I don't agree with the guy, not all wealthy people are hard workers. There is a huge system of inherited wealth nowadays, most rich people today were born into wealthy families whose ancestry either made the money from: hard work, slave labour, etc. And socialism is not a bad thing, too many people go straight to communism and they are NOT the same thing. I think the real issue is greed. Too many people would rather have 10 cars, and 20 bedroom houses than using that money for something decent.
I'm poor as heck but I don't like the idea of overtaxing the rich. Because think about it, eventually maybe when I'm done school and I get paid about $50k a year, I don't want 30% of that being taxed (and it will be since I'm in Toronto and the taxes here are fricken ridiculous).
If a person really thinks long term and has real goals for theirself than there's no reason to support high taxes, but if you're broke and not expecting to go anywhere, then yeah, you support this.
Conservatives who say it's immoral to pay taxes shouldn't drive on private roads either. They're like a guy who doesn't want to pay the condominium fee but still wants to use the elevator.
Yeah, because an "Academic on the let" would know less about the tax system then a conservative talking-head who doesn't even know what socialism actually means... -____-
Republicans are greedy and of course they're going to say taxing the rich more (because they can better AFFORD it) is "immoral." They don't care about the middle class or the poor. They r GREEDY. And IMMORAL.
For example, look up "PBS NOVA Bible's Buried Secrets." Right at the beginning, it states "Brought to you by funding from...DAVID KOCH, w/additional funding ''from viewers like you'. Thank you." Like, no kidding. ROFL!!!
And BTW, "Al-Jazeera" is NOT a program on NPR, *IT'S A SEPARATE FUCKING NEWS NETWORK MADE UP PRIMARILY OF EX-BBC PEOPLE!!!* Seriously, how could you get that mixed up?!?!
And honestly, I gotta ask...are you high? Lol, you aren't typing right, it would seem...l
For example, look up "PBS NOVA Bible's Buried Secrets." Right at the beginning, it states "Brought to you by funding from...DAVID KOCH, w/additional funding ''from viewers like you'. Thank you." Like, no kidding. ROFL!!!
And BTW, "Al-Jazeera" is NOT a program on NPR, *IT'S A SEPARATE FUCKING NEWS NETWORK MADE UP PRIMARILY OF EX-BBC PEOPLE!!!* Seriously, how could you get that mixed up?!?!
And honestly, I gotta ask...are you high? Lol, you aren't typing right, it would seem...l
For example, look up "PBS NOVA Bible's Buried Secrets." Right at the beginning, it states "Brought to you by funding from...DAVID KOCH, w/additional funding ''from viewers like you'. Thank you." Like, no kidding. ROFL!!!
And BTW, "Al-Jazeera" is NOT a program on NPR, *IT'S A SEPARATE FUCKING NEWS NETWORK MADE UP PRIMARILY OF EX-BBC PEOPLE!!!* Seriously, how could you get that mixed up?!?!
And honestly, I gotta ask...are you high? Lol, you aren't typing right, it would seem...l
WTF is wrong with you?!?! First of all, Fox News IS *NOT* RELATED OR SIMILAR TO NPR! I mean, you'd might as well confuse the NYTimes with the NYPost!
NPR is public radio...it'd be more apt to think of it as being similar to a "radio" division of the BBC, for example. Yes, they DO take donations, but ththey take donations from EVERYBODY and pay no heed to where the money came from or why.
What's wrong with going back to taxing the super rich by the ways of the 40's under FDR. Back when they were taxed at over 90% and they were fine and the economy was growing out of the depression and they lived great lives. Tell me, anybody, why it's so wrong to give higher taxes to the rich?
Brought to you by listenerz contrrrrri-BU shuns... any one else bothered by the retard (forgive me Sarah) inflections in this delivery, only used for the listeners contributions, never the phugh charitable trust, or the Melinda Gates Foundation.
Can you imagine? Brought to you by the melin da GATE found A shun. Like those you hear/ and see who deliver every conclusion with that question-mark tone that you'd use if you were saying... knowwaddameeean? I parked in the parking garaaage? & like paid?
Funny thing in this country how fox knwez and even npr, give the moral authority issues to some slut-face with a British accent!... On fix news it's this a-hole... on npr it's the a-hole who delivers aljezera... the people of America apparently love it/trust it... excuse me did I use the wrong english? I meant the American People... God bless you and God Bless America.
It is immoral to tax wealthy people who work for their money. Everyone in America has the opportunity to a free education and depending on how seriously the people take it determines how successful they will be in life. Most people who work as janitors chose to goof off in school and didn't take their education seriously so now they have to work more jobs in order to live, while the wealthier Americans did their hard work in school and became successful.
@XxWiseAxX Except that people born in wealthy households will inevitably be able to be more successful than a person born into a lesser household. Access to more expensive private schools and colleges, among other luxuries that will help them be more successful. Doesn't sound like equal opportunity for me
And I'm sorry, this idea of the "4am back-breaking work rich guy" isn't true. Are there some people who gained money through hard work and sacrifice? Yes. Is it common in the modern day of exploitive capital? Hell no. The fact is, there are many people in America who make their millions by "managing" the hard work of thousands of blue collar workers then fight their hardest to defend their own money while willingly working to diminish their workers'.
americans have been programmed to think that people with british accents are somehow more intelleigent and therefore correct, when they make such stupid claims! .....cheerio gov'na!!!!
@java501 In Europe that kind of gigantic corporations (particularly those related to energy, aerospace and tranportation) pay similar effective tax rates. In many cases, zero taxes.
my statement should be regarded as aimed to people with enough monetairy sence not to replace their two month old ipod with the new model,in every color,just becouse they can
as a belgian this strikes me as funny in two ways,first off it amuses me that people take fox seriously at all,i have observed more civil and balanced debates between my teenage brothers
second,Every belgian pays 57.1% taxes,somehow the plight of people unwilling to let go of some of the money they make on top of millions makes me loose faith in you guys,or to put it a diffrent way ,let me pose you a question:
whould any of you not be able to get by,and get by comfortably if given 500.000 $
*~The idea that lower corporate & individual tax rates spur job growth is a 30-year REPUBLICAN LIE. Since the implementation of the REAGAN & BUSH TAX CUTS, America has LOST MORE jobs than at any other time in its history. Not collectng a FAIR SHARE of taxes from corporations& the wealthy has spawned a SERIOUS REVENUE PROBLEM which should be a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. On the other hand, a WORKING MIDDLE CLASS with money to spend DOES SPUR JOB GROWTH. AMERICA, REJECT THE REPUBLICAN LIE!
Note the debt is $800 per month FOR 30 YEARS for each and every tax payer.
But also, this is debt that we can't go bankrupt on, at least not without completely and irrevocably destroying the USA and world economy.
If we go bankrupt, then the world will lose all moral and financial faith in the USA.
The only people with even a hope of paying off this debt are the rich. The can save us, or they can destroy us, and they seem determined to destroy the USA, just to preserve their wealth.
This country has debt, largely brought on by the rich. That debt if spread evenly is $800 per month for every tax payer. The working & middle class simply can't handle that. I predict if you push that burden on them, it will bankrupt 70% to 80% of Americans.
The rich took much of that money that created the debt, and gave us nothing in return. So, time for them to give the money back.
They breached a social contract & failed on their promise, time to pay for that failure.
The media is the right arm of the corporate devil, when will you people learn. They say they need tax cuts to create more jobs. Thats the biggest bunch of bull I've ever heard!!! The fact is, they will only hire when its in their best interest. And since they're shipping jobs overseas for cheap labor, its not in their best interest to hire hear in the U.S., so why are they getting these tax cuts again?? Thank republicans and their loopholes and deregulations that allowed our jobs to be shipped.
This guy needs to leaf through a dictionary and pause at "moral", because he obviously doesn't get it. The strongest shoulders bear the heaviest burden, that is moral.
as long as there is inter-generational transfer of wealth (rich people giving their kids their money) the economic system is not a pure meritocracy and therefore rich people are not always "hard workers"
@TechnoDevotee Except for the fact that high school and university require intelligence- nepotism can't buy grades. Every successful, "rich" American has worked hard for a uni degree.
"Even if you live in the middle of the forest by your self and are completely self-sufficient"
You don't live in a frikkin forest. You live in a community, you live in an area that has regulations to reduce impact on the environment, that allows clean water to come in. Obviously there's going to be a price for all those services, you'll complain that it's theft stealing your money to fund those services despite living on that land, well, get your own isolated island and tax no moar!
@Houshalter ... Pay more in taxes(in large part because of the money they decide to horde for themselves rather than pay to the employees) or just pay their employees more.The employees then have extra money that they use to buy products and services.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, ruined home values, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
You don't tax the hell out of successful Americans to support the government's senseless spending! I'm tired of hearing tax the rich and help the poor...I'm by no stretch of the imagination rich, BUT I am a strong believer in you reap what you sow, if you work hard you deserve your pay, but I'm tired of paying in so much money to government so lazy bastards can get paid to sit on there ass at home all frickin day and draw welfare and fraudulent unemployment!!! Unbelievable...WAKE UP PEOPLE!
