|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
It is a basic combination of two pretty well fleshed-out concepts, the simple flat income tax and the national sales tax. By combining them, you can lower both percentages. SFAIK the national sales tax would be in addition to state and local taxes, as it has been in every single such proposal I have ever seen, although Cain's plan uses a much lower percentage. Food is usually excluded.
It also eliminates a LOT of the leverage Congress often uses to reward some and punish others through the tax code. Might force them to actually spend some time reading what they are voting on. It also gives Congress a direct incentive to make the economy better, or more accurately. to stop doing things to make it worse. It becomes the ONLY way they will get more money. No "evil" people to raise taxes on, EVERYBODY is paying the same percentage..
As for Obama's "base", IMO he has shown himself to be enough of an incompetent boob that most of them no longer give a crap. Many have realized that the freebies they assumed would be headed their way will not be forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,609
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,609 |
J/K Ron Paul was on John Stewart last night for a pretty good interview if you are interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
No "evil" people to raise taxes on, EVERYBODY is paying the same percentage..
Here's something I never really understood...
If I said right now 'everybody should make the same amount of money', the board would shout me off of a thread.
But 'everybody should pay the same percentage on taxes' is a wildly popular sentiment.
That never made much sense to me.
I understand the sentiment that everybody should do something. As wide-eyed an idea as it is, I think if you're at the end of the trough, you should have to do something. Ten or twenty hours of community service for those in the lower rungs.
But I don't understand the philosophy behind advocating both unequal income distribution and equal tax rates.
Quote:
As for Obama's "base", IMO he has shown himself to be enough of an incompetent boob that most of them no longer give a crap.
There's a small truth to that, but remember - being an incompetent boob doesn't really matter. Many incompetent boobs have been re-elected in U.S. history.
As I said earlier ... he will have to do something to galvanize his base. Bush faced a similar situation in 2004 - he was such a disaster that his opposition was fired up, and his base needed a spark. They went with turning the debate to gay marriage, and putting the issue to several key state ballots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
But I don't understand the philosophy behind advocating both unequal income distribution and equal tax rates.
Why?
Is it any different than saying that person_A who makes 100k should pay more the same products and services person_B who makes 20k?
Why should what someone makes determine how much they should be charged for something? If A makes 100k and pays 9% he pays 9k, if person B makes 20k and pays 9% he pays 1.8k, so person A is paying more.
Now I understand some say, that that 1.8k means much more to the Person_B than the 9k did to person_A, but what does that matter.
Most people I know don't have good paying jobs because they like to work, they have them because they wanted certain things in life, be it clothes, cars, housing. They worked hard to get where they could buy the things they wanted. Where as I know people who are perfectly happy with what they have, sure they wish they had more and sometimes complain about those that do make more, but are unwilling to put in the effort and time to acquire it.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
If I said right now 'everybody should make the same amount of money', the board would shout me off of a thread.
But 'everybody should pay the same percentage on taxes' is a wildly popular sentiment.
That never made much sense to me.
........
But I don't understand the philosophy behind advocating both unequal income distribution and equal tax rates.
It seems perfectly logical to me. Those with greater incomes still obviously pay more in absolute terms...
I don't understand the other, less logical, argument that the more you make the greater percentage the government is entitled to. A family of 4 making $60K uses the same sewer system, the same roads, the same fire department and is protected by the same military as the family of 4 making $600K... so why should one pay 7% and the other pay 30%? When even at a flat rate, the wealthier family is already going to pay 10x as much? Should it be 20x? 40x?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826 |
Quote:
But I don't understand the philosophy behind advocating both unequal income distribution and equal tax rates.
The reason for unequal income distribution is simple. If one person works 80 hours a week at a high stress job (perhaps something that if he/she screws up someone dies) and a second person works 20 hours a week at a job that has minimal responsibility and no consequences if he/she screws up then certainly it wouldn't be fair to have equal pay. Who would take job 1?
As for equal tax rates, yes the tax RATES are equal but the amount of taxes PAID is not.
Hope that helps .
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Here's something I never really understood...
If I said right now 'everybody should make the same amount of money', the board would shout me off of a thread.
But 'everybody should pay the same percentage on taxes' is a wildly popular sentiment.
Uh ... what's so confusing about that? 
