Unless they enact some real spending cuts, raising income and capital gains taxes on the wealthy is not going to solve the budget crisis. If anything, they need to start looking at taxing consumption in the U.S. In the socialist Eurozone countries, everybody pays a VAT. The fact that some of these countries are teetering on default, just goes to show, taxation alone, will not solve the fiscal crisis. Real cuts in spending will have to be made along with increased taxes.
In defense of the “flat tax” - The fact is that a “flat” income tax would tax my dollars exactly the same as Mr. Buffet’s dollars. Likewise, a true “flat” tax would already include nifty things like my payroll taxes. Also, a true “flat” income tax would also include (as income subject to tax) Mr. Buffet’s corporate jet, company limo, etc. Such a change would go a long way in leveling the playing field between rich and poor, which every American I’ve ever talked to deeply desires.
Buffet makes his wealth from capital gains, unlike the vast majority of people. The US tax rate on capital gains is not particularly low compared with other countries.
LOL - Mr. Buffet is one slippery fellow! He's comparing apples to oranges! Listen carefully and you will find that the flat tax he is describing is not actually a flat tax at all. The big clue is that he takes your payroll taxes off the table! Then he does his % calculation on your income tax alone! Then he adds the payroll taxes back on top and says your worse off with a flat tax! I'll bet this guy could sell me a car without a motor and convince me I got a great deal on the gas mileage :-)
@ChrisBussRealtor Mr Buffet is calling it straight. The fact that you cant understand this VERY SIMPLE issue tends to show you are a bit dense above the neck. The issue is the following. People that make a living off of capital gains and make MORE than $1 million a year are being taxes at a 15 % rate while people earning a paycheck are taxes anywhere from 24 -35 % depending on income. That you cant get this makes me believe you are a bit stupid.
This country is wealthy enough to afford it and if you tax the poorest more, then more will require more assistance when health problems arise and can't feed their family properly. Tax over 1mil income and capital gains more.
Tax brackets, we have tax brackets. We all pay the same taxes up to a certain amount of money, then as the amounts get larger, we pay more on that money. The poor are struggling and rather than take what we can from them, making the income tax equal, why not give them tax breaks? It's a lot better than giving them more entitlement programs.
It's thoroughly depressing to see these super-rich folk pleading for the government to come and seize their money. If they want to spend it selflessly then why don't they use their own initiative!
I'd wager that the success of private philanthropy is far greater than anything that a wasteful, incompetent government could do.
They should take lessons from the great philanthropists of history and use their own creativity, rather than beg for state control like some brain-dead stooges.
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
Yes and my point is that they should continue to do exactly that!
Private philanthropy is far more noble and creative than the coerced and incompetent redistribution of wealth conducted by the state. More importantly still, it is far more successful in getting results.
I disagree. For every 1 warren buffet, there's 100 wall street crooks. The only way where the middle class gets equal opportunity to the super rich is when the government tax the rich. Right now they're paying way less tax. Just because we got ONE warren buffet, doesnt mean we dotn want to tax the shit out of the wallstreet people.
@kzearo You are either a great bullshit artist or a complete fucking dummy. The issue here is FAIRNESS...what part of that is foreign to you? There is NO reason for a person working and earning a paycheck to pay +30% in taxes while a person like Romney who earns his income via capital gains to be paying 13% INCOME IS INCOME. Its that simple. TAX IS AT THE SAME RATE......Through real estate and a paycheck I made a little over 200K a year. Why should my tax rate be around 30% while Romney
@kzearo.... Romney that earned about 24 million last year via capital gain income, only pay 13%. INCOME IS INCOME. His tax rate should be THE SAME AS MINE. Thats the issue dude. If you cant comprehend that, you are one fucking dummy.
@Phillysoc This is where the problem is. People *such as you* fail to understand capitalism and fail to think cognitively. Capital gains and income tax are two completely different things. Capital Gains is designed for 3 main purposes. First is to raise revenue, second is to encourage those with surplus beyond needs to invest those surpluses, and finally to reward those who have kept their surpluses invested for a minimum period of time. It's that simple. Get it now?
@Sirafrican Ummm you dont get it ... INCOME IS INCOME. If I sit on my ass and make over a million a year and someone else is earning a paycheck and is paying a tax rate twice as much as me is NOT FAIR.....and by the way, your utopian view of this is quite immature. Mitt Romney for example has most of his money in OFF SHORT accounts. Those accounts do NOTHING to promote investment in the USA. as far as your argument goes on a higher rate deterring investment..His tax rate ZERO.