@1983Bantam So, I guess you never went to a public school, never used public health care, never used public transportation, never used a public road, never called the police or fire department and never went into a public building(library/museum/etc.) and never stepped foot in a public park. You also happen to live in a cave in some random forest, have built your own power supply and telecommunications system, and hacked into the internet of the civilized world, is that the case?
@Razgrits how is that even remotely a moral case for taxation? He said taxation is theft and therefore immoral, and your response is to list random mopolies he possibly has used?
@Houshalter Because taxation isn't theft you retard. It's money which are spent so HE can have the quality of life he has. And as I said, if he lives in a civilized city/town/village even, all the things he uses are HIS money. And as an individual, it's too little for how much it offers. If he was paying and then he wasn't allowed to make use of said services, then yes, taxes would be immoral. As long as he does use them, he should, and you, shut up and pay.
Even if you live in the middle of the forest by your self and are completely self-sufficient, the government can and will demand taxes, and if you can't or don't pay them they will come and take your property or throw you in jail, and if you resist they will potentially use lethal force. Most tax money does not go into services for the public, it goes to the interest on debt or the military.
because housekeepers don't work hard and bus drivers don't get up early in the morning, but CEO's are busting their asses every day to make america better
morally those fuckers making that much need skined alive... its all nazi gold they inherited anyway... FUCK YOU REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST SCUM!!!!!!
@Houshalter No one is getting there income taken at the numbers you quote thats a freaking joke so morals dont apply to a non event type thing. if it didnt happen why worry? besides even if they took all of there money the country's so far in debt it wouldn't matter
@drinkmoresoda no, he is reffering to the people that want to raise the tax rate to ridiculously high levels, some even 90%. The government already spends about 43% of the economy away, and that is all taken from us one way or another, via inflation, taxes, or debt. It's such a joke now. An organization originally created to protect our property now takes most of it and promises all the rest to it's debtors.
What the hell? The guy asks if it is immoral to take more then half of a persons income against their consent, and your argument is that it somehow benefits them anyways? Huh? It benefits me more to loose half of my income? This is absolutley retarded. Not only is that completely wrong (if something benefitted me enough to make it worth spending money on, I could do it without the government), but it doesn't cover the morality at all, which is what he was asking.
@Houshalter you missed the point man, people that make that much dont pay taxes there money is all overseas in pricate accounts and they make "charity donations" to there own organizations and live in multiple houses so they never really pay a dime while me and you pay the bill for them to keep fucking us....
@Houshalter "The guy asks if it is immoral to take more then half of a persons income against their consent, and your argument is that it somehow benefits them anyways?" Ok you guys are always going on about supply and demand.Think about it like this how much demand can you have for a product from people with no disposable income.If all my money is going into just surviving then I can't speand on luxury items.So the business man has two choices either...
@Houshalter chicken or the egg.Noone would bother supplying something that there isn't a demand for.Anyway you slice it you need people with extra income to buy.Without them your company goes belly up.
that last great republican, Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster, was opposed to great wealth being passed along to the progeny of wealthy people, hence, the income tax and estate tax. remember the estate tax only affects a tiny number or very rich people.
@gggreggg "opposed to great wealth being passed along to the progeny of wealthy people". Let the states enhance their taxes and abolish most of the federal ones. And see which states are more successful: the ones punishing the wealthy or others.
hmmmm funny i recall the bible talking about god himself taking 10% of everything a person makes.....odd....seems fair to me.. if im making 50million dollars a year then i damn sure can spare 25mill a year...ffs these people are idiotic
It's only immoral to Republican Senators who work for the corrupt trillion dollar corporations. Corporate bribe money will be cut to Republican Senators if the rich don't keep getting richer like they have been for the past century.
however at some point in time either they or someone in their family DID do something to acquire the money. why should they be penalized?
in the end it will all boil down to 'the rich should pay more because they have more' which is not a fair position; it keeps the economy viable, but it isnt fair
90% tax on people's income after their first 250k, and 1% taxes for the poor. Why the 1%? because they need to contribute just so that the government can track their spending.
whatever the hell happens to the middle class, should apply to the upper class too, there's no reason that people should go through different tax percentages based on their income. it's like saying that since i have more than you, i lose less than you. there's no fucking specialness with who gets taxed. keep the incomes at an equal taxation, and everyone will be nice and bitchy... we all have to pay. leave it that way.
Republicans have mastered the art of distraction by pointing out the straw in the eyes of their critics, while avoiding any discussion about the rafter sticking from their own eye.
If greatness is indicated by a great example, then Republicans have absolutley nothing to boast with. They insist others do as they say, while doing the exact opposite of what they expect of others.
They make a dollar I make a dime, that's why i crap on company time. Ironically, this true. Fox news has made this the case for so many people with their support of the republicans. The only way for lower income earners like my self to get my tax loop hole is to be paid while sitting on the tiolet. My tax loop hole I sure will be closed soon though because the rich aren't making money off my back while I'm crapping.
Nice try, but you are wrong about the 1950s. The government did not see revenue from the top tax rate. Instead, businesses filed at the lower corporate tax rate and investors filed at the capital gains rate. The few that did file at the 91% rate had all kinds of deductions and exemptions. It is fact that the wealthy actually paid more when Reagan and Bush cut taxes, because they reported more income.
you keep on making the fundamental mistake. No trade will take place if both parties have nothing to gain from the transaction. If some industry pays me 0.10 dollars per hour, I would always try to find another job in another industry that does not. Over generations, no one will work in that industry.
@droomerd "If some industry pays me 0.10 dollars per hour, I would always try to find another job "
AGAIN: if all entry level jobs are paying that 10 cents an hour it's not a matter of finding the best one, it's a matter of which one pays for your food that night?
You need to do some reading on conditions of workers in the industrial revolution to apreciate what you have now. You still aren't getting the change which has occured since then.
Tax rich people more than the fair share=> less incentive for them to invest in US/invest at all => less works inside the country, economy shrinks => more people goes unemployed => more cost to the welfare schemes => more tax to the rich who are still working and you cant cut back social costs due to political pressure => economy shrinks more. Simple economics. Laughing like an idiot doesnt change the principles of economics, like it or not.
@droomerd You do realize that these holy rich don't bother to invest in the US anyway because it is easier and cheaper to make things outside the country where there are no need for such things as minimum wage and law enforcement.
@MakoSharkX and why is it that it becomes more profitable for a person to set up a business halfway across the world incurring all the logistics than to set it up here? Because, there are artficial regulations and minimum wage that sets the cost higher than actual. The whole thing is a symptom of the actual malaise that is, government intervention in free market. You make some uneconomical populist policies like that and you pay the price of it in time-simple.
@droomerd Fraid they tried it the other way, read up on it some time, it was called the industrial revolution. You know, where there was a totally free market. People got paid like shit, children worked to pay for food and the average person lived in a two room appartment with half a dozen other people, want to go back to that mate?
@MakoSharkX Could you elaborate a bit? I mean, industrial revolution happened in the age of colonies and slavery , it seems obviously against free labor. But then again I am not an expert, so please suggest some specific readings.
- People get paid shit, work 14 hour days 7 days a week because otherwise they get fired and there are hundreds out of work to take their place who are all desperate for it
- It's not a problem for the companies, because it costs nothing to make anything, and therefore the system is sustainable
- It is this time period, and the utterly terrible situation people found themselves in which led to regulation
@MakoSharkX actually, its simple. If some company has worse working condition than others, people would flock to the other company. If there isnt an alternative, within a single generation, none would want to work in that area and its in the interests of the company to ensure the satisfaction of the workers. The fundamental mistake is ignoring he fact that both the company and workers should benefit from the mutual trade of resources, otherwise there wont be any trade and both are worse off.
@droomerd "actually, its simple. If some company has worse working condition than others, people would flock to the other company. I"
That's a common falsehood, and something to watch for. It doesn't work if everywhere the conditions are simmilar, and if people aren't at liberty to move because they don't have the money to do so. Think about this: Gamestop pays badly, has poor conditions etc, but people line up for jobs there because they are the only game in most areas, and buy all others.
@MakoSharkX Lets say I get an engineering degree and find that there is not a single job where I am getting paid what I think I deserve. In that case, I would suffer no doubt. But a student after me would look at the cost of education and the salary that he will be getting. So, he wont join that field of engineering=> the industry loses skilled workers and produces less than what it should have.
@droomerd In your scenario, you are assuming everyone is absolutely informed about presssures and factors, which is not the case, and never was. And how pray tell did you afford said degree in the first place?
You see, if a family is living on subsistance (hand to mouth) there is no money for education, and thus the skilled workers are limited in another fashion.
