[Jongpil Yun]

Originally Posted by noodles

Do you know why these people complain that they need more money when they can't do more than untrained labor? Because they and their parents could not afford to send them to college or trade school, and we have transitioned to a system that seeks to eliminate trained labor. Why? Because trained labor will form unions, and walk out on you, leaving your business crippled. Untrained labor can be performed for dirt cheap by the latest crop of illegal aliens to waltz across the border.

I see this as an argument for better public schools, funded all the way through University level, not minimum wage.

Man, fuck you, you arrogant piece of shit, you should take care of your employees! So, I return you to the 20:1 rule: if you want to make $150,000,000 a year as the CEO of Shell Oil, then you need to pay the guy cleaning your office $7,500,000. See that? A CEO who makes $150,000,000 in salary and bonuses makes 12,327 times the current minimum wage.

I'm totally unconvinced by this as well. The reason a janitor gets paid minimum wage is that anyone can do it. The reason that van der Veer gets paid $150,000,000 is that, given the scarcity of people of his managerial skills, and the plethora of business who would like someone of his managerial skills, several of whom have revenues that would make a modestly sized nation jealous, it seems perfectly reasonable.

There is nothing innate about his managerial skills that make him worth $150m. If everybody could run a company the way he could, he'd be making $10/hr. He makes 100 times as much as your average CEO. Is he a hundred times better? No, probably twice as good, if that. Once again, it is just the scarcity of the personal resources he commands that makes him worth so much. I personally don't see anything immoral about that. IMO it shouldn't be about punishing the elite, but raising up the laity.

[hirah]

i agree that there should not be tax breaks for the rich. but i dont think a tax of up to 65% is the answer. i think that a flat rate income based tax would be better across the board. if everyone were taxed at say 25%, it would lessen the burden on the lower to middle class. then you would have to eliminate all the bullshit tax breaks for the rich. tax social security on the full income, not to the limits we have now.
as to the 20:1, i think that starts to tread into some seriously government control. why stop there? why not limit how much a car or house costs. or how much of a percent of your income is allowed to be spent. i think this opens up a can of worms allowing to much governmental control.
as to minimum wage, i believe everyone has the right to learn and better themselves. i think we need to put more money into education. but not throw money at it hoping to improve the situation. by improving the quality of education, you can increase the level of education. this means not passing through kids that dont know what they learn. also holding teachers accountable for actually teaching. one of my biggest peeves is grading on a bell curve. the real world doesnt work on a bell curve, why should we think we can learn that way?
i think we all want the same things, we just have different ideas on how to get there. and as much as we think we can make a difference, the truth is we are not a true democracy. we are actually a republic government.
which does have some advantages over a true democracy.

[Jongpil Yun]

Originally Posted by hirah

i agree that there should not be tax breaks for the rich. but i dont think a tax of up to 65% is the answer. i think that a flat rate income based tax would be better across the board. if everyone were taxed at say 25%, it would lessen the burden on the lower to middle class. then you would have to eliminate all the bullshit tax breaks for the rich. tax social security on the full income, not to the limits we have now.

Bullshit. A flat rate tax is enormously regressive. Not progressive, not "flat" in the true sense, regressive. Our current tax system, as it stands, is a bit progressive, but not as progressive as just looking at the marginal tax rates would have you think.

as to the 20:1, i think that starts to tread into some seriously government control. why stop there? why not limit how much a car or house costs. or how much of a percent of your income is allowed to be spent. i think this opens up a can of worms allowing to much governmental control.

You know, FDR set price limits and such during WWII. Seems like it worked to me. Speaking from a purely practical standpoint. It seems to me that most free marketeers have an innately moral or dogmatic objection to socialism or a mixed economy of any kind. All I care about is how it works in practice.

as to minimum wage, i believe everyone has the right to learn and better themselves. i think we need to put more money into education. but not throw money at it hoping to improve the situation. by improving the quality of education, you can increase the level of education. this means not passing through kids that dont know what they learn. also holding teachers accountable for actually teaching. one of my biggest peeves is grading on a bell curve. the real world doesnt work on a bell curve, why should we think we can learn that way?

Pretty much everything to do with human accomplishment approximates a normal distribution. I think we should do away with the concept of a "grade" being tied to age altogether (like 10th grade for 16 year olds, 11th grade for 17 year olds, etc). That alone would go quite a ways in improving our education system by establishing a meritocracy, and removing arbitrary barriers on both ends.