You don't understand why people would think it's wildly unfair for a guy that earns top grades for his entire schooling, then takes 8 years of his life learning advanced medicine so he can become a brain surgeon or something else that maybe 1% of the population can do ... to earn the exact same amount of money as the guy that stands out on the street corner and twirls an arrow pointing towards a cellphone sale??
And what's unfair about both of those guys paying the same amount of tax percentage towards services that everyone in the country uses?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I agree to an extent. I think there should be one caveat to the equal tax distribution.
Simply, that there should be a different tax rate on a base-income and then a secondary tax rate on the rest. That base rate being some ratio of the poverty line (basically what a family needs merely to survive with little else). I understand that the argument then gets shifted to where that line should be, but from a pure principle standpoint, I think it should be that way.
For instance, if that line is $20K, then you get taxed 5% to that point. Anything above it gets taxed at a 15% rate.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
You don't understand why people would think it's wildly unfair for a guy that earns top grades for his entire schooling, then takes 8 years of his life learning advanced medicine so he can become a brain surgeon or something else that maybe 1% of the population can do ... to earn the exact same amount of money as the guy that stands out on the street corner and twirls an arrow pointing towards a cellphone sale??
And what's unfair about both of those guys paying the same amount of tax percentage towards services that everyone in the country uses?
First of all, I never said that it didn't make sense for some to make more or less than others.
I said it didn't make sense to hold that view, and in the next breath demand equal rates of taxation.
And when discussing this, everyone seems to insinuate that the brain surgeon and the McDonald's employee and enjoying the same taxpayer funded services, which I don't find to be true.
I think, as I said, it's a matter of philosophy more than anything else ... speaking for myself, at various points in my life when my earnings began to rise, and my tax rates raised, I never thought to myself 'I'm being punished for my success!' That line of thinking never crossed my mind.
I'm not saying that line of thinking is wrong necessarily, but it's never one that's occurred to me.
I also found that the more I earned and spent, the more opportunities I had to chop down at whatever rate I was expected to pay.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
I also found that the more I earned and spent, the more opportunities I had to chop down at whatever rate I was expected to pay.
Which is why a flat even rate across the board without misc deductions works more evenly.
I never gave it much thought that I was paying more either, and doubt most do, as it's just become expected. But I do hear people complain about all the tax cuts wealthier people get, so isn't that the reverse of the rich complaining about paying more?
Face, someone will always complain about something, but the easiest way to reduce complaining is to make it even.
I also don't see where the surgeon uses more tax payer resources than the McD worker?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
If you and I both open a money market account and I put $200K in mine and you put $5K in yours, should we get the same interest rate?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Your problem with understanding in inherent in the question you asked.
INCOME is NOT, repeat NOT, "distributed". It is EARNED. NO ONE, repeat NO ONE, is or should be in charge of determining what someone else is able, or allowed, to earn. That is a function of an individual's abilities and work ethic, and the particular market into which they are putting their services out for hire.
"Income distribution" is a phrase often used by those who advocate Socialism, a system of government that has been not only spectacularly unsuccessful but also brutally repressive to its citizens. I do understand that there are adults who are allowed out alone, after dark, without a keeper, who advocate such a system and I am continually amazed by their existence. Such a system appeals mainly to the incompetent and lazy, for such folks it is an advantage. For everyone else, they want no part of such a plan.
I want to state more clearly the benefit of the flat tax. A person who makes 2 times as much as average, will pay 2 times the tax. Their tax will be the same proportion of their earnings no matter how much, or how little, they make. There should be no more argument that either the rich, or the poor, are not paying their "fair share". Everyone would pay the same "share" of their earnings. I do not understand how this could possibly be viewed as anything other than "fair".
This system, BTW, has been endorsed by the very highest authority.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826 |
Quote:
I think, as I said, it's a matter of philosophy more than anything else ... speaking for myself, at various points in my life when my earnings began to rise, and my tax rates raised, I never thought to myself 'I'm being punished for my success!' That line of thinking never crossed my mind.
In my job I have had the opportunity to work some extra hours and make some extra cash. It would be nice to put a little more $ in my pocket but I don't do it because I am so close to the income cut off for going into a higher tax bracket that if I would have to work a lot of extra hours to make it worth my while. If I work only a few extra hours it bumps me into the next tax bracket and it could actually cost me money to do extra work.
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Socialism, a system of government that has been not only spectacularly unsuccessful but also brutally repressive to its citizens.