@MakoSharkX "And how pray tell did you afford said degree in the first place?"-- I dont get your point. This is a very reasonable assessment that people do everytime. Thats why more people prefer to go for an engineering degree than say a degree in english literature because it implies a better emplyment oppurtunity and implied a better value for their money. In fact, this is also something makes people decide whether to go for a job or graduate education(masters/PhD)
@droomerd I repeat: And how pray tell did you afford said degree in the first place?"
You never answered the question, you just stated that engineering degrees have more opritunities. The problem is how did you get to the point where you had the degree to begin with? Hang the opritunities, how did you get it?
@droomerd And it wasn't that long ago, the industrial revolution was only "finishing" in the developed world arround the time of the First World War (1905), and it only began a little over a hundred years before that, what we've got now isn't that old, my grandfather probably remembers a time when electrical lighting wasn't common.
@droomerd You really need to get some apreciation for what we have, without that time, and the horrible conditions therein, there would be no regulation. Now you say free markets are a good thing, but think about this:
- No minimum wage
- No workers compensation
- No child labour laws
- No weekends off
- No limits on hours or hourly pay
- No guarentees, if you get hurt or sick for any reason, your company can fire you
That's real free market, and it's that which we've tried to get away from.
1. Why is it important to have minimum wage? If anything, minimum wage ensures there are smaller number of people working at higher salaries than more people at lower salaries , as an equilibrium would ensure.
2. I dunn what worker's compensation you mean, child labor is undesirable because that contradicts your other theory that there are more workers anyway,
There are inevitably more workers than there are jobs, then as now. Ergo: the worker needs the job more than the company needs any individual. The mantality is that workers can be replaced.
You just don't seem to get it, people are dependant on jobs, not the other way arround. If you haven't a job, you haven't mo ney, and you don't have the freedom to move.
If conditions are shit everywere, nobody can go anywhere, and there is no impitus to improve maters.
@MakoSharkX There are more people than there are jobs, I agree. On the otherhand, fixing minimum wage increases the cost to the company artificially, resulting in lower employment anyway. So, how does that solve the problem? If anything you have even less people with jobs at an artificially higher salaries than otherwise.
@droomerd "minimum wage increases the cost to the company artificially, resulting in lower employment anyway. So, how does that solve the problem?"
The simple answer is it doesn't, but that isn't the problem being solved.
Minimum wage prevents companies from abusing workers for profit margins, and guarentees workers a certain level of living, and it is then part of doing business.
How does having weekends off save a company money? It doesn't, but it sure is nice to have.
@MakoSharkX Dude, if there is a worker working 7 days a week, his productivity will diminish. Eventually, a company would figure out a worker working 8 hours for 5 days produces more than a worker working 8 hours for 7 days. Otherwise, low retention or low sustainability. Again, its anyway in the interests of the company itself to take necessary action.
@droomerd "Dude, if there is a worker working 7 days a week, his productivity will diminish. Eventually, a"
Then you lay off that worker and replace him with the next guy who needs the job.
Trust me, if it's what you are living off of, you will produce. And we aren't talking 8 hours a day, I'm talking 14.
The simple fact is that reduction in productivity is far outweighed by the cost savings of having no minimum wage, no cafiteria, no breaks, no lutrines. A factory was a box with workers.
@MakoSharkX Okay, I am addressing the question of minimum wage: lets assume , a company is making workers work 14X7 a week,( this is a manual job, lets say) . The worker will look for the first oppurtunity to get out of it. When he quits, the company hires a new one and have the same problem. There is low retention. As a result, there is practically no worker with enough experience to go to a higher position. If this is repeated for all companies, then the industry itself loses workers
@MakoSharkX And you are continously ignoring the fact that you are having 40 workers at 7.5 dollars per hour than 100 workers at 5 dollars/hr. On the other hand you are also complaining that you have more workers than jobs.
@droomerd Who said 100 for 5? if you have a large surplus of workers who NEED jobs, why not 200 for 0.10 dollars an hour? This is a fundamental difference in scaling here.
@droomerd "why would anyone work for 0.10 dollars per hour? what job is that?"
In a truly free market? Any entry level job.
Do you work for 0.10 an hour sewing a shoe? Or do you work for 0.10 an hour greasing the machine which makes the needles for the choosers of A? Or do you starve? or does your son starve?
If you need that 10 cents, you WILL work for that 10 cents.
It's the principal of the kid and the lemonade stand, you need the money, doesn't matter how boring or unfulfilling it is.
@MakoSharkX over generations, low enough that no one would want to work permanently in this area, decreasing productivity across the sector. Also, if a company comes up with better working conditions for its employees it would out-market the other companies because it would gain more from better prodcutivity than the cost it incurs. Actually, there was a case in point about minimum wages. It is observed that minimum wages tend to hurt the teenage employees because it makes firms hire less of thm
@MakoSharkX "If companies can get away with low conditions for low costs, and all companies are, which company improves?" Because in this case, the industry cant possibly have any worker working for them at virtually no salary, for generations. The fundamentals mistake that you are making is, you are forgetting that both the employers and employees have to gain from the trade of resources, money and time respectively. People trade only iff both gain.
@MakoSharkX I can reverse the argument. Why does a software engineer gets paid like 50,000 USD per annum? is it because of minimum wage? What would happen if all software companies offer 0.10 USD per hour?
@droomerd "What would happen if all software companies offer 0.10 USD per hour?"
You are taking this to an entirely different context.
What if said software engineer had to make it through a degree program with a family who made said 10 cents an hour? When does he go to school if he works 7 days a week? You don't even get to that point.
ANd it's either take that 10 cents, or give up the position to another person who can program and is willing to take that 10 cents.
@MakoSharkX lets just stay on focussed one thing at a time. Lets say, I am a stupid guy who is already in college without doing any calculation and can afford and now is looking for a job and all of them are offering only .10 USD per hour, which is far below my expectations. Assuming that the salaries are going to remain like that, what happens to the industry in long run?
@MakoSharkX Dude, forget about me getting an education or not. Just tell me what happens to the industry if it starts offering 0.10 USDS per hour. Can it sustain itself with abnormal wages?
In the free market I am refering to (industrial revolution set up, no regulation, nothing etc) These AREN't, repeat AREN'T abnormal wages, they are the normal wages.
You either take that job, or someone else who is just a little less expectant than you does.
In the free market in that set up, the worker is not a valued part of the system, they are the oil for the machine.
@MakoSharkX Dude, for the last time, you said the companies have no reason to offer more than 0.10 uSd per hour, which is abnormal because the amount of college-hours required to get adequate skillsets are nowhere close to the benefits. So, finally, would that industry survive with this strategy? Please you raised this point, I hope you answer it without digressing.
@droomerd "Dude, for the last time, you said the companies have no reason to offer more than 0.10 uSd per hour, which is abnormal because the amount of college-hours required to get adequate skillsets are nowhere close to the benefits. So, finally, would that industry survive with this strategy? "
Oi... we aren't talking about the current system, we are talking about a free market economy which existed and you were advocating for.
@droomerd "Dude, forget about me getting an education "
How can I? You are making assumptions based on something which COULD NOT exist in said free market system.
It is the very fact that people now have a surpluss of income which allows anyone at all to go to school outside the realm of the super rich. It is that ability which lets you think about something other than getting food for your family tonight, and it is that which has pushed us up from said squallor.
@MakoSharkX I am getting the feeling that you have no facts to talk about. You cant answer a simple question about why would any industry survive without paying its workers the amount they deserve.
@droomerd "I am getting the feeling that you have no facts to talk about. You cant answer a simple question about why would any industry survive without paying its workers the amount they deserve. "
I've answered that multiple times, and it just seems to fly over your head.
For the last time, we aren't talking about a current system, we are talking about the free market, as it existed with no regulation.
You seem to have some idea that the companys believe workers deserved anything.
@MakoSharkX I dont "believe". I am telling you what an economy student or teacher would tell you. Why dont you just explain why is there no minimum wage in say, software industry? And I dint say, there should be no regulation. I disagree with your socialist concept of regulation. I favor government intervention enough to ensure free operating of the free market, the more "free"er extension is called "anarchy" which is infeasible.
@droomerd For the last time, I am not telling you a feasable economic model, I am telling you this from the perspective of a student of history, as to what actually happened and what actually worked for companies for decades.
You are AGAIN, placing this in a system which exists BECAUSE of the abandoning of a true free economy.
And please define "socialist " because having talked to a good number of Americans on Youtube I somehow doubt you can actually define it in its proper terminology.
Here's the problem, this idea is reletive. Imagine for a moment you are making nothing, you haven't anything to your name. Suddenly a company comes along, offering a position for 10 cents, what do you do? It's the only job offered, and you don't have the money to hold out for another. What do you do?
@MakoSharkX Okay, you havent yet answered my question , but I would. I take the job for 10 cents, I work for sometime till I get a job anywhere else , in a different industry . The company/industry loses because all workers would do the same thing and they would have no experienced workers within a few years.