Obviously, I'm a Keynesian, demand-side style economist, but that's only because from what I can tell, it's what works. Look at the enormous growth that we enjoyed during FDR's reign, and for a good deal after that, and compare with the unchecked capitalism that led to the great depression in the first place, and the supply side bungling of Greenspan, and the absolutely deplorable job the IMF and related bodies are doing by enforcing rules that do not work to promote economic growth on developing nations as a precondition for loans.

[JBroll]

Originally Posted by noodles

Sometimes, your posts really reflect the economic class you grew up in.

Do you know why these people complain that they need more money when they can't do more than untrained labor? Because they and their parents could not afford to send them to college or trade school, and we have transitioned to a system that seeks to eliminate trained labor. Why? Because trained labor will form unions, and walk out on you, leaving your business crippled. Untrained labor can be performed for dirt cheap by the latest crop of illegal aliens to waltz across the border.

As I said in my post above, we need to level the playing field. Give that poor kid a chance to actually go to college, rather than staying poor and uneducated. I know we still need janitors, but you will ALWAYS have people who have no aspirations to move any further up the chain that that. Recognize that, and provide them with a way to earn a decent living and have health care, rather than dooming them to living in a hovel without health care and the means to support their family.

The thing that pisses me off the most about rich conservatives is their arguments that we need to fill the low wage jobs, while they want to do nothing to show their appreciation for the guys that sweep their floors and cut their grass. Man, fuck you, you arrogant piece of shit, you should take care of your employees! So, I return you to the 20:1 rule: if you want to make $150,000,000 a year as the CEO of Shell Oil, then you need to pay the guy cleaning your office $7,500,000. See that? A CEO who makes $150,000,000 in salary and bonuses makes 12,327 times the current minimum wage.

I'm not pro-CEO-wankers, and I don't see where you got that idea. I'm insanely pro-education and would rather see trained labor. I think I was more influenced by being born into a family where my father went straight from dirt poor, working to pay his way through high school and college and helping to support his parents and their other five children to being a very important lawyer for USAA, a banking and insurance company that brings a huge amount of power and money to the city (San Antonio revolves around USAA and the military bases) and that always gets awards for customer support and other such fun stuff. Paid his way through law school at UT, worked for the state, then went to USAA... and no, before someone starts bashing him, he didn't litigate or screw people out of their money.

He didn't need a level playing field. Oops. That said, I'm all for education; the reason I don't like minimum wage increases isn't that I want to laugh at poor people because I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth and I get to bathe in Benjamins every morning, it is simply that expecting minimum wage to be a living wage is going to make for some very uncomfortable living. It doesn't work. It doesn't level the playing field, it only drops the tide all around.

Jeff

[noodles]

Originally Posted by Jongpil Yun

I see this as an argument for better public schools, funded all the way through University level, not minimum wage.

Where did you get that from? I was talked about a skilled labor force, not minimum wage.

I'm totally unconvinced by this as well. The reason a janitor gets paid minimum wage is that anyone can do it. The reason that van der Veer gets paid $150,000,000 is that, given the scarcity of people of his managerial skills, and the plethora of business who would like someone of his managerial skills, several of whom have revenues that would make a modestly sized nation jealous, it seems perfectly reasonable.

There is nothing innate about his managerial skills that make him worth $150m. If everybody could run a company the way he could, he'd be making $10/hr. He makes 100 times as much as your average CEO. Is he a hundred times better? No, probably twice as good, if that. Once again, it is just the scarcity of the personal resources he commands that makes him worth so much. I personally don't see anything immoral about that. IMO it shouldn't be about punishing the elite, but raising up the laity.

There is no reason anyone should make that level of income. Period. You talk of him commanding scarce personal resources, but when you stop to think that he is making that salary on the backs of hard working Americans who need what he provides to get to work, school, the grocery store, etc, all because the oil industry fiercely lobbies to bury alternative energy sources that would force him to be competitive in the market place, then suddenly he looks less like a skilled businessman and more like a unethical predator. This is accumulation of wealth for the sake of wealth, and honestly, I find the concept of private ownership of natural resources morally repugnant. Go read up on your history, because Teddy Roosevelt handled guys like this the best way I know how: if you have the ability to negatively effect the economy of the nation, then you should be regulated. Punishing the elite? More like punishing criminal activity.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by hirah

i agree that there should not be tax breaks for the rich. but i dont think a tax of up to 65% is the answer.