@Phillysoc warren buffett goes his way to lie about the massive tax he pays, its' kind of hard to explain. watch this video mrctv.org/videos/cpac-interviews-peter-schiff, just watch the last 2 minutes, you will understand
@trueconservatie33 Why should I watch your video? I mean why would anyone who stands to lose MILLIONS if his taxes go up lie about something like this? I mean I could understand him saying he pays too much and wants a lower rate, but the other way around???, saying he doesnt pay enough and wants to pay more? Dude get real NO ONE would lie about that. The truth is that Buffett should not be paying a CAP DIV rate of 15 % while people that work for him and make MUCH LESS be paying 30% .
@Phillysoc he purposely choose to use a loophole to pay a lower tax. if he want to pay higher taxes just tell his firm to stop fighting IRS, or just simply write a check to the treasury, there's not a single law will prevent you or him doing that. why do think a lot of rich ceo choose to pay themslves a low salary
@trueconservatie33 Buffet and Gates have given away billions. The key is to change the tax laws so that it makes a real change for fairness in taxation. Buffet and Gates are giving the rest of us direction so that we will talk to our representatives about whether they want to be elected again. So I do not blame Gates or Buffet. Maybe doing so does not help the matter. You decide.
@Johntkr exactly you make my points, they are not giving their moneys to the government. every dollar government tax out of us is every dollar doesn't go to the private sectors. There's an illusion that back in the 50's and 70's rich paid more taxes, but there were a lot of tax shelters and deductions that didn't exist day.
@Phillysoc You still don't get it. You still think Capital Gains and Income tax rates are the same thing. Get that out of you're head. There's a difference if I make my money by investing in America as compared to working for a company. It's that simple. If you want to pay a 15% capital gains tax rate then you should start investing in America. If not then stop bitching. Instead of raising taxes on the rich why not just lower taxes on the poor?
@Sirafrican So whats your point? Its till income. Just because someone that has the means to invest should be given a break? WHY? Because if the tax rate is higher he may stop investing? That bullshit doesnt hold water.......wanna know why? Because when the Cap Gains rates were higher in the late 1970s' the amount of ivestment capital goingf into companies WASNT any LOWER than is it today. Your argument fails sorry...but fairness wins here.
@Sirafrican ZERO on the interest or investment income of those accounts. As for your bullshit argument that it will deter investment. Read this from Mr Buffett: “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off,” he said.
the only problem of taxing the rich more is that all they'll do is give them selves pay rises and bonuses to offset the extra tax they pay. the poor will still be in the same position of not being able to afford housing, heating, food and the basics in life while the diff in low paid and high paid jobs just gets ever bigger £ for £. . the rich are too greedy thats the problem. . only way around it is to put a max income lvl
of course this is a man who cannot be taxed to death, who will never pay -back taxes-. id listen to this shit if he were the leader of the upper middle class who has faced bankruptcy and foreclosure. if he was a machinist who, wanting to put his daughter through college, took twice the hours and was surprised that he was taxed to the point of having that action become nill - and STILL says that he's not being taxed too high. then id listen. they like their loop holes.
I will have an easier time believing Buffet if he's willing to write fat checks to the government (since he believes that he's not being taxed enough). Will he ever do that? Of course not.
It doesn't make sense to charge people different rates for the same services. So let's use not a progressive tax, not a flat tax, but an equal direct tax. No rates, everyone pays the exact same amount.
Now, I know what you are thinking. A tax scheme like that is regressive and favors the rich, but this is where the working people come in. Organize and take back the ill-gotten gain without the aid of the government. Stop taxing the rich and start reclaiming what is yours.
@voltairinedecleyre66 I agree with you. However, can you be more specific about how working people can take back the ill-gotten gain without the aid of the government?
@ttiiyy That's a good question. There are many things that can be done, some less savory than others. For instance, there is violent insurrection, to highlight one extreme, but it can be very unpredicable and often lead to disaster. Another might be secession. If successful, the secessionists could fortify their control over their resources and simply refuse to recognize the property claims of the usurers. This course is highly unpopular, especially for the Left, for some odd reason.
@ttiiyy Even without secession, a well-organized workforce can occupy various properties and refuse to recognize the property rights. Of course, the capitalists and the government are not going to like this and will certainly use force to change that. If the workers can remain non-violent for long enough, more and more people will sympathize. These things might all be easier in the coming years when the government can no longer afford defense and security for their protected interests.
@ttiiyy Now, I am a libertarian, as you can probably tell from the apolitical tactics I have outlined thus far, but there are certainly a few reformist ones I would consider productive. I am sure you are familiar with the Federal Reserve and efforts of politicians like Kucinich, Paul, and Sanders to abolish it. This central bank contributes greatly to the accumulation of capital in the hands of the elite. It's a valve that needs to be turned off.