"because all workers would do the same thing and they "
And what happens when those positions fill and still more workers want to leave the old job? What happens? They have to stay, they don't have a choice in the matter.
Let's say you make 10 cents, and you say to your boss it isn't enough, your bos replies "You can quit you know" where in you make 0 cents instead of 10, where's the gain?
@MakoSharkX Did you notice, the words "experienced worker" and "different industry"? I have mentioned it 5 times alreadyregarding the same question about retentivity.
@droomerd "Did you notice, the words "experienced worker" and "different industry"? I have mentioned it 5 times alreadyregarding the same question about retentivity."
And you are again trying to place a historical system (the one I am talking about) into a framework that exists entirely due to improvements on said system. It won't work and I see why you find it hard to examine in that way.
In the industrial revolution model, skilled labour wasn't valued because it wasn't required.
@MakoSharkX I am not talking history at all. I have no interest in that. I am talking pure simple economics. I get paid for what I am worth or I look for jobs which pays me for what I am worth. When I quit, the company has to hire a new worker, the company would have to arrange for its training and stuff, and if it does not pay enough, that guy will have no incentive to work there either. In time, the companies lose out on experienced worker.
@MakoSharkX what do you mean by another position exist? If minimum wage is so wonderful and companies are so worthless that they wont act without got intervention, why is not all jobs in US are paying 7.5 USD per hour?
@MakoSharkX damn it dude, why is not all jobs starting from the MBA working for Goldman Sachs to the janitor working in the university are getting paid at 7.5 USD per hour? Afterall, according to you, the companies are all evil and just want to pay as low as possible and would not change that unless the givernment fixes the minimum wage.
@droomerd "Afterall, according to you, the companies are all evil and just want to pay as low as possible and would not change that unless the givernment fixes the minimum wage."
Simple, you are again placing this in something other than a true free market. There are a whole host of forces acting on this system, not the least of which is the skilled MBA people, which wouldn't exist were it not for the ability of people to set aside money which wouldn't happen without minimum wage.
@MakoSharkX " it not for the ability of people to set aside money which wouldn't happen without minimum wage." _ I am sorry, but I thought that setting 7.5 USD per hour is the best thing that all companies should have done, right? why not they all together decide to fix it to 7.5 USD per hour? Besides, what makes them determine the salary that they pay?
@MakoSharkX I am sorry, were not you arguing for last 2 hours that all companies collude such they pay only the bare minimum leaving an individual with no alternative? Besides, I dont think you understand free market when you say " free market" being greedy is a problem. Infact, greed is the reason that free markets drive up efficiency.
@droomerd "Free markets" Don't always drive up efficiency. Sometimes an individual can make millions by bankrupting his company. Sometimes deseases are more profitable to treat than to cure. Sometimes it's more "efficient" to dump chemical waste in a grade-schools water supply and poison kids. The "free market" is not ALWAYS the best model for everything.
@droomerd "you don't know the basics of a free-market" Apparently I do since we seem to agree on these points. 1. Yes true. "fat" and "intrusive" are subjective terms. Sometimes to maintain the infrastructure the gov has to get all up in someone's business. 2. Yes totally absolutely. You got it. Bingo. However caps alone might not really pay for the externalized cost you're talking about. 3. Limited government doesn't make sense because the only thing that can impose limits IS government
@sinistar99 "Limited government doesn't make sense because the only thing that can impose limits IS government" --- I dont think I sense any logic in this sentence. Anyway, you might find this helpful:watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw
@droomerd There seems to be this growing misconception that the government and the free market are separate things. It's one big thing. There is no "natural state" of the market from which the government tweaks it with regulations... it's ALL regulations and ALL tweaks. Tweaks that might hurt some shareholders are called "Big Government " while tweaks that help them are "Limited govt" Ask me about the imaginary distinction between discretionary spending and entitlements! heheh :)
@sinistar99 The misconception is only in your mind. Have you ever seen anyone wishing there is no govt at all? That means the people acknowledge that govt is essential. What they dont want is, govt trying to replace the private sector. In a free market, the govt will be responsible for security, emergency services, infrastructure, judiciary and few other small things which cannot be done by a private sector without incurring huge costs. Healthcare is not a govt responsibility, not bailouts.
interesting, let me get my first year economis book... dust it off..
oh lets see, how can you measurre those external costs? because we can actually measure the amount that the market produces... without bringing them into the equation
@droomerd Free Market does not mean limited government. In a Free Market there also wouldn't be any pollution caps. In a Free Market, there are no regulations at all as it's believed the market would regulate itself. If it were true that the market does indeed regulate itself, then we wouldn't need government regulations and watchdogs to make sure there isn't any lead paint in your kids' toys or that your food is safe for consumption.
@SereneSatellites You start with the lie that free market is without govt intevention and then go on to ay, free market people are ignorant or insane. Its like claiming that people who believe in gravity also believe that the sun moves around the earth. Hence people believing in gravity ate insane.
I don't agree with the guy, not all wealthy people are hard workers. There is a huge system of inherited wealth nowadays, most rich people today were born into wealthy families whose ancestry either made the money from: hard work, slave labour, etc. And socialism is not a bad thing, too many people go straight to communism and they are NOT the same thing. I think the real issue is greed. Too many people would rather have 10 cars, and 20 bedroom houses than using that money for something decent.
PahoranGirl516 3 weeks ago
Do people really want fair? If you do, eliminate income tax altogether and initiate a Flat Rate consumer tax.
ROCKSTARVOCALIST 3 weeks ago
I'm poor as heck but I don't like the idea of overtaxing the rich. Because think about it, eventually maybe when I'm done school and I get paid about $50k a year, I don't want 30% of that being taxed (and it will be since I'm in Toronto and the taxes here are fricken ridiculous).
If a person really thinks long term and has real goals for theirself than there's no reason to support high taxes, but if you're broke and not expecting to go anywhere, then yeah, you support this.
Has1b 1 month ago
fuck fox news, EAT THE RICH
contacter 1 month ago
Conservatives who say it's immoral to pay taxes shouldn't drive on private roads either. They're like a guy who doesn't want to pay the condominium fee but still wants to use the elevator.
luizcadu 1 month ago
Yeah, because an "Academic on the let" would know less about the tax system then a conservative talking-head who doesn't even know what socialism actually means... -____-
letsomethingshine 2 months ago
And they try to talk over the other person so u can't hear THEIR views because of course only Republicans have "valid" views LOL. Yeah right ...
David8024667 3 months ago
Republicans are greedy and of course they're going to say taxing the rich more (because they can better AFFORD it) is "immoral." They don't care about the middle class or the poor. They r GREEDY. And IMMORAL.
David8024667 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@miiishaohmisa
For example, look up "PBS NOVA Bible's Buried Secrets." Right at the beginning, it states "Brought to you by funding from...DAVID KOCH, w/additional funding ''from viewers like you'. Thank you." Like, no kidding. ROFL!!!
And BTW, "Al-Jazeera" is NOT a program on NPR, *IT'S A SEPARATE FUCKING NEWS NETWORK MADE UP PRIMARILY OF EX-BBC PEOPLE!!!* Seriously, how could you get that mixed up?!?!
And honestly, I gotta ask...are you high? Lol, you aren't typing right, it would seem...l
macgeek2004 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@miiishaohmisa
For example, look up "PBS NOVA Bible's Buried Secrets." Right at the beginning, it states "Brought to you by funding from...DAVID KOCH, w/additional funding ''from viewers like you'. Thank you." Like, no kidding. ROFL!!!
And BTW, "Al-Jazeera" is NOT a program on NPR, *IT'S A SEPARATE FUCKING NEWS NETWORK MADE UP PRIMARILY OF EX-BBC PEOPLE!!!* Seriously, how could you get that mixed up?!?!
And honestly, I gotta ask...are you high? Lol, you aren't typing right, it would seem...l
macgeek2004 3 months ago
@miiishaohmisa
For example, look up "PBS NOVA Bible's Buried Secrets." Right at the beginning, it states "Brought to you by funding from...DAVID KOCH, w/additional funding ''from viewers like you'. Thank you." Like, no kidding. ROFL!!!
And BTW, "Al-Jazeera" is NOT a program on NPR, *IT'S A SEPARATE FUCKING NEWS NETWORK MADE UP PRIMARILY OF EX-BBC PEOPLE!!!* Seriously, how could you get that mixed up?!?!
And honestly, I gotta ask...are you high? Lol, you aren't typing right, it would seem...l
macgeek2004 3 months ago
@miiishaohmisa
WTF is wrong with you?!?! First of all, Fox News IS *NOT* RELATED OR SIMILAR TO NPR! I mean, you'd might as well confuse the NYTimes with the NYPost!