As has the much touted 'free market capitalism'.
There has long been a sentiment that socialism is this horribly flawed, failed system of ideas and that capitalism is this competent, successful system of ideas. I think it stems mostly from notions that equate socialism with Soviet totalitarianism and capitalism with American fascism and Keynesian theory.
Free market capitalism has not only been spectacularly unsuccessful, but also brutally repressive to it's citizens. Any implementation of it, historically, has failed miserably. The United States abandoned the notion of free market capitalism long before anyone on these boards was even born.
Now, to be clear - I'm not touting socialism, or denouncing capitalism. Both have strengths and weaknesses that are often altered by the fallibility and greed of man.
But the notion that one system is proper while one is inferior is simply nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
What other system has had anywhere near the longevity and/or success of free market capitalism?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I measure success by such things as standard of living, life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and I consider brutally repressive to be things such as shooting and torturing millions of your own citizens.
Capitalism has been fantastically successful by almost any measure I have ever seen applied, by reasonable people with somewhat more brains than god gave a walnut.
Fascism? Really? Are you joking, drunk, or what?
Not handing out free meals, housing, and grey jackets to all citizens who demonstrate the proper ideology is not what I would call brutally repressive.
I sometimes wonder what planet you are on. How do you manage to get up in the morning and keep sucking air, with such a heavy burden of negativity and depression?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I assume that the latter part of that post was directed at someone other than myself?  
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Just the latter part? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Well, you replied to me ..... so I wasn't sure ........
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Sorry, clicked on the wrong name.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
Quote:
sure they wish they had more and sometimes complain about those that do make more, but are unwilling to put in the effort and time to acquire it.
Quote:
If one person works 80 hours a week at a high stress job (perhaps something that if he/she screws up someone dies) and a second person works 20 hours a week at a job that has minimal responsibility and no consequences if he/she screws up then certainly it wouldn't be fair to have equal pay.
Quote:
You don't understand why people would think it's wildly unfair for a guy that earns top grades for his entire schooling, then takes 8 years of his life learning advanced medicine so he can become a brain surgeon or something else that maybe 1% of the population can do ... to earn the exact same amount of money as the guy that stands out on the street corner and twirls an arrow pointing towards a cellphone sale??
Quote:
INCOME is NOT, repeat NOT, "distributed". It is EARNED. NO ONE, repeat NO ONE, is or should be in charge of determining what someone else is able, or allowed, to earn. That is a function of an individual's abilities and work ethic, and the particular market into which they are putting their services out for hire.
that's 4 comments either insinuating or outright saying that those who make more money work harder than those that don't. at least NELSON had the decency to recognize field of work as a variable. but really? Why is this such a common train of thought?
I know morons that make a very good living off of who they know, and I know brilliant people making a modest income. and I probably don't have a third the network that some of you have...you must know similar examples. So why then perpetuate this idea that hard work = $, when there is little correlation at all?
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Capitalism has been fantastically successful by almost any measure I have ever seen applied,
He said free market capitalism. Also, this would be the time for you to present facts and scenarios to back up your stance.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
that's 4 comments either insinuating or outright saying that those who make more money work harder than those that don't.
Actually not a single one of his comments states simply the people who make more money work HARDER. Almost all of those statements imply that over time, through decisions that people made, like his becoming a surgeon example, that some people worked hard to put themselves in a position to make more money through education and training.
Quote:
I know morons that make a very good living off of who they know, and I know brilliant people making a modest income. and I probably don't have a third the network that some of you have...you must know similar examples. So why then perpetuate this idea that hard work = $, when there is little correlation at all?
Hard work + the right decisions. I can go out in my back yard and dig a 12'x12'x7' hole every day with a shovel and a pick and then fill it back in and work my butt off and not make a dime. I make a very nice upper middle income living and I can guarantee you that the guys in the field laying asphalt and placing steel work a lot harder PHYSICALLY than I do... most of them chose not to go to college or get a masters and pay a hundred grand on my education and not make any money until I was 25... I made my decision, I don't expect any great praise for it, they made their decision, to learn a trade and work with their hands... that's their thing and if that's what makes them happy then fantastic... but the market dictates that they don't generally make as much money as I do and they don't have the growth potential in their profession that I do... While I was going to college and going to basketball games and drinking 4 nights a week they might have been working, maybe starting a family, I don't know... no way is better or worse... but we do know which way leads to a consistently higher income and they chose not to take it... and NONE of them could do what I do, just like I would be lost doing what they do... so as I said, neither is better but everybody makes those choices for their own life..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
What other system has had anywhere near the longevity and/or success of free market capitalism?
