Minimum Wage & Union Wages: You Pay for them...

[rosco rathbone]

They have unions in Kentucky?

Which Side Are You On?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County,_USA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iAIM02kv0g

 

[Sean]

It still never ceases to amaze me that working people fall for the bullshit propaganda drip fed them by the corporations. "Ooh, knocking five cents off our ten billion dollar profits will destroy working families". Fuck off.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That argument can't go very far though, because using only that rationale life as a business owner would be better with no taxes whatsoever. Taxes are required in order to maintain infrastructure and have a functioning society, or are you saying that's not true? If it is true, there is an acceptable level of taxation which still allows for growth. It is not as if if taxes were lowered continually I would just keep hiring and producing; demand has to be there. It is also not as if just because taxes are lower the wealthy spend more because they have this extra cash burning a hole in their pocket. Also, there is basically no correlation between taxation and GDP growth, which is in the end what we are looking for I think. My goods and services are consumed mostly by middle to upper-middle class but I don't think that would change if tax rates on the wealthy were lower.

Here's the point you miss. We WOULD be better of with no business taxes, right now ours are the most onerous in the free world and that hurts us in the competition for business.

But more importantly, businesses only collect taxes; taxes are a business cost and that and the cost of compliance to regulation are built into every product (and every non-hire at ANY wage) and then who pays the tax?*

The consumer.

Who is the consumer? By and large, the middle class, a middle class which is declining even as we raise taxes and create more regulation, so who is to blame?

THE TEA PARTY????

A little something from across the pond I just ran into:

What is to be done about all those assurances that governments have provided for generations about state-subsidised security in old age, universal health provision (in Britain, almost uniquely, completely free), and a guaranteed living standard for the unemployed?

We have been pretending – with ever more manic protestations – that this could go on for ever. Even when it became clear that European state pensions (and the US social security system) were gigantic Ponzi schemes in which the present beneficiaries were spending the money of the current generation of contributors, and that health provision was creating impossible demands on tax revenue, and that benefit dependency was becoming a substitute for wealth-creating employment, the lesson would not be learnt. We have been living on tick and wishful thinking.

So what are the most important truths we should be addressing if we are to avert – or survive – the looming catastrophe? Raising retirement ages across Europe (not just in Greece) is imperative, as is raising thresholds for out-of-work benefit entitlements.

Lowering the tax burden for both wealth-creators and consumers is essential. In Britain, finding private sources of revenue for health care is a matter of urgency.

A general correction of the imbalance between wealth production and wealth redistribution is now a matter of basic necessity, not ideological preference.

The hardest obstacle to overcome will be the idea that anyone who challenges the prevailing consensus of the past 50 years is irrational and irresponsible. That is what is being said about the Tea Partiers. In fact, what is irrational and irresponsible is the assumption that we can go on as we are.

Janet Daley
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ng-catastrophe-we-need-to-face-the-truth.html



* Unless you can answer the A_J challenge which is to describe to me, and KISS (Keep it Simple Silly), for I am not a smart man, the method or mechanism by which you make, force, or coerce a rich man or a businessman to absorb the cost of a tax out of his own pocket and not the pockets of others...

 

[rosco rathbone]

Huh? Really?

That's what the libertarian argument boils down to.

 

[Wok]

Which Side Are You On?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County,_USA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iAIM02kv0g

Ah, thanks for the links.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

everyone has their own opinions of whats wrong with this country. i just dont think Unions are part of the problem.
there are so many things that are broke with America.
it started with Clinton, with NAFTA. kept going with Bush...and poor Obama..he inherited all of the mess.
he has done some things i dont agree with...bailing out the auto companys, the banks etc.
that wasnt the fix to our problems. but, we elected him, and he did it.
it took alot of years to get in this mess...it will take longer than one term to fix.
i personally dont think its fixable. i think this is the way our country will be from now on.

this is our new reality folks.

So, no blame goes towards the growth of intrusive federal government, so therefore, Obama's path, that of growing it and giving it more power should just simply be given more time to be successful...

Then you better start getting out the vote for 2012, for your viewpoint, especially laying the blame on specific people, is rapidly becoming a minority position.

__________________
What class does not solicit the favors of the state? It would seem as if the principle of life resided in it. Aside from the innumerable horde of its own agents, agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, the arts, the theatre, the colonies, and the shipping industry expect everything from it. They want it to clear and irrigate land, to colonize, to teach, and even to amuse. Each begs a bounty, a subsidy, an incentive, and especially the gratuitous gift of certain services, such as education and credit. And why not ask the state for the gratuitous gift of all services? Why not require the state to provide all the citizens with food, drink, clothing, and shelter free of charge?