@ttiiyy Disband the fed - They run our leaders like puppets on a string. They play nation against nation and threatend to hit the kill switch on any country that does not comply. You might want to read about the types of strategies they use to do so. They have been behind every major war of this and the last century. Look up the PD strategy they use to ply us against each other.Look up Prisoner's Delima on wikipedia. Prisonplanet & infowars for more info
@voltairinedecleyre66 voltairine, that's a 'head' tax. head taxes are very dangerous, they start riots easily and usually the politician who puts it in place loses their position because of it. in 1989 it was called the "poll tax" on property in the UK. that is the reason that you don't see margaret thatcher any more. but i agree with your point that we should stop taxing the rich.
@voltairinedecleyre66 i wouldnt mind paying lots of taxes, if only i could see proof that every single other of my fellow americans was paying the same exact high tax as myself. no higher, no lower. i want it transparent. i like our powerful military, i also like to see good roads. taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized state. you can tell cities that have extremely low taxes and strengths of government simply by the way they smell when you step off the plane.
The truth is that until we have some major stimulus to the economy..like the internet in the 90s...major world wars (horrible option)..or some strange fad craze that makes people want to spend money then we are going to need more Gov't spending. It is not this great evil everyone makes it out to be.
capitalist economies run on how fast dollars exchange hands. Money moves in 2 ways essentially 1. Consumer spending 2. Gov't Spending. Consumer confidence is shot...so people are more apt to save instead of spend. In that case the Gov't MUST SPEND MONEY. Money is the blood of capitalism--currently the blood is flowing too slowly.
Why is the answer always "higher taxes"? Why is "slashing Gov't spending" never an option on the table? It should be, the Gov't does more than it was ever Constitutionally allowed to do.
Why is Warren Buffett an anomaly in the rich end of the social spectrum? I understand wanting to keep as much of your money as possible, but why can't the super rich just say "hmm, you know, I pay less in taxes than anyone who works for me. This isn't right."
@lamrof A lot of Americans are all upset about what's going in the country. I wish I could agree with you 100%, but I can't. First of all, how do we define unfair benefits that the rich enjoy? Look at the CEO of GE. GE has not been paying federal income taxes, and Obama is still in bed with them. Secondly, to be fair, rich Americans do pay taxes. It's not as if the rich were not paying any taxes at all. I read in USA today that they contribute to at least 40% of the nation's GPA.
@lamrof I will have a much easier time supporting high taxes if our government can spend the money more responsibly. I read in newspapers that our government sends Israel and Palestine trillions of dollars every year. So does that our government can spend the money in any way that it wants? My point is even if we tax the rich to the full extent, if our gov't does not behave itself, the gov't will never have enough money to spend. That's just the way it is.
@perrycm1 "The popularity of demonizing the rich and increasing income tax is not science, its feelings"
But you just heard warren buffet say that the amount of tax he pays is an unfair contribution in comparison with the rest of the country
its not about demonizing the rich bro, if you disagree with raising income tax then suggest another solution instead of using the oppertunity to just slander your opposition
If you're seriously gentlemen why don't you put together a group to fight the Koch Brothers's Teabaggers ? it'll only cost you a few million that's pennies to you guys and you'll be sticking it to the competition. although I don't think Warren Buffet is in Oil or Bill Gates....?
I agree the tax code needs fixing but Mr Buffet has made all his money from these loop holes, its sweet to hear an 80 yr old man at the end of his earning life say o yea, now we should be taxing the heck out of the wealthiest americans. Again man is brilliant but if he has to much money he can pay the gov't what he feels he owes, I am sure the next Warren Buffets couldnt disagree more with him.
@nick88m Also most dont like to hear this but if the Gov't start messing with rich investors money they are going to follow Big Businesses lead, take their money and run out the country.
@nick88m WB actually has that option on his tax return, to make an extra payment to the federal govt. I wonder why he didn't do it. Maybe like the rest of us, he just doesn't trust our government to be good stewards of his hard earned money. Like I said in a previous post, if you are fortunate enough to make 365K you are paying the highest tax rate in the land because your income is not in the form of capital gains and investment income.
What I don't hear is "Millionaires shouldn't draw Medicare, Social Security, VA nor any other government assistance." It wouldn't be necessary to raise taxes so much if millionaires were cut off.
My only problem with what both Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett said is that we already have a progressive income tax......and IT ISN'T WORKING. Upping the tax rate on the rich, while well-meaning, is putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound; it would have no effect. What I believe needs to be done is close the loopholes, and have anyone earning between 25k to 50k pay 10% in taxes, 50k up to 250k pay 20%, and anyone 250k and over pay 30% (people making under 25k shouldn't have to pay taxes). Opinions?
@TheMagickseeker With all due respect, what the Federal income tax is now is a rate that goes up in increments according to the amount of taxable income, up to 35%. What I was proposing is to set 3 solid rates as I pointed to earlier (instead of someone who makes 45K paying 16.39% of their income, they would pay only 10%). If done correctly (maybe setting the rates at 15%, 25%, and 35%), it would bring in more revenue than the current system.