NPR is public radio...it'd be more apt to think of it as being similar to a "radio" division of the BBC, for example. Yes, they DO take donations, but ththey take donations from EVERYBODY and pay no heed to where the money came from or why.
macgeek2004 3 months ago
what a bitch LOL
Axcelaration 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's wrong with going back to taxing the super rich by the ways of the 40's under FDR. Back when they were taxed at over 90% and they were fine and the economy was growing out of the depression and they lived great lives. Tell me, anybody, why it's so wrong to give higher taxes to the rich?
ShNathan2009 4 months ago
Brought to you by listenerz contrrrrri-BU shuns... any one else bothered by the retard (forgive me Sarah) inflections in this delivery, only used for the listeners contributions, never the phugh charitable trust, or the Melinda Gates Foundation.
Can you imagine? Brought to you by the melin da GATE found A shun. Like those you hear/ and see who deliver every conclusion with that question-mark tone that you'd use if you were saying... knowwaddameeean? I parked in the parking garaaage? & like paid?
miiiishaohmisha 5 months ago
Funny thing in this country how fox knwez and even npr, give the moral authority issues to some slut-face with a British accent!... On fix news it's this a-hole... on npr it's the a-hole who delivers aljezera... the people of America apparently love it/trust it... excuse me did I use the wrong english? I meant the American People... God bless you and God Bless America.
miiiishaohmisha 5 months ago
It is immoral to tax wealthy people who work for their money. Everyone in America has the opportunity to a free education and depending on how seriously the people take it determines how successful they will be in life. Most people who work as janitors chose to goof off in school and didn't take their education seriously so now they have to work more jobs in order to live, while the wealthier Americans did their hard work in school and became successful.
XxWiseAxX 6 months ago
@XxWiseAxX Except that people born in wealthy households will inevitably be able to be more successful than a person born into a lesser household. Access to more expensive private schools and colleges, among other luxuries that will help them be more successful. Doesn't sound like equal opportunity for me
NuhUhGirlfriend 5 months ago 6
The fox news guy is right in this case!
dremicosbooksandgame 6 months ago
I dont think they will fall into depression because they can only have two cars instead of three
MsTommyknocker 6 months ago
And I'm sorry, this idea of the "4am back-breaking work rich guy" isn't true. Are there some people who gained money through hard work and sacrifice? Yes. Is it common in the modern day of exploitive capital? Hell no. The fact is, there are many people in America who make their millions by "managing" the hard work of thousands of blue collar workers then fight their hardest to defend their own money while willingly working to diminish their workers'.
MagnesDrachen13 7 months ago 2
There are no tax loopholes? Really? Did he just seriously argue that? What a fool.
MagnesDrachen13 7 months ago
americans have been programmed to think that people with british accents are somehow more intelleigent and therefore correct, when they make such stupid claims! .....cheerio gov'na!!!!
bxtech37 7 months ago
@bxtech37 I'm British and almost every fact I know, ends up being incorrect.
LLOYD19851012 7 months ago
@LLOYD19851012 I like your honesty. A rare trait.
1dschamp 5 months ago
@1dschamp I always tell it like it is. Even if it means I look stupid.
LLOYD19851012 5 months ago
Everyone that gets up at 4am are making over 350k apparently. so that means all bakers are really filthy rich....? ( "facepalm" )
METALMAN4Wii 8 months ago
The idea that there aren't any loopholes and that 50% is the actual rate paid does seem to be nonsense given that GE paid 0% this past year.
java501 8 months ago
@java501 In Europe that kind of gigantic corporations (particularly those related to energy, aerospace and tranportation) pay similar effective tax rates. In many cases, zero taxes.
xaviqaz 6 months ago
i think some socailism in necssary :)
tmmy773 8 months ago
"point of note"
my statement should be regarded as aimed to people with enough monetairy sence not to replace their two month old ipod with the new model,in every color,just becouse they can
Battusai1984 8 months ago
as a belgian this strikes me as funny in two ways,first off it amuses me that people take fox seriously at all,i have observed more civil and balanced debates between my teenage brothers
second,Every belgian pays 57.1% taxes,somehow the plight of people unwilling to let go of some of the money they make on top of millions makes me loose faith in you guys,or to put it a diffrent way ,let me pose you a question:
whould any of you not be able to get by,and get by comfortably if given 500.000 $
Battusai1984 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*~The idea that lower corporate & individual tax rates spur job growth is a 30-year REPUBLICAN LIE. Since the implementation of the REAGAN & BUSH TAX CUTS, America has LOST MORE jobs than at any other time in its history. Not collectng a FAIR SHARE of taxes from corporations& the wealthy has spawned a SERIOUS REVENUE PROBLEM which should be a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. On the other hand, a WORKING MIDDLE CLASS with money to spend DOES SPUR JOB GROWTH. AMERICA, REJECT THE REPUBLICAN LIE!
poindexterwitkowsky 8 months ago in playlist Best of TYT (2010)
Note the debt is $800 per month FOR 30 YEARS for each and every tax payer.
But also, this is debt that we can't go bankrupt on, at least not without completely and irrevocably destroying the USA and world economy.
If we go bankrupt, then the world will lose all moral and financial faith in the USA.
The only people with even a hope of paying off this debt are the rich. The can save us, or they can destroy us, and they seem determined to destroy the USA, just to preserve their wealth.
blueboyblue 9 months ago
This country has debt, largely brought on by the rich. That debt if spread evenly is $800 per month for every tax payer. The working & middle class simply can't handle that. I predict if you push that burden on them, it will bankrupt 70% to 80% of Americans.
The rich took much of that money that created the debt, and gave us nothing in return. So, time for them to give the money back.
They breached a social contract & failed on their promise, time to pay for that failure.
blueboyblue 9 months ago
BTW, Fox News has a habit of asking questions then preventing people from answering when its not what they want to hear!
CricketSayWhat 9 months ago
The media is the right arm of the corporate devil, when will you people learn. They say they need tax cuts to create more jobs. Thats the biggest bunch of bull I've ever heard!!! The fact is, they will only hire when its in their best interest. And since they're shipping jobs overseas for cheap labor, its not in their best interest to hire hear in the U.S., so why are they getting these tax cuts again?? Thank republicans and their loopholes and deregulations that allowed our jobs to be shipped.
CricketSayWhat 9 months ago
This guy needs to leaf through a dictionary and pause at "moral", because he obviously doesn't get it. The strongest shoulders bear the heaviest burden, that is moral.
271207 9 months ago
wow beautiful and smart what a women
jyusi4 9 months ago
If they are that wealthy, they are not working at 4 am, hahahahaha!
jpenn311 9 months ago
as long as there is inter-generational transfer of wealth (rich people giving their kids their money) the economic system is not a pure meritocracy and therefore rich people are not always "hard workers"
TechnoDevotee 9 months ago 15
@TechnoDevotee Except for the fact that high school and university require intelligence- nepotism can't buy grades. Every successful, "rich" American has worked hard for a uni degree.
JermzzzyFTW 9 months ago
@TechnoDevotee
It wouldn't be a meritocracy anyway because there are pleanty of people that would become rich off of doing immoral things or just getting lucky.
letsomethingshine 2 months ago
@TechnoDevotee precisly.
gethsoftware 1 month ago
@TechnoDevotee But thing this is when people have money, THEY SPEND IT AND INVEST IT.
johnjn14 1 week ago
"Even if you live in the middle of the forest by your self and are completely self-sufficient"
You don't live in a frikkin forest. You live in a community, you live in an area that has regulations to reduce impact on the environment, that allows clean water to come in. Obviously there's going to be a price for all those services, you'll complain that it's theft stealing your money to fund those services despite living on that land, well, get your own isolated island and tax no moar!
TurboDally 9 months ago
How DARE they STEAL MY money to help the sick, how DARE they with their incompetent system! Oh, you're going to war? Here, have some more money!
TurboDally 9 months ago
fox = moronTV
somethingonmyhip 10 months ago
Gonna become a 2012 campaign issue.
nagasako7 10 months ago
@Houshalter ... Pay more in taxes(in large part because of the money they decide to horde for themselves rather than pay to the employees) or just pay their employees more.The employees then have extra money that they use to buy products and services.
gamesmaster35 10 months ago
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, ruined home values, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
"yeah me neither"
smartisnotbad 10 months ago
Comment removed
Jasonryan627 10 months ago
You don't tax the hell out of successful Americans to support the government's senseless spending! I'm tired of hearing tax the rich and help the poor...I'm by no stretch of the imagination rich, BUT I am a strong believer in you reap what you sow, if you work hard you deserve your pay, but I'm tired of paying in so much money to government so lazy bastards can get paid to sit on there ass at home all frickin day and draw welfare and fraudulent unemployment!!! Unbelievable...WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Jasonryan627 10 months ago
Ya but no major innovations took place during 50s-60s
and we also had a gold standard
When Henry Ford paid more to his customers that line went out of business during the depression
Salvysahagun 11 months ago
public schools suck. even obama went to a private school cuz public school suck.
lvll138inrs 11 months ago
All taxes are immoral. They're theft.