... under the name of the state the citizens taken collectively are considered as a real being, having its own life, its own wealth, independently of the lives and the wealth of the citizens themselves; and then each addresses this fictitious being, some to obtain from it education, others employment, others credit, others food, etc., etc. Now the state can give nothing to the citizens that it has not first taken from them.
Frédéric Bastiat

 

[Saint Peter]

Tin knockers I was crawling around on top of your work inside a drop ceiling trying to put a nut on a bolt on Friday. DO you have to leave all those sharp screws sticking out?

"That is not a sidewalk up there!"

 

[rosco rathbone]

"That is not a sidewalk up there!"

I was already inside a stall in the women's bathroom, on the top step of an 8 foot stepladder, and I still couldn't reach it. Had to get up on the main duct. It was pretty solid.

 

[Saint Peter]

I was already inside a stall in the women's bathroom, on the top step of an 8 foot stepladder, and I still couldn't reach it. Had to get up on the main duct. It was pretty solid.

Just look at yourself.

Standing on ducts. Falling iron missing your leg by inches.

Are you going all Shop Rocket on us?

 

[markfifa0791]

Here's the point you miss. We WOULD be better of with no business taxes, right now ours are the most onerous in the free world and that hurts us in the competition for business

But more importantly, businesses only collect taxes; taxes are a business cost and that and the cost of compliance to regulation are built into every product (and every non-hire at ANY wage) and then who pays the tax?*

The consumer.

Who is the consumer? By and large, the middle class, a middle class which is declining even as we raise taxes and create more regulation, so who is to blame?

THE TEA PARTY????

So which taxes, and associated services, should we cut that are specifically connected to business taxes? Aside from making government more efficient, which definitely needs to happen, you cannot cut taxes and have the services that are provided. My point too is that as low as taxes are right now, some of the lowest in the last 100 years, growth hasn't skyrocketed. And when taxes for the top income bracket were the highest ever at 91-92% between 1951 and 1963, GDP grew at 3.71%. Taxes just do not play as significant a role as conservatives make out.

It is not a problem that consumers help pay for business taxes to me. Consumers can buy something or not buy something at a specific cost if they feel like it. If they have a problem buying it for the price, they don't have to. You should be able to agree with that.

And I am all for new ideas and thoughts, but not ones that are irrational. Just because an idea is new doesn't mean it is good. Most of the review on the economic impact that I've read about the debt ceiling deal for instance says that there needs to be additional sources, or at least increased, revenues (taxes) in order for the debt to diminish significantly. It is one reason our credit rating has been downgraded. Any party that follows Sarah Palin as a legitimate political leader is in serious question.

 

[markfifa0791]

That's what the libertarian argument boils down to.

I just couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or expressing a real view of your own. Either way I don't see how it is reasonable to expect that people, especially Americans, will feel any better about having to pay for private companies to provide services now provided by the government.

 

[smallgirl]

So, no blame goes towards the growth of intrusive federal government, so therefore, Obama's path, that of growing it and giving it more power should just simply be given more time to be successful...

Then you better start getting out the vote for 2012, for your viewpoint, especially laying the blame on specific people, is rapidly becoming a minority position.

__________________
What class does not solicit the favors of the state? It would seem as if the principle of life resided in it. Aside from the innumerable horde of its own agents, agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, the arts, the theatre, the colonies, and the shipping industry expect everything from it. They want it to clear and irrigate land, to colonize, to teach, and even to amuse. Each begs a bounty, a subsidy, an incentive, and especially the gratuitous gift of certain services, such as education and credit. And why not ask the state for the gratuitous gift of all services? Why not require the state to provide all the citizens with food, drink, clothing, and shelter free of charge?

... under the name of the state the citizens taken collectively are considered as a real being, having its own life, its own wealth, independently of the lives and the wealth of the citizens themselves; and then each addresses this fictitious being, some to obtain from it education, others employment, others credit, others food, etc., etc. Now the state can give nothing to the citizens that it has not first taken from them.
Frédéric Bastiat

i have my opinion. i know its not the only one.

not just one thing has gotten this country in the shape its in. but you cant just blame obama and the congress we have now. this has been building for a very long time.

im not laying blame on any one specific people. we have all contributed to this mess.

 

[koalabear]

A pipe fitter, carpenter and an electrician were each given three stainless steel balls and told to make something for an essential skills test.

