one is talking take that right away. What I'm not ok with is treating people that have not been given a fair shake like second class citizens because "that's how it's always been". Don't we want more for ourselves?

What makes sense, at least to me, is to give all children growing up the same, fair chance at life. Why not create a welfare state for children, AND RUN IT THROUGH THE FREE MARKET? Yes, taxes are higher. But you'll make that up for that by not having to worry about your children having student loans, and you don't have to constantly pay medical bills and insurance. You still get to choose which physicians your family see's, and what school to send your kids to.

You can't deny benefits of a free market. Nor can you deny benefits of a welfare state.

Why not have both, if they can work?

In full agreement. I'm obviously down with capitalism too-- but not the NeoCon American-brand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 848]

Japan in terms of healthcare has a really cool mixture of free market + medical services. Look into it, those who are curious


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harambe]

Blunt question, what is the Republican justification for lower effective tax rates for the very wealthy?

The more money they have, the more jobs they can create.

It's one of the many things that have been proven to be false, and yet fervently believed by those with money. Same line of thinking as "there's no such thing as climate change"

 

[Dr. Jones]

I will end this discussion the same way I end all of them on this topic.
The rules don't matter. Most wealthy know how make it and keep it.

Charging me higher taxes only results in me making it elsewhere with less benefit to my local markets, etc.

Don't like it, tough.

 

[Dr. Jones]

The more money they have, the more jobs they can create.

It's one of the many things that have been proven to be false, and yet fervently believed by those with money. Same line of thinking as "there's no such thing as climate change"

that's a bit disingenuous.

 

[Harambe]

that's a bit disingenuous.

I don't see how. Every scientist on the planet acknowledges climate change.

But if you were talking about Reaganomics proven to be false, you're right. I don't know anywhere near enough about it to prove it was a load of crap. But I do know enough to search google scholar for educated reviews on the subject that back me up.

 

[Harambe]

I will end this discussion the same way I end all of them on this topic.
The rules don't matter. Most wealthy know how make it and keep it.

Charging me higher taxes only results in me making it elsewhere with less benefit to my local markets, etc.

Don't like it, tough.

As can be seen by the $3.09 TRILLION DOLLARS tax dodgers have cost our country at it's current rate over the last 10 years. Yes. We're fully aware. And while the rich keep finding places to put their money, the poor build countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. All of which have higher points than the US on the Legatum Prosperity index. All of which have more personal freedoms than the US. All of which are continually more prosperous as a nation since implementing the nordic model. All of which have the same, or stronger economies than the US.

And don't think the rich receive nothing in our current model. See, the rich and middle class in this country benefit the most from social welfare. Where entitlement spending goes, 68% goes to the the upper and middle class. Only 32% goes to the bottom 20%. Overall, 96% of Americans benefit from some kind of social program.

 

[Carbon13]

I suppose I can understand the conservative viewpoint that talented people are the engine of our meritocratic economy. But i do think there are downsides to capitalism - things that can be destructive the greater good. Same goes for raising taxes and governmental spending getting out of control, but if government is not the check and balance for the free market, then what is? What are the other ways we could mitigate the downsides of the free market?

 

[Deleted member 848]

I will end this discussion the same way I end all of them on this topic.
The rules don't matter. Most wealthy know how make it and keep it.

Charging me higher taxes only results in me making it elsewhere with less benefit to my local markets, etc.

Don't like it, tough.

And rules can be made to curtail the offshoring of benefits, to make sure the benefits stay regional-- don't like it? Tough.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I don't see how. Every scientist on the planet acknowledges climate change.

But if you were talking about Reaganomics proven to be false, you're right. I don't know anywhere near enough about it to prove it was a load of crap. But I do know enough to search google scholar for educated reviews on the subject that back me up.

Reaganomics/Thatcherism is pretty-widely considered crap from almost every review article I've read in the last five or so years.

 

[Harambe]

I suppose I can understand the conservative viewpoint that talented people are the engine of our meritocratic economy. But i do think there are downsides to capitalism - things that can be destructive the greater good. Same goes for raising taxes and governmental spending getting out of control, but if government is not the check and balance for the free market, then what is? What are the other ways we could mitigate the downsides of the free market?

There's real downsides to both sides of the coin. Hence why we should embrace both, and work together instead of creating class warfare over it.

 

[Deleted member 848]

As can be seen by the $3.09 TRILLION DOLLARS tax dodgers have cost our country at it's current rate over the last 10 years. Yes. We're fully aware. And while the rich keep finding places to put their money, the poor build countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. All of which have higher points than the US on the Legatum Prosperity index. All of which have more personal freedoms than the US. All of which are continually more prosperous as a nation since implementing the nordic model. All of which have the same, or stronger economies than the US.

And don't think the rich receive nothing in our current model. See, the rich and middle class in this country benefit the most from social welfare. Where entitlement spending goes, 68% goes to the the upper and middle class. Only 32% goes to the bottom 20%. Overall, 96% of Americans benefit from some kind of social program.

ElRoach0 KILLIN it.

 

[Carbon13]

I guess i dont mind there being a class system in the US, i just wonder what is best for the middle class? Could someone convince me that concentrated wealth at the top is best for those not at the top? It seems like I have to have a lot of faith in an economic narrative of trickle down theory and in the unselfishness of those who "know how to make their money and keep it".

 

[NAOS]

I will end this discussion the same way I end all of them on this topic.
The rules don't matter. Most wealthy know how make it and keep it.

Charging me higher taxes only results in me making it elsewhere with less benefit to my local markets, etc.

Don't like it, tough.

you'll end it, eh? lolol

nice doucheface comment, too

ElRoachO ftw

 

[Beer]

Statements like these are so blah-- instead of addressing what I said being wrong, you bring attention to who I am as a person.

If the fact that I go to college renders me as unable to coherently share any ideas, then so be it. Otherwise, work with what I'm saying & try to rebuttle, instead of joining in that group-think "welllllll UR just A AKADEMIK! Fact-checker!" Nonsense that really helps zero ppl in the long run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He made a good point though. I was in your same shoes. VERY left wing in some of my ideas. Then I grew up got a job and realized that most of my left wing ideas that were implemented in fact made my life more difficult. I still lean left on social issues, but as far as economic issues I lean right. The leftist economic issues only help the poor, which I don't necessarily have a problem with but when $$ is coming out of my pocket to make life easier for someone else, well that kind of sucks. If I was rich it would be different but I'm middle class. I need that money for me and my family. I don't make enough to just be giving it to someone else willy nilly.

 

[Carbon13]

There's real downsides to both sides of the coin. Hence why we should embrace both, and work together instead of creating class warfare over it.

I agree, i cringe at extreme progressive tax plans. I believe in proportionality and paying your fair share. Perhaps a flat tax or something close to it? The focus really should be on effective tax rates so we can eliminate loopholes. How do we implement this? Thats a great question and I offer no solutions. I just think concentrated power leads to decisions made the very few who have their own biases. That includes government. But im also against anarchy, so what do we do? I like Buffetts idea of increasing governments role but eliminating politicians from their posts if they are unable to balance the budget at the end of their term. Unfortunately thats so extremely rational it will never happen.