1983Bantam 11 months ago
@1983Bantam So, I guess you never went to a public school, never used public health care, never used public transportation, never used a public road, never called the police or fire department and never went into a public building(library/museum/etc.) and never stepped foot in a public park. You also happen to live in a cave in some random forest, have built your own power supply and telecommunications system, and hacked into the internet of the civilized world, is that the case?
Razgrits 11 months ago
@Razgrits how is that even remotely a moral case for taxation? He said taxation is theft and therefore immoral, and your response is to list random mopolies he possibly has used?
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter Because taxation isn't theft you retard. It's money which are spent so HE can have the quality of life he has. And as I said, if he lives in a civilized city/town/village even, all the things he uses are HIS money. And as an individual, it's too little for how much it offers. If he was paying and then he wasn't allowed to make use of said services, then yes, taxes would be immoral. As long as he does use them, he should, and you, shut up and pay.
Razgrits 10 months ago
@Razgrits theft - The act of stealing property
Steal - take without the owner's consent
You fail.
Even if you live in the middle of the forest by your self and are completely self-sufficient, the government can and will demand taxes, and if you can't or don't pay them they will come and take your property or throw you in jail, and if you resist they will potentially use lethal force. Most tax money does not go into services for the public, it goes to the interest on debt or the military.
Houshalter 10 months ago
FOX disgusts me!
Palaciofilin 11 months ago
because housekeepers don't work hard and bus drivers don't get up early in the morning, but CEO's are busting their asses every day to make america better
megeles 11 months ago
ur grammer SUX
Brian42Own 11 months ago
morally those fuckers making that much need skined alive... its all nazi gold they inherited anyway... FUCK YOU REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST SCUM!!!!!!
drinkmoresoda 1 year ago
@drinkmoresoda It's the 21rst century and violence is still doesn't solve problems.
Of course they don't pay income taxes. Again, how does that make it morally justifiable to take by force more then half a persons income?
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter No one is getting there income taken at the numbers you quote thats a freaking joke so morals dont apply to a non event type thing. if it didnt happen why worry? besides even if they took all of there money the country's so far in debt it wouldn't matter
drinkmoresoda 1 year ago
@drinkmoresoda no, he is reffering to the people that want to raise the tax rate to ridiculously high levels, some even 90%. The government already spends about 43% of the economy away, and that is all taken from us one way or another, via inflation, taxes, or debt. It's such a joke now. An organization originally created to protect our property now takes most of it and promises all the rest to it's debtors.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter well then at least we agree its all a joke and we the people is the punch line
drinkmoresoda 1 year ago
What the hell? The guy asks if it is immoral to take more then half of a persons income against their consent, and your argument is that it somehow benefits them anyways? Huh? It benefits me more to loose half of my income? This is absolutley retarded. Not only is that completely wrong (if something benefitted me enough to make it worth spending money on, I could do it without the government), but it doesn't cover the morality at all, which is what he was asking.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter you missed the point man, people that make that much dont pay taxes there money is all overseas in pricate accounts and they make "charity donations" to there own organizations and live in multiple houses so they never really pay a dime while me and you pay the bill for them to keep fucking us....
drinkmoresoda 1 year ago
@Houshalter "The guy asks if it is immoral to take more then half of a persons income against their consent, and your argument is that it somehow benefits them anyways?" Ok you guys are always going on about supply and demand.Think about it like this how much demand can you have for a product from people with no disposable income.If all my money is going into just surviving then I can't speand on luxury items.So the business man has two choices either...
gamesmaster35 10 months ago
@gamesmaster35 it doesn't matter how much demand there is for something if the supply isn't there.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter chicken or the egg.Noone would bother supplying something that there isn't a demand for.Anyway you slice it you need people with extra income to buy.Without them your company goes belly up.
gamesmaster35 10 months ago
thumbs up if you make 7 figures (like me).
joejacksonriley 1 year ago
go back to Turkey you fucking muzzie.
hayden50 1 year ago
that last great republican, Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster, was opposed to great wealth being passed along to the progeny of wealthy people, hence, the income tax and estate tax. remember the estate tax only affects a tiny number or very rich people.
gggreggg 1 year ago
@gggreggg "opposed to great wealth being passed along to the progeny of wealthy people". Let the states enhance their taxes and abolish most of the federal ones. And see which states are more successful: the ones punishing the wealthy or others.
xaviqaz 1 year ago
Im so fucking tired of see all the fucking Britts on us tv.
jernell1226 1 year ago
hmmmm funny i recall the bible talking about god himself taking 10% of everything a person makes.....odd....seems fair to me.. if im making 50million dollars a year then i damn sure can spare 25mill a year...ffs these people are idiotic
gokao609 1 year ago
It's only immoral to Republican Senators who work for the corrupt trillion dollar corporations. Corporate bribe money will be cut to Republican Senators if the rich don't keep getting richer like they have been for the past century.
GenerationX1984 1 year ago
Warren Buffet bet a million dollars that the average member of the Forbes 400 paid a lower tax rate than their secretary.
So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet.
If you can afford a top rate tax accountant then you'll pay very little in taxes.
19996669991 1 year ago
Hahah "No Loopholes" Right there we can stop listening to that lying ass-clown.
sinistar99 1 year ago
Somenody who works hard like Paris Hilton? Lots of people work hard who don't make 350,000 a year.
Lots of people who are rich don't do shit.
sinistar99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sinistar99
"Somenody who works hard like Paris Hilton?"
Q: why is Paris wealthy?
A: because her relatives were successful.
you cant criticize her on this point without discouraging the act of working hard to provide for future generations.
your argument fails
types10000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sinistar99
"Lots of people who are rich don't do shit. "
however at some point in time either they or someone in their family DID do something to acquire the money. why should they be penalized?
in the end it will all boil down to 'the rich should pay more because they have more' which is not a fair position; it keeps the economy viable, but it isnt fair
types10000 1 year ago
90% tax on people's income after their first 250k, and 1% taxes for the poor. Why the 1%? because they need to contribute just so that the government can track their spending.
mit871chell 1 year ago
whatever the hell happens to the middle class, should apply to the upper class too, there's no reason that people should go through different tax percentages based on their income. it's like saying that since i have more than you, i lose less than you. there's no fucking specialness with who gets taxed. keep the incomes at an equal taxation, and everyone will be nice and bitchy... we all have to pay. leave it that way.
ninjaassassin27 1 year ago
Republicans have mastered the art of distraction by pointing out the straw in the eyes of their critics, while avoiding any discussion about the rafter sticking from their own eye.
If greatness is indicated by a great example, then Republicans have absolutley nothing to boast with. They insist others do as they say, while doing the exact opposite of what they expect of others.
thursdaysrecords 1 year ago
They make a dollar I make a dime, that's why i crap on company time. Ironically, this true. Fox news has made this the case for so many people with their support of the republicans. The only way for lower income earners like my self to get my tax loop hole is to be paid while sitting on the tiolet. My tax loop hole I sure will be closed soon though because the rich aren't making money off my back while I'm crapping.
focusstick 1 year ago
That's the guy who commanded the Death Star
BonScottAC 1 year ago 23
This has been flagged as spam show
@BonScottAC I'm not going to give you a "thumbs up" troll!
proxymurder 1 year ago
Nice try, but you are wrong about the 1950s. The government did not see revenue from the top tax rate. Instead, businesses filed at the lower corporate tax rate and investors filed at the capital gains rate. The few that did file at the 91% rate had all kinds of deductions and exemptions. It is fact that the wealthy actually paid more when Reagan and Bush cut taxes, because they reported more income.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Okay, so your unsubstanciated claim against the researched video... alright...
But at best that's called tax evasion and last time I checked that's very illegal.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX Everything I said was true, look it up.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
you keep on making the fundamental mistake. No trade will take place if both parties have nothing to gain from the transaction. If some industry pays me 0.10 dollars per hour, I would always try to find another job in another industry that does not. Over generations, no one will work in that industry.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "If some industry pays me 0.10 dollars per hour, I would always try to find another job "
AGAIN: if all entry level jobs are paying that 10 cents an hour it's not a matter of finding the best one, it's a matter of which one pays for your food that night?
You need to do some reading on conditions of workers in the industrial revolution to apreciate what you have now. You still aren't getting the change which has occured since then.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
Tax rich people more than the fair share=> less incentive for them to invest in US/invest at all => less works inside the country, economy shrinks => more people goes unemployed => more cost to the welfare schemes => more tax to the rich who are still working and you cant cut back social costs due to political pressure => economy shrinks more. Simple economics. Laughing like an idiot doesnt change the principles of economics, like it or not.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd You do realize that these holy rich don't bother to invest in the US anyway because it is easier and cheaper to make things outside the country where there are no need for such things as minimum wage and law enforcement.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX and why is it that it becomes more profitable for a person to set up a business halfway across the world incurring all the logistics than to set it up here? Because, there are artficial regulations and minimum wage that sets the cost higher than actual. The whole thing is a symptom of the actual malaise that is, government intervention in free market. You make some uneconomical populist policies like that and you pay the price of it in time-simple.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd Fraid they tried it the other way, read up on it some time, it was called the industrial revolution. You know, where there was a totally free market. People got paid like shit, children worked to pay for food and the average person lived in a two room appartment with half a dozen other people, want to go back to that mate?