When has free market capitalism ever been successful, let alone for a period of time that could be associated with the word longevity?
The United States doesn't even sniff free market capitalism. Never has. We tried to implement it briefly, but it failed miserably and we abandoned it. The success of the United States has come from a Keynesian brand of lemon socialism that has been in practice since long before any of us were born.
You cannot provide an example. There isn't one. Free market capitalism has failed at every turn.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
We are closer, as an economic system, to free market capitalism than anything else.
We do have some Keynesian styled systems, like Social Security and such mixed in, but the basic economic system from the 70s to the start of Obama's term were basically free market.
I suppose that you could argue that there is no pure Capitalist, Socialist, Keynesian, or any other economic system in the world .... but we are still far closer to free market than anything else. (even with the President trying to build up government at the expense of the private sector)
Further, prior to the 1940s, we were basically a free market economy. We had ups and downs ..... and the downs of the Great Depression was basically a worldwide depression. It wasn't a failure of the free market .... because most of the world, especially at that time, wasn't a free market based economy in any sense of the word. Free markets will be more susceptible to outside forces than any other system. If you have massive government intervention, then they can manipulate interest rates, government spending, print money, and so on to try to stabilize the economy. The Roosevelt programs did little to end the Great Depression. World War II did. Following the war, the free markets began booming to repair, rebuild, and build and expand the country.
Also, I would argue that government intervention into free markets creates more problems than free markets do. Look at the housing mess. That was government driven. It also created a "follow the leader" mentality where banks and financial institutions decided that they could make riskier and riskier investments on bigger credit risks. The government has started giving loans to anyone with a pulse for college. These programs, while having the best of intentions, have created bigger problems than they have created.
Free markets do need some oversight, but they shouldn't be micromanaged.They are the best option as far as any system we have seen over time. The free markets expanded the US economy from pseudo feudalism and basic trade based economics to an industrial base with more value on money over goods and services.
I'm beat, so I'm gonna stop there for now. However, I don't think that you can discount free markets as some great failure.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
DC... 1st, those are not all one person's comments. those are 4 comments from 4 different people. and if you think that those comments do not implicate a correlation between hard work and income, then we'll have to agree to disagree. i think it is fairly apparent. the general attitude comes up in many other political threads, as well. there is a trend of posts which implies support of Obama and/or D policies is somehow associated with people wanting a free ride, wanting the government to take care of them, not wanting to work hard, etc. perhaps you'll insist that i cite examples, but i don't have the inclination to try and change your opinion. i'm simply calling it as i see it. Quote:
Hard work + the right decisions. I can go out in my back yard and dig a 12'x12'x7' hole every day with a shovel and a pick and then fill it back in and work my butt off and not make a dime.
so performing a societal function that market doesn't deem financially valuable is equivalent to work truly lacking value (i.e. digging and re-filling a hole)?
Quote:
but the market dictates that they don't generally make as much money as I do and they don't have the growth potential in their profession that I do...
so as I said, neither is better but everybody makes those choices for their own life..
that's fine, i agree. but that's not the connotation in the 4 comments i quoted.
side note: who is the market, and how does that valuation process work? an example i've heard used is a bigtime C.E.O., who has lots of experience, is responsible for large amounts of $, and is under high levels of stress. that position demands significant compensation. but are the required experience and stress so different from other jobs (e.g. EMTs, air-traffic controllers) as to demand tens of millions in compensation? well, pure capitalism says yes, by tying the company's overall value to the position. however, must we, as average citizens, value a 2% boost in profit margins for a multinational (and all the jobs it may support) that much more than the ability to save and preserve human life?
my point is not to discredit the C.E.O.'s worth. but i'm not going to bow down to pass the capitalist valuation system as infallible. America values lawyers, executives, and professional athletes more than civil servants, medical professionals (non-MD's), and educators because the former group drives movement of $, while the latter group does not. at what point does America start serving capitalism, vs. capitalism serving America?