@ATA030 Except you're missing out on the very point they were making: income tax itself is the loophole. It's all people think about because it hits home most for them. But for the wealthy like them, they barely pay income tax because it's only a small part of their earnings. Most of what they earn is in capital gains, which is taxed very modestly. So in the end, their "income" is taxed lower than you and I.
@theeponym That is true from the total percentage of what they earn. However, even at their lower tax rates and their capital gains tax revenue, it would take me 20 years at what I get paid to put into the tax system for what they put in the system in 1 year. Do you see what I'm saying? The rich could pay more, but that doesn't really help the situation as a whole. Please understand, I'm not against the rich not paying taxes (which they should). It just isn't a long term solution.
@ATA030 The last ten years worth of cuts have cost your country nearly 2 trillion in revenue. Easy to see why:
In 1992, the top 400 reported incomes had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion ($227.4 million on average per person) but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
@theeponym The problem with the last 11 years (minus 2006 and 2007) is that the US government has routinely and enormously spent more money than it has taken in. Increasing taxes on the rich (which has already been done, since their taxes have gone up every year for 5 years) won't help unless the US Government (including Bush and the GOP 2004-2006 and Obama and the Democrats 2009-2010) puts a cap on spending and sticks to it. and applies significant cuts to programs.
@theeponym I was saying the same thing. In the last election when obama brough up the buffet example of paying 17% marginal rate (less than his secretary's), I looked at my tax return and confirmed that I was paying exactly what I was supposed to be paying accorrding to the rate assigned to my income....because its just paycheck income. I did not know until I saw ben stein last night, most of WB's income is capital gains...taxed at 15%.
@ATA030 I am assuming that you mean that would be the tax rate on all income including investment income and capital gains. Under your plan, some people making over 250K would actually see a tax decrease. How about more tax brackets and closing loopholes. It seems silly that Warren buffet is in the same tax bracket as a small town lawyer, who actually has to worry about how he's going to generate enough income to pay his staff's salaries and benefits.
@perrycm1 although I had a friend who is a tax attorney tell me that the reason they put millionaires and billionaires in the same tax bracket as those making 365K is because there are not enough millionaires...the current tax code does not recoup enough of their money (loopholes); they need to extend it down to lower incomes to include more people and result in enough money to generate significant tax revenue. Politically speaking, no one is going to feel bad for someone making 365K
Wake up people! The average U.S. Citizen is being sold a bill of goods by the right-wing noise machine. The Republicans are using propaganda to convince low and middle income earners to vote against their own interests. When this cynical strategy succeeds Democracy is lost and a revolution is needed. A revolution in thinking and how we self organize for the future of our species and planet. See Zeitgeist:Addendum for a new story of our future.
@feralcamero hahaha I think I read a post from a republican today that had the same sentiment. All politicians use propaganda. Leave the conspiracies at the door and join the conversation. You have said nothing, provided no solution.
@perrycm1 Actually, I thought I had said something... we clearly need a more empirical and science-based approach to our self organization and governance. The Republican party is anti science as evidenced by their complete preference for ideology over science. The Democrats support science and a more science-based/evidence-based approach to policy making. The Republicans want you to think that Dems are just as bad as Reps are and when we equate the two we make a fatal mistake.
What science are the dems using? and what is your solution to our economic problem. Contributing to the solution is talking tax code and how to fix it. Raising income tax rates for 250K+, the solution proposed by the dems, does not solve the problem of the ultra rich paying lower marginal rates, and doesn't make a dent in the deficit (see CNN money). The popularity of demonizing the rich and increasing income tax is not science, its feelings.
@perrycm1 Are you stupid? we need to raise the money to meet government spending. It's not science, its not feelings. It's a simple question of who we tax to meet these demands. The very rich or the very poor.
@feralcamero I can only imagine that the science to which you are referring is economic analysis over the course of history. I have seen science, then, to support both sides. A scientific approach is breaking down the problem, applying solutions, benchmarking them and tweaking for success. As a socially liberal fiscal conservative, I see myself as someone who doesn't follow the pack. The fatal mistake is picking the team you want to win and failing to see its misgivings.
it truly is amazing how Republicans/conservatives have brainwashed many Americans into thinking that the poor and those who benefit from government programs (welfare, disabled) are to blame for this country's ills. It is the ultra rich who continue to rip this country off. Listen to the YouTube's from Robert Reich. He is right on the mark
@MsOxygengirl Sounds great in theory just not true in practice. People that sit and do nothing are much worse then those that create jobs. The problem is most people don't actually benefit those people as it rarely works as a temporary way to prop them up and instead becomes a way of life.
@MsOxygengirl I have never heard my conservative friends say that the poor are to blame for this country's ills. Why are you not holding your elected officials responsible. Problems 1. Jobs 2