The fitter welded his together to make a sculpture. The carpenter made a fancy oak display rack for his. The electrician painted one red, broke one and stole the other one.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So which taxes, and associated services, should we cut that are specifically connected to business taxes? Aside from making government more efficient, which definitely needs to happen, you cannot cut taxes and have the services that are provided. My point too is that as low as taxes are right now, some of the lowest in the last 100 years, growth hasn't skyrocketed. And when taxes for the top income bracket were the highest ever at 91-92% between 1951 and 1963, GDP grew at 3.71%. Taxes just do not play as significant a role as conservatives make out.

It is not a problem that consumers help pay for business taxes to me. Consumers can buy something or not buy something at a specific cost if they feel like it. If they have a problem buying it for the price, they don't have to. You should be able to agree with that.

And I am all for new ideas and thoughts, but not ones that are irrational. Just because an idea is new doesn't mean it is good. Most of the review on the economic impact that I've read about the debt ceiling deal for instance says that there needs to be additional sources, or at least increased, revenues (taxes) in order for the debt to diminish significantly. It is one reason our credit rating has been downgraded. Any party that follows Sarah Palin as a legitimate political leader is in serious question.

We have promised too many services. I would eliminate all progressive and targeted taxation and replace it with the FairTax. I would go to zero baseline budgeting and force these "service providers" to prove they were meeting a cost-effective standard, or I would scale them back, that's rational.

You are really taking things out of context, going back the Ike's years; study the actual architecture of that tax structure and realize that almost nobody ever paid that rate, as Reagan put it, "I just didn't make that third movie each year." It was like the windfall tax that Illinois put on Casinos, once they reached the limit, the Casinos that could not float down, or across the river simply cancelled a shift. Then consider the growth of government since then, benefits and all.

Yeah, I agree with that, and so does Walmart which its shelved heaped full of Chinese goods; with automation, we can compete with their labor costs, it's the other hidden (Bastiat) costs of government and nanny-state taxation that makes us non-competitive.

I am sorry, but there is no amount of taxation that can cover our debt and our promises, that is the irrational thinking. Government has to be slashed. Raising taxes is only going to hurt the economy and even Obama and the Democrats sheepishly admitted to that when the extended the Bush tax cuts hoping that between stimulus and TARP that they could, at a later date argue that the economy had improved and therefore we could raise taxes. They know the truth, economically, but it's a matter of fairness, and that Neo, is a road you've been down before, you know where it leads...
__________________
Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.
Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

A_J's corollary #8a, “The New Age Liberal believes that in good times Government can afford to spend more than it receives and in bad times, it can’t afford not to.”

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

i have my opinion. i know its not the only one.

not just one thing has gotten this country in the shape its in. but you cant just blame obama and the congress we have now. this has been building for a very long time.

im not laying blame on any one specific people. we have all contributed to this mess.

Obama is not to blame for the underlying problem, however, his administration is fully to blame for trying to put out the fire with Keynesian kerosine...

The problem is that the dumb masses have figured out, as presaged by so many thinkers at the time of the founding, through to deTocqueville, and later Hayek and Mises, that they can loot their fellow citizen and then demand the largess of the Treasury.
__________________
They become apt to take because they wish to spend and cannot do this easily; for their possessions soon run short. Thus they are forced to provide means from some other source. At the same time, because they care nothing for honor, they take recklessly and from any source.
Aristotle

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
Frédéric Bastiat

"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. ... there is only one remedy: time. People have to learn, through hard experience, the enormous disadvantage there is in plundering one another."
Frédéric Bastiat

If you think it is acceptable to take a percentage of someone's income above your station in life, then everyone in that station, as well as everyone below your station in life will find it perfectly acceptable to take like amount from you.
A_J, the Stupid

When your philosophy of government is based on groups, you must remember that your group can be a favored or disfavored group with equal ease and that neither status is ever permanent any more than the favors government solemnly promised to purchase your group loyalty.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I just couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or expressing a real view of your own. Either way I don't see how it is reasonable to expect that people, especially Americans, will feel any better about having to pay for private companies to provide services now provided by the government.

Well, we can compare USPS to UPS, for one...

 

[koalabear]

Well, we can compare USPS to UPS, for one...

No...

 

[markfifa0791]

We have promised too many services. I would eliminate all progressive and targeted taxation and replace it with the FairTax. I would go to zero baseline budgeting and force these "service providers" to prove they were meeting a cost-effective standard, or I would scale them back, that's rational.

You are really taking things out of context, going back the Ike's years; study the actual architecture of that tax structure and realize that almost nobody ever paid that rate, as Reagan put it, "I just didn't make that third movie each year." It was like the windfall tax that Illinois put on Casinos, once they reached the limit, the Casinos that could not float down, or across the river simply cancelled a shift. Then consider the growth of government since then, benefits and all.