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I don't understand the other, less logical, argument that the more you make the greater percentage the government is entitled to. A family of 4 making $60K uses the same sewer system, the same roads, the same fire department and is protected by the same military as the family of 4 making $600K... so why should one pay 7% and the other pay 30%? When even at a flat rate, the wealthier family is already going to pay 10x as much? Should it be 20x? 40x?
I would argue that the person making more likely has much better public services at the local level (roads, schools, fire and police, water systems, etc.), largely b/c they have moved out of poor areas. Compare suburbs to inner-city neighborhoods in any major metro area and you will see the same pattern.
At the federal level, it is simple why we have a progressive tax system. It makes it easier to climb the income ladder. If you were taxed at 20% when you were 23 at your entry level job, you probably wouldn't have been able to afford to live (I know I wouldn't have been able to).
The way I look at it, you are given a "tax break" when you are younger and less well established, with the implied understanding that you will pay more when you are older and more well established. There is a lot of evidence this is how it really breaks down; people in the higher brackets are on average much older. Also, an Arthur Laffer book I read pointed to studies that showed that following people over a period of several decades in the US revealed that 98% involved in the study rose at least one tax bracket over time. There is some measure of social mobility that probably wouldn't be there if we taxed at a flat rate, which would necessarily raise taxes on the lower brackets while lowering taxes on higher brackets.
It is the same as for a business. A startup will get "tax breaks" during the first few years when they might operate in the red, but with the understanding that if they succeed and become profitable, they will be taxed more.
I don't see higher rates on people making higher income as a penalty. IMO, the higher rates that well-to-do people pay are really subsidizing the idea of the "American dream" for startups, either individuals or companies.
Last edited by tjs7; 09/28/11 08:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
You want FACTS?! :LOOK AROUND YOUR LIVING ROOM. Virtually everything you see is the product of a capitalistic marketplace. Standards of education, medical care, infant mortality, life expectancy, virtually all are higher than with any other system.
Capitalism, free-market capitalism, this is like saying "a tall person". It's all a matter of "compared to WHAT", and there are varying degrees of everything. If you wish to argue that the market is not totally and entirely "free", fine, but the current system is still much closer to "free-market capitalism" than anything else.
Calling our current system a "brutally repressive fascist regime" is so far out of touch with reality that, IMO, it borders on clinical insanity.
Can a lazy moron make a good buck? Sure, but they usually don't, there are exceptions to every rule. Left alone, the free market will accurately determine what any good or service is worth. "The value of a thing is what that thing will bring." Doctors and lawyers make more than civil servants because their services are valued more highly. It does not matter if you like or agree with this, that's the way it is. If you sell a car or other item at public auction, whatever the highest bid is, that is what it is worth. You are completely free to hold the opinion that it is worth more, but then you will go home with your item and no cash in your pocket. You can not force the buyer to pay your asking price, and the buyer can not force you to sell for his offer. However, because there will be other buyers and sellers, this being "the market", an accurate value can and will be determined.
Liberal Democrats, and Socialists, believe that payment should be rendered based upon something OTHER than the market-determined value of that item. They will tell the buyer what he has to pay, and the seller what he has to accept. They are trying to enforce whatever values they see fit, and since these do not agree with what the people want, the system fails. Every time.
I saw people after Obama's election saying things like "i don't have to pay my rent now". My favorite was "I worked HARD for my welfare check".
The current economic crisis is a direct result of the Government forcing banks to purchase the future, long-term payment promises for folks that the banks did not think were worth it. The banks were right, most of the "lost value" is a bunch of "promises to pay" which are not worth anything near what the Government forced them to be accepted for. No one "determined" that the promises were worthless, the payments were not made, the promise IS worthless. Most of the shuffling, bundling, and derivitives were caused by financial entities trying to shift the burden to someone else, as they had a bunch of "assets" which were falsely valued, they knew it, but they were not able to operate as a "free market" wherein they would simply have declined the deal.
As for older people making more, OF COURSE most peoples skill levels and abilities increase with time and experience. This does not happen by magic or by a gift from above, it is a result of their expended energies and they should be rewarded and not penalized for being more valuable. The reward comes from the free market, the penalty from the government. On the lower end of the scale, those people whose skills are lesser or less valued, and who put forth little or no effort, should be penalized and not rewarded. In this case, the penalty comes from the free market and the reward from the government. In both cases, the market is correct and the government is wrong. Note that the "penalty" is not some kind of enforced evil, it is purely and simply the majority of people not being willing to pay very much for what that individual can do.