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX Could you elaborate a bit? I mean, industrial revolution happened in the age of colonies and slavery , it seems obviously against free labor. But then again I am not an expert, so please suggest some specific readings.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd Do you not get basic history?
Alright, in a nutshell:
- No regulation of business
- People get paid shit, work 14 hour days 7 days a week because otherwise they get fired and there are hundreds out of work to take their place who are all desperate for it
- It's not a problem for the companies, because it costs nothing to make anything, and therefore the system is sustainable
- It is this time period, and the utterly terrible situation people found themselves in which led to regulation
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX actually, its simple. If some company has worse working condition than others, people would flock to the other company. If there isnt an alternative, within a single generation, none would want to work in that area and its in the interests of the company to ensure the satisfaction of the workers. The fundamental mistake is ignoring he fact that both the company and workers should benefit from the mutual trade of resources, otherwise there wont be any trade and both are worse off.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "actually, its simple. If some company has worse working condition than others, people would flock to the other company. I"
That's a common falsehood, and something to watch for. It doesn't work if everywhere the conditions are simmilar, and if people aren't at liberty to move because they don't have the money to do so. Think about this: Gamestop pays badly, has poor conditions etc, but people line up for jobs there because they are the only game in most areas, and buy all others.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX Lets say I get an engineering degree and find that there is not a single job where I am getting paid what I think I deserve. In that case, I would suffer no doubt. But a student after me would look at the cost of education and the salary that he will be getting. So, he wont join that field of engineering=> the industry loses skilled workers and produces less than what it should have.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd In your scenario, you are assuming everyone is absolutely informed about presssures and factors, which is not the case, and never was. And how pray tell did you afford said degree in the first place?
You see, if a family is living on subsistance (hand to mouth) there is no money for education, and thus the skilled workers are limited in another fashion.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX "And how pray tell did you afford said degree in the first place?"-- I dont get your point. This is a very reasonable assessment that people do everytime. Thats why more people prefer to go for an engineering degree than say a degree in english literature because it implies a better emplyment oppurtunity and implied a better value for their money. In fact, this is also something makes people decide whether to go for a job or graduate education(masters/PhD)
droomerd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@droomerd I repeat: And how pray tell did you afford said degree in the first place?"
You never answered the question, you just stated that engineering degrees have more opritunities. The problem is how did you get to the point where you had the degree to begin with? Hang the opritunities, how did you get it?
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@droomerd And it wasn't that long ago, the industrial revolution was only "finishing" in the developed world arround the time of the First World War (1905), and it only began a little over a hundred years before that, what we've got now isn't that old, my grandfather probably remembers a time when electrical lighting wasn't common.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@droomerd You really need to get some apreciation for what we have, without that time, and the horrible conditions therein, there would be no regulation. Now you say free markets are a good thing, but think about this:
- No minimum wage
- No workers compensation
- No child labour laws
- No weekends off
- No limits on hours or hourly pay
- No guarentees, if you get hurt or sick for any reason, your company can fire you
That's real free market, and it's that which we've tried to get away from.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX Well, I have some questions:
1. Why is it important to have minimum wage? If anything, minimum wage ensures there are smaller number of people working at higher salaries than more people at lower salaries , as an equilibrium would ensure.
2. I dunn what worker's compensation you mean, child labor is undesirable because that contradicts your other theory that there are more workers anyway,
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd 1-3: Did you read nothing?
There are inevitably more workers than there are jobs, then as now. Ergo: the worker needs the job more than the company needs any individual. The mantality is that workers can be replaced.
You just don't seem to get it, people are dependant on jobs, not the other way arround. If you haven't a job, you haven't mo ney, and you don't have the freedom to move.
If conditions are shit everywere, nobody can go anywhere, and there is no impitus to improve maters.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX There are more people than there are jobs, I agree. On the otherhand, fixing minimum wage increases the cost to the company artificially, resulting in lower employment anyway. So, how does that solve the problem? If anything you have even less people with jobs at an artificially higher salaries than otherwise.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "minimum wage increases the cost to the company artificially, resulting in lower employment anyway. So, how does that solve the problem?"
The simple answer is it doesn't, but that isn't the problem being solved.
Minimum wage prevents companies from abusing workers for profit margins, and guarentees workers a certain level of living, and it is then part of doing business.
How does having weekends off save a company money? It doesn't, but it sure is nice to have.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX Dude, if there is a worker working 7 days a week, his productivity will diminish. Eventually, a company would figure out a worker working 8 hours for 5 days produces more than a worker working 8 hours for 7 days. Otherwise, low retention or low sustainability. Again, its anyway in the interests of the company itself to take necessary action.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "Dude, if there is a worker working 7 days a week, his productivity will diminish. Eventually, a"
Then you lay off that worker and replace him with the next guy who needs the job.
Trust me, if it's what you are living off of, you will produce. And we aren't talking 8 hours a day, I'm talking 14.
The simple fact is that reduction in productivity is far outweighed by the cost savings of having no minimum wage, no cafiteria, no breaks, no lutrines. A factory was a box with workers.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX Okay, I am addressing the question of minimum wage: lets assume , a company is making workers work 14X7 a week,( this is a manual job, lets say) . The worker will look for the first oppurtunity to get out of it. When he quits, the company hires a new one and have the same problem. There is low retention. As a result, there is practically no worker with enough experience to go to a higher position. If this is repeated for all companies, then the industry itself loses workers
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd You still aren't getting it.
- If the worker DEPENDS on the job they have, it isn't a low retension job anymore
- If there are no better jobs available (which without a minimum wage and afore mentioned dependancy there aren't) then where does he go?
- If he quits, he and his family starve, if he stays, life isn't great, but it is life.
Which do you prefer?
And how is low retension a problem if there are litterally people fighting eachother for said lowly position?
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX And you are continously ignoring the fact that you are having 40 workers at 7.5 dollars per hour than 100 workers at 5 dollars/hr. On the other hand you are also complaining that you have more workers than jobs.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd Who said 100 for 5? if you have a large surplus of workers who NEED jobs, why not 200 for 0.10 dollars an hour? This is a fundamental difference in scaling here.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX why would anyone work for 0.10 dollars per hour? what job is that?
droomerd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@droomerd "why would anyone work for 0.10 dollars per hour? what job is that?"
In a truly free market? Any entry level job.
Do you work for 0.10 an hour sewing a shoe? Or do you work for 0.10 an hour greasing the machine which makes the needles for the choosers of A? Or do you starve? or does your son starve?
If you need that 10 cents, you WILL work for that 10 cents.
It's the principal of the kid and the lemonade stand, you need the money, doesn't matter how boring or unfulfilling it is.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX over generations, low enough that no one would want to work permanently in this area, decreasing productivity across the sector. Also, if a company comes up with better working conditions for its employees it would out-market the other companies because it would gain more from better prodcutivity than the cost it incurs. Actually, there was a case in point about minimum wages. It is observed that minimum wages tend to hurt the teenage employees because it makes firms hire less of thm
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd Again, you still aren't getting it.
Where does this magical impitus come from?
If companies can get away with low conditions for low costs, and all companies are, which company improves?
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MakoSharkX "If companies can get away with low conditions for low costs, and all companies are, which company improves?" Because in this case, the industry cant possibly have any worker working for them at virtually no salary, for generations. The fundamentals mistake that you are making is, you are forgetting that both the employers and employees have to gain from the trade of resources, money and time respectively. People trade only iff both gain.
droomerd 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX I can reverse the argument. Why does a software engineer gets paid like 50,000 USD per annum? is it because of minimum wage? What would happen if all software companies offer 0.10 USD per hour?
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "What would happen if all software companies offer 0.10 USD per hour?"
You are taking this to an entirely different context.
What if said software engineer had to make it through a degree program with a family who made said 10 cents an hour? When does he go to school if he works 7 days a week? You don't even get to that point.
ANd it's either take that 10 cents, or give up the position to another person who can program and is willing to take that 10 cents.
It's a fundamental shift.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX lets just stay on focussed one thing at a time. Lets say, I am a stupid guy who is already in college without doing any calculation and can afford and now is looking for a job and all of them are offering only .10 USD per hour, which is far below my expectations. Assuming that the salaries are going to remain like that, what happens to the industry in long run?
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd Oi... WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE MONEY TO GET TO SAID COLLEGE?
College doesn't exist in a truly free market, not for the workers anyway.
- \If your family works on that salary
- And they need YOU to help bring in money
- You don't get to go to school
- You don't get through highschool
- You don't go to college
- Your question is irrevelent.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX Dude, forget about me getting an education or not. Just tell me what happens to the industry if it starts offering 0.10 USDS per hour. Can it sustain itself with abnormal wages?