Yeah, I agree with that, and so does Walmart which its shelved heaped full of Chinese goods; with automation, we can compete with their labor costs, it's the other hidden (Bastiat) costs of government and nanny-state taxation that makes us non-competitive.

I am sorry, but there is no amount of taxation that can cover our debt and our promises, that is the irrational thinking. Government has to be slashed. Raising taxes is only going to hurt the economy and even Obama and the Democrats sheepishly admitted to that when the extended the Bush tax cuts hoping that between stimulus and TARP that they could, at a later date argue that the economy had improved and therefore we could raise taxes. They know the truth, economically, but it's a matter of fairness, and that Neo, is a road you've been down before, you know where it leads...
__________________
Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.
Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

A_J's corollary #8a, “The New Age Liberal believes that in good times Government can afford to spend more than it receives and in bad times, it can’t afford not to.”

I agree we need to look at government programs and make big changes, make them run more efficiently or cut them. But it probably isn't reasonable to think that we can do without a government entirely, thus we need taxes. And since we need taxes, there must be an optimum tax rate given a set of circumstances. Throughout tax history, there is no correlation between lower taxes and greater GDP growth, much less enough for a cause and effect relationship. That was just an example. Taxes are only part of a much bigger picture. There will always be ways to shift things around to minimize how taxes effect you. For instance, with the capital gains tax you bring up, as the tax is increased investment goes up because people are spending more in order to not pay taxes. The relationship isn't drop taxes and there are more capital gains to be taxed.

China is a horrible model to follow, not that I think you are suggesting that. But it does call into question how we are going to compete with someone who is playing a different game than we are, with less(no) rules. Personally I feel like they have too much dead weight in their population (extremely poor) to fully realize their potential, and in order to fix that they will need to make major reforms.

Clearly new revenue is not the only answer and should be used in conjunction with spending cuts. But just as you can't expect to raise enough money to pay all of your outstanding bills on a moment's notice, you also can't get spending enough to do it, especially if you don't tackle entitlement and the defense budget. That being said, there is significant revenue in closing tax loopholes that are taken advantage of, and to say that you should allow that to continue is ridiculous. If you can point out a single time that higher taxes resulted in slower economic growth, I'd like to see it. Wealthy people spend money no matter what. And it's pretty much conceded by many economists that the stimulus program was largely responsible for keeping unemployment as low as it was/is. And by the way, ending tax cuts is not raising them. That's like saying when you sign up for a credit card with an intro. apr that when the intro period is over that they raised your rates when in actuality they are just putting them back to where they should've been all along.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Well, we can compare USPS to UPS, for one...

Let's. For starters how would UPS exist without government roads? If a different private company built roads and charged for them that would be a cost UPS would have to pass on to the consumer.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

How is this Obama's fault? Boehner and the conservative extremists he has been catering to pushed this way too far to be considered reasonable. And when you don't have reasonable people in charge, it makes sense to be wary of them being able to pay their bills. There is no question Democrats conceded too much, in an effort to make sure something got passed, and Republicans took advantage.

I love how when Obama asserts leadership and passes legislation despite dissenting views he gets railed for being too liberal and uncompromising. Then when he compromises he gets railed for not being a leader.

how did obama assert leadership? he was busy playing golf or sinking the one eye wonder worm into his secretary of staff

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Let's. For starters how would UPS exist without government roads? If a different private company built roads and charged for them that would be a cost UPS would have to pass on to the consumer.

what you need to do, is operate a 711 for one week. then, you will have some real world experience. till then, you are just a sad pathetic government worker hiding from the real world while playing arm chair QB

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Well, we can compare USPS to UPS, for one...

that means that UPS would have to lose billions of dollars every year. who would want that, other than government workers

 

[The_Trouvere]

what you need to do, is operate a 711 for one week. then, you will have some real world experience. till then, you are just a sad pathetic government worker hiding from the real world while playing arm chair QB

Passing a civil service exam is more difficult than working at a 7 Eleven store, and far more difficult than composing your preposterously banal comments.

 

[PatriotLover]

Passing a civil service exam is more difficult than working at a 7 Eleven store, and far more difficult than composing your preposterously banal comments.

civil service test

1. do you drink obama juice?
2. will you sit around all day and not do any work?

if you answer yes to these questions you have a job for life.

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

What assurance should those union workers get from investment bankers who control their pension fund?

Do you support that same strict adherence to quality and accountability from Wall St.?

Does it also concern you that your tax dollars went to private corporations like Halliburton in sweetherat deals?

I'm either on Holly's ignore or irrelevant list but I'm going to try again.