I can tell you how to become a millionaire, I spent my childhood watching it being done. You bust your ass, work long hours 6 or 7 days a week, sacrifice time with your family, not necessarily but often become a real SOB, and spend increasing amounts of time trying to keep other people and most especially the Government from stealing what you have earned, usually so they can gift it to someone else who has done NOTHING to earn it.
Along the way you will employ several people and pay a lot of money to the city to increase general productivity for all. You may even donate many thousands to help renovate a city landmark, and watch the local government purchase a multi-thousand dollar item from a retailer in another city, who has contributed NOTHING to the local economy, without even giving yourself or two other local business an opportunity to bid on the sale. You can then tell a city councilman who is soliciting further donations that he has balls the size of watermelons to call you again and that hell will freeze over before you contribute another dime.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
that's 4 comments either insinuating or outright saying that those who make more money work harder than those that don't.
You have a real knack for putting words in peoples mouths. 
Like DC is saying, a lot of it is dependant on good decision making plus hard work. A lot of it is also extremely dependant on performing jobs that only a select number of individuals do. You may think someone "works harder" because they put in a lot of physical work, but it's also a job that anyone can step in and do.
Quote:
I know morons that make a very good living off of who they know, and I know brilliant people making a modest income.
Well, if the job is so easy that even a moron can do it ... then go get that job! In most cases I know ... the "morons" don't stay in that position very long or the company does poorly. Some brilliant people make a modest income, because they choose to do something that they like, over a harder/more stressful/higher risk job.
Quote:
and I probably don't have a third the network that some of you have...you must know similar examples. So why then perpetuate this idea that hard work = $, when there is little correlation at all?
Because there is plenty of correlation. Just because you can think of a few examples, doesn't make it the "norm" ... in general, if you put in hard work and make good decisions, you get the better paying jobs if you want them.
That's the main argument against paying everyone the same regardless of jobs. If that was the case, nobody would bother putting in the hard work to become something like a brain surgeon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
We do have some Keynesian styled systems, like Social Security and such mixed in, but the basic economic system from the 70s to the start of Obama's term were basically free market.
It's widely accepted in many circles that the United States abandoned Keynesian policy in the 70's, reviving under the start of Obama's term, and for the life of me I cannot understand the dissonance of such a statement.
Our country has a long history of extensive state intervention in the economy, and it certainly didn't stop in the 70's.
In 1980, Reagan campaigned on protectionist platforms for the auto industry, for fear of getting lapped by the Japanese. His entire tenure in office is littered with large state subsidies for a vast amount of industries -- auto, computer, electronics, etc. He subsidized just about anything and everything through Star Wars -- much of that lemon socialism was responsible for the tech boom that Clinton presided over. He imposed a great deal of tariffs ... hell, his Treasury secretary boasted in 1987 that Reagan had "granted more import relief to U.S. industry than any of his predeÂcessors in more than half a century."
Reagan was a marked protectionist, and during his tenure our economy didn't even remotely resemble free market capitalism ... not even close.
And how can one say it was revised under Obama when it was blatant with Bush?
TARP, airline bailouts, the Prescription Drug Act ... free market capitalism? Are you kidding me? Should I even get into government-funded subsidies during his tenure? No bid contracts?
Clinton I don't even think I need to explain ....
Quote:
The free markets expanded the US economy from pseudo feudalism and basic trade based economics to an industrial base with more value on money over goods and services.
Do you honestly believe that we went from point A to point B without very heavy and extensive intervention and funding from the government?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
First, my comment that you quoted says absolutely nothing remotely resembling what you claim. It is a simple statement that YOUR income is, and should be, a result of YOUR effort.
The equation of "hard work equals more dollars" is generally accurate, with the caveat that it needs to be work with a value placed on it. The value is placed by the buyer of the work. You could work really hard digging a hole in my back yard, but if I or the property owner did not ask for a hole then you would be arrested rather than paid.
As for what the CEO makes, there is something you really, really need to understand. IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS, anymore than what I eat for dinner is. Your opinion is not relevant because you are not paying the CEO's salary. If you are a part-owner of the company in question, such as a stockholder, then you get a vote. If not, then you don't. If you don't think that a CEO should make that much, that's fine and dandy, when you hire one, pay them less. That is the be-all and end-all of your input into the process.