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "abnormal wages?"
Have you read nothing?
In the free market I am refering to (industrial revolution set up, no regulation, nothing etc) These AREN't, repeat AREN'T abnormal wages, they are the normal wages.
You either take that job, or someone else who is just a little less expectant than you does.
In the free market in that set up, the worker is not a valued part of the system, they are the oil for the machine.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX Dude, for the last time, you said the companies have no reason to offer more than 0.10 uSd per hour, which is abnormal because the amount of college-hours required to get adequate skillsets are nowhere close to the benefits. So, finally, would that industry survive with this strategy? Please you raised this point, I hope you answer it without digressing.
droomerd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@droomerd "Dude, for the last time, you said the companies have no reason to offer more than 0.10 uSd per hour, which is abnormal because the amount of college-hours required to get adequate skillsets are nowhere close to the benefits. So, finally, would that industry survive with this strategy? "
Oi... we aren't talking about the current system, we are talking about a free market economy which existed and you were advocating for.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@droomerd "Dude, forget about me getting an education "
How can I? You are making assumptions based on something which COULD NOT exist in said free market system.
It is the very fact that people now have a surpluss of income which allows anyone at all to go to school outside the realm of the super rich. It is that ability which lets you think about something other than getting food for your family tonight, and it is that which has pushed us up from said squallor.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX I am getting the feeling that you have no facts to talk about. You cant answer a simple question about why would any industry survive without paying its workers the amount they deserve.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "I am getting the feeling that you have no facts to talk about. You cant answer a simple question about why would any industry survive without paying its workers the amount they deserve. "
I've answered that multiple times, and it just seems to fly over your head.
For the last time, we aren't talking about a current system, we are talking about the free market, as it existed with no regulation.
You seem to have some idea that the companys believe workers deserved anything.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX I dont "believe". I am telling you what an economy student or teacher would tell you. Why dont you just explain why is there no minimum wage in say, software industry? And I dint say, there should be no regulation. I disagree with your socialist concept of regulation. I favor government intervention enough to ensure free operating of the free market, the more "free"er extension is called "anarchy" which is infeasible.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd For the last time, I am not telling you a feasable economic model, I am telling you this from the perspective of a student of history, as to what actually happened and what actually worked for companies for decades.
You are AGAIN, placing this in a system which exists BECAUSE of the abandoning of a true free economy.
And please define "socialist " because having talked to a good number of Americans on Youtube I somehow doubt you can actually define it in its proper terminology.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@droomerd "they deserve"
Here's the problem, this idea is reletive. Imagine for a moment you are making nothing, you haven't anything to your name. Suddenly a company comes along, offering a position for 10 cents, what do you do? It's the only job offered, and you don't have the money to hold out for another. What do you do?
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX Okay, you havent yet answered my question , but I would. I take the job for 10 cents, I work for sometime till I get a job anywhere else , in a different industry . The company/industry loses because all workers would do the same thing and they would have no experienced workers within a few years.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "till I get a job anywhere else "
Where else? Where pays better?
"because all workers would do the same thing and they "
And what happens when those positions fill and still more workers want to leave the old job? What happens? They have to stay, they don't have a choice in the matter.
Let's say you make 10 cents, and you say to your boss it isn't enough, your bos replies "You can quit you know" where in you make 0 cents instead of 10, where's the gain?
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX Did you notice, the words "experienced worker" and "different industry"? I have mentioned it 5 times alreadyregarding the same question about retentivity.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "Did you notice, the words "experienced worker" and "different industry"? I have mentioned it 5 times alreadyregarding the same question about retentivity."
And you are again trying to place a historical system (the one I am talking about) into a framework that exists entirely due to improvements on said system. It won't work and I see why you find it hard to examine in that way.
In the industrial revolution model, skilled labour wasn't valued because it wasn't required.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX I am not talking history at all. I have no interest in that. I am talking pure simple economics. I get paid for what I am worth or I look for jobs which pays me for what I am worth. When I quit, the company has to hire a new worker, the company would have to arrange for its training and stuff, and if it does not pay enough, that guy will have no incentive to work there either. In time, the companies lose out on experienced worker.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd Oi... it's like talking to a coliflower...
Your system is making multiple assumptions:
A) that another position exists
B) that there is no surpluss of labour
C) that said low pay isn't the only pay available
D) that there aren't people willing to work for that money
Your work has no intrinsic worth, that's your standard. The amount you are paid is reletive.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX what do you mean by another position exist? If minimum wage is so wonderful and companies are so worthless that they wont act without got intervention, why is not all jobs in US are paying 7.5 USD per hour?
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd By "no other position exists" imagine this:
- You work at a factory in a small town
- Said factory is the primary source of employment
- Your position, despite being poorly paying, is prized because it exists in the first place
You have no bargining chip here, you are not the valued comodity.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX damn it dude, why is not all jobs starting from the MBA working for Goldman Sachs to the janitor working in the university are getting paid at 7.5 USD per hour? Afterall, according to you, the companies are all evil and just want to pay as low as possible and would not change that unless the givernment fixes the minimum wage.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "Afterall, according to you, the companies are all evil and just want to pay as low as possible and would not change that unless the givernment fixes the minimum wage."
Simple, you are again placing this in something other than a true free market. There are a whole host of forces acting on this system, not the least of which is the skilled MBA people, which wouldn't exist were it not for the ability of people to set aside money which wouldn't happen without minimum wage.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX " it not for the ability of people to set aside money which wouldn't happen without minimum wage." _ I am sorry, but I thought that setting 7.5 USD per hour is the best thing that all companies should have done, right? why not they all together decide to fix it to 7.5 USD per hour? Besides, what makes them determine the salary that they pay?
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "why not they all together decide "
And they say I'm paranoid: That would never happen.
Again, you keep applying the analysis I am giving you of a true free market into a system which is nothing of the sort.
I am going to bed, no further comments no matter how idiotic will recieve responses.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX I am sorry, were not you arguing for last 2 hours that all companies collude such they pay only the bare minimum leaving an individual with no alternative? Besides, I dont think you understand free market when you say " free market" being greedy is a problem. Infact, greed is the reason that free markets drive up efficiency.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "Free markets" Don't always drive up efficiency. Sometimes an individual can make millions by bankrupting his company. Sometimes deseases are more profitable to treat than to cure. Sometimes it's more "efficient" to dump chemical waste in a grade-schools water supply and poison kids. The "free market" is not ALWAYS the best model for everything.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 you dont know the basics of a free-market.
1. The govt is responsible for building infrastructure in a free market. That does not make it fat or intrusive.
2. Polluting the environment results in external cost, which is why there are caps.
3. Free market means limited govt, not no govt. The second case is known as ideal anarchy, which is infeasible.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd "you don't know the basics of a free-market" Apparently I do since we seem to agree on these points. 1. Yes true. "fat" and "intrusive" are subjective terms. Sometimes to maintain the infrastructure the gov has to get all up in someone's business. 2. Yes totally absolutely. You got it. Bingo. However caps alone might not really pay for the externalized cost you're talking about. 3. Limited government doesn't make sense because the only thing that can impose limits IS government
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 "Limited government doesn't make sense because the only thing that can impose limits IS government" --- I dont think I sense any logic in this sentence. Anyway, you might find this helpful:watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd There seems to be this growing misconception that the government and the free market are separate things. It's one big thing. There is no "natural state" of the market from which the government tweaks it with regulations... it's ALL regulations and ALL tweaks. Tweaks that might hurt some shareholders are called "Big Government " while tweaks that help them are "Limited govt" Ask me about the imaginary distinction between discretionary spending and entitlements! heheh :)
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 The misconception is only in your mind. Have you ever seen anyone wishing there is no govt at all? That means the people acknowledge that govt is essential. What they dont want is, govt trying to replace the private sector. In a free market, the govt will be responsible for security, emergency services, infrastructure, judiciary and few other small things which cannot be done by a private sector without incurring huge costs. Healthcare is not a govt responsibility, not bailouts.
droomerd 1 year ago
@droomerd
interesting, let me get my first year economis book... dust it off..
oh lets see, how can you measurre those external costs? because we can actually measure the amount that the market produces... without bringing them into the equation
Bren565 1 year ago
@droomerd Free Market does not mean limited government. In a Free Market there also wouldn't be any pollution caps. In a Free Market, there are no regulations at all as it's believed the market would regulate itself. If it were true that the market does indeed regulate itself, then we wouldn't need government regulations and watchdogs to make sure there isn't any lead paint in your kids' toys or that your food is safe for consumption.
Free Market people are either ignorant or insane.
SereneSatellites 1 year ago
@SereneSatellites You start with the lie that free market is without govt intevention and then go on to ay, free market people are ignorant or insane. Its like claiming that people who believe in gravity also believe that the sun moves around the earth. Hence people believing in gravity ate insane.
droomerd 1 year ago