OK, let's imagine you are an "average" CEO, and you made around $5,000,000 last year. If I take 65% of what you make, then you still have $2,250,000 in the bank. So, tell me why a high tax rate is not the answer? You'd still be loaded.

If you made $25,000 last year, and I just take 5%, then you have $23,750. How would the loss of $1250 effect someone in this income bracket? When you're living paycheck to paycheck, that extra $50 is something you are most definitely going to feel. Especially with gas prices double what they were just four years ago.

It's about balance, dude. There comes a point where you don't really need any more money that you already have. The pursuit of wealth for the sake of wealth is detrimental to an economy.

[JBroll]

Well, this one turned to piss pretty quickly. What the fuck should a government be doing with 65% of the wealthy population's money? So much for the whole 'limited government' thing...

Jeff

[noodles]

Originally Posted by JBroll

He didn't need a level playing field. Oops. That said, I'm all for education; the reason I don't like minimum wage increases isn't that I want to laugh at poor people because I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth and I get to bathe in Benjamins every morning, it is simply that expecting minimum wage to be a living wage is going to make for some very uncomfortable living. It doesn't work. It doesn't level the playing field, it only drops the tide all around.

Yeah, and your father is the exception, not the rule. Also, if you notice, I wasn't talking about raising the minimum wage. I was talking about setting corporate income caps that are tied to the level of the lowest wage employees. If we're still talking about a healthy economy, then that means keeping money flowing through it. When an individual starts to accumulate massive amounts of wealth, then that is money that is being kept out of the economy. You can talk all you want of raising or lowering tides, but sitting on wealth is like draining the lake. It's hard for a boat to rise when their is no water for it to rise on.

We have a tax system that rewards someone for sheltering money outside of the economy. This is wrong. One should be punished for sitting on large piles of cash with stiff tax rates. That money needs to be put back into the economy. When I say tax the hell out of the rich to fund the government, drastically lower the tax rate on the middle class, and eliminate taxes for the poor, I am talking about giving money to the people that WILL spend it. Give a poor father a few extra hundred bucks a month, and he will use it to buy new clothes for his kids, maybe take his wife out to dinner. Give a middle class father a few extra hundred bucks a month, and he'll be looking at a bigger TV, maybe a nicer car. Give a millionaire a few extra million, and he will be looking for a place to keep it away from the IRS. Which of these three people will not be assisting the economy?

[noodles]

Originally Posted by JBroll

Well, this one turned to piss pretty quickly. What the fuck should a government be doing with 65% of the wealthy population's money? So much for the whole 'limited government' thing...

Sigh...

I'm not talking about taking money from the wealthy for no reason. I'm talking about shifting the tax burden. Honestly, I just picked a number out of thin air. I don't think that the poor should pay taxes at all, and the middle class should pay less than half of what they do now. The top 1% make more now than ever in the history of this country. "Tycoons" like Carnegie and Rockefeller commanded fortunes, when adjusted for inflation, a mere fraction of what someone like Bill Gates or the Waltons are worth.

[JBroll]

Considering that's all I originally attacked, I don't exactly see why you brought in 'the economic class I grew up in' or where you were planning to go with this... it's not like you really need too many excuses to talk about how we should tax somewhere between 50% and 90% of the income of the rich...

As for the IRS, what's so great about income that for all you know could be spent directly on the economy? Why the fuck are you actually trying to *give* more power to a bureaucracy that blows ten-and-a-half billion dollars a year on collecting money inefficiently and that has spawned billions of dollars worth of business revolving solely around figuring out how the fuck one is supposed to go about fellating that beast? I don't know how many rich motherfuckers you know who just throw money overseas and never actually do anything for their communities, but... 90% of the ones I know completely destroy that stereotype. Plus, while that money is 'out of the economy' for some time, ever notice how some people like to *retire* someday? Old rich people tend to do that, and... what do they do? Live frugally, donate generously, tip well...

It seems like you could get the same benefits of yanking away what you see as an excess of expendable income by taxing the fuck out of fancy cars and million-dollar suits. The income tax is a joke, property taxes are appalling and (at least around here, where a massive amount of revenue comes from them) really fuck the poor and middle classes... this is really not the kind of plan that seems well-thought-out to an extent greater than "Tax the rich! Fuck Yeah!" because it only spawns countless other problems... and worsens the problem of tax evasion that you seem to be all gung-ho about eliminating.

EDIT: I agree about lower and middle classes paying less, but only because I don't want to see anyone paying taxes... oops...

Jeff