I can go and buy a hamburger for $2.00, or go somewhere else and pay $8.00. If I don't think the more expensive one is worth that price, then I don't buy one. That is the be-all and end-all of my input into the pricing of hamburgers. I am free to go and buy my own hamburger and make them myself, at a price closer to $2.00 and a quality closer to $8.00. I can explain the mechanics and economics of each of the three different options to someone, but which burger they end up with is their choice, and their choice alone. Side note - both hamburger chains are very successful, and that is because there is a fair number of buyers for each type, as you might guess there are more for the $2.00 burger, but also enough for the $8.00 burger. Both are good value for the money, not an opinion but a fact. The free market says so.
The work I do now, is what I choose to do. I could be making a LOT more money, and in fact could have easily have taken a path that almost certainly would have made me a millionaire today. I did that work for several years, and decided it just was not what I wanted to do. I work when and how I want to, for who I want to. Nobody but me dictates my schedule. While there are some definite negatives to the career path I have chosen, I have the time to play catch with my son. I made the decision that this was more valuable to me than cars, houses, boats, and an airplane, based on my personal experience with a father who made the opposite decision.
I price my work as I see fit, the market tells me the price is reasonable. Sure, some would prefer a lower price, and probably some would be willing to pay a higher rate. I get what I charge because I am good at what I do, defining "hard work" gets a bit tricky because I don't consider it difficult at all, but most folks simply can't do it. Earlier today I sat and thought for about 5 minutes, and billed my customer $75.00 for the results of that effort. He, and many others, think that the 5 minutes they bought from me was worth $75.00, and that's the only opinion that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I forgot that you are an "all or nothing" kind of person.
If a system is not 100% free market then it isn't at all free market. If it is "only" mostly free market then it's not free market.
The majority of the economy is free market. The government tries to manipulate the free market with a variety of policies and actions, but the economy itself is still mostly free market.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
EXCL... Quote:
You have a real knack for putting words in peoples mouths.
but if you just knew me in real life...i'm twice as bad. 
Quote:
You may think someone "works harder" because they put in a lot of physical work, but it's also a job that anyone can step in and do.
i never brought up physically working harder. but again, performing a job that not anyone can step in and do is not the sole province of high earners.
Quote:
Because there is plenty of correlation. Just because you can think of a few examples, doesn't make it the "norm" ... in general, if you put in hard work and make good decisions, you get the better paying jobs if you want them.
i'm still not sure there is "plenty of correlation". i gave a few EXTREME examples, not the full spectrum...just as you gave the extreme example of a surgeon. the implication of what you are saying is that if you aren't being paid (and want to be), it is because you aren't working hard or making good decisions.
i guess this is what i'm getting at. one can say that you are not denigrating those who make less, but by highlighting the virtues of those who make more, you are doing so indirectly. e.g. after watching the Steelers whip us on the field, by saying "that is a well-run organization", you are implying that not all organizations are not run so well, and probably are specifically referring to the Browns in that context. that's how i interpret it, and maybe i'm the only one who reads into people's words on a message board that way. perhaps i just have reading comprehension problems when there is no larger context surrounding a comment or discussion.
Quote:
That's the main argument against paying everyone the same regardless of jobs. If that was the case, nobody would bother putting in the hard work to become something like a brain surgeon.
there would be plenty of brain surgeons. see other nations, who don't pay their physicians enormous amounts of money. perhaps the quality of brain surgeons would go down, but there are many hard-working, modestly-compensated professions that survive despite their low market value.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
NELSON... Quote:
The equation of "hard work equals more dollars" is generally accurate, with the caveat that it needs to be work with a value placed on it.
hey, i gave you credit for admitting that minor grand canyon of a caveat. w/o that addendum, the 1st statement holds little water, IMO.
Quote:
As for what the CEO makes, there is something you really, really need to understand. IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS, anymore than what I eat for dinner is. Your opinion is not relevant because you are not paying the CEO's salary. If you are a part-owner of the company in question, such as a stockholder, then you get a vote. If not, then you don't. If you don't think that a CEO should make that much, that's fine and dandy, when you hire one, pay them less. That is the be-all and end-all of your input into the process.
i must have missed that executive salary fill-in-the-blank on that last shareholders statement.
the rest of your tirade (yes, you sound irritated) is a long-winded way of saying people are paid what the market will bear. i never said that this is not the case. i challenge why we think it is right. if i can charge $100 for a glass of water in the middle of the desert, it doesn't make it right.
beyond that, the value proposition of work done, and thus what the market will pay a person, is not universal. in professions where no $ is changing hands (directly), there is no inherent market to determine value. what is a teacher worth? a firefighter? a politician? one can try to construct some value equation, but it is clearly different from a salesman who impacts a business's bottom line or a real estate agent who has quantifiable, $-based outcomes as a result of their work.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
if i can charge $100 for a glass of water in the middle of the desert, it doesn't make it right.
Why?
Obviously you would have to have some way to get water to your location. You would have to pay your business and personal income taxes. You would need your licensing for your business. Since you would be self employed, you would pay your own payroll taxes.
If you could sell water for $100/glass, that would imply that there would be considerable difficulty in getting water to the area. That would imply cost and risk.
And if someone else came along selling water for $0.50/bottle for water, you'd be out of luck.
The market knocks down excessive prices, especially in today's world. Demand drives supply. Excessive supply knocks down prices. Competition knocks down prices.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
for me to answer why, it depends on what that service costs me. if it costs me $90, ok. if it cost me $10, i would feel guilt over taking advantage of a position of power. you are right that in almost all situations, competition would preclude me from gauging...but if i had no competition, i'm not going to do it. some will. maybe that in part explains why i chose to pursue a career i believe in instead of one that will pay me well. if i'm selling water in the desert, it is to keep people alive, and i will take a reasonable profit. what is reasonable? how's that definition for porn go again?
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Alright, let's take your water example.
Should someone who did NOT push a pipeline thru the dessert, someone who did NOT put up their time, effort, and hard work, someone who did NOT risk everything if a competitor finds a cheaper way to do it, someone who did NOT make sure you wouldn't be sued or fined millions for disturbing a few kangaroo rats, someone who did NOTHING to get that water to the dessert, should that person decide the price for the water that you are going to sell?
What if it DID cost $90 per glass, and that mysterious SOMEONE decides that you should sell it for $10.00?
The answer is that this is nobody's decision but yours. Question - what would you charge for the water to fill up some wealthy person's swimming pool?
What if the pool is for physical therapy for a large group of handicapped children? What if the wealthy person has a handicapped child, but has kept it secret to protect the child?
A free market will accurately and correctly answer these questions, over time. The water will be sold at what people are willing to pay, OR there will be no water for sale at all. This is a far better method than someone who has no clue at all how much it costs to get that water there deciding how much it should sell for.
What if you were told that you MUST work at that career you don't like?
A shareholder does not get to vote in such a specific way as to determine the exact salary of a CEO. They vote yay or nay on general matters, and on electing the board. If they don't like the company decisions, they can sell the stock. Non-shareholders, if they DO like the company decisions, can decide to purchase the stock. Lots of buyers raise the price, lots of sellers lower the price, and these directly affect the company's well-being.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
i must have missed that executive salary fill-in-the-blank on that last shareholders statement.
Just like I missed the slot on the last ballot about whether I wanted my taxes raised. What I was given was a vote on a candidate who would represent my wishes.. as a stockholder you get to vote on the BoD and then they negotiate executive compensation on your behalf...
Quote:
in professions where no $ is changing hands (directly), there is no inherent market to determine value. what is a teacher worth? a firefighter? a politician?
A lot, a lot, nothing. 
For a teacher and or a firefighter it is still a supply and demand market. If I have one teacher spot open then it becomes about how many people apply for that job and how much I need to pay to get the best one. Usually there is a trade-off. This happens at every firm, not just in education where you have a position to fill and a budget... so you go get the best person you can...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
You can charge $100 for a glass of water in the desert, but if no one buys it, are you really charging anything? See the market would be dictating your price more so than you are.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
The majority of the economy is free market.
Absolutely, it is not.
And it's not about purity, or all or nothing.
Our system resembles fascism, lemon socialism and Keynesian theory far more than it does free market capitalism.
Again, we implemented more elements of free market theory than most ... but it does not make up the majority of our system.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum New Rick Perry Ad
|
|
![[Linked Image from img.photobucket.com]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/Concor1033/NEWDTsig.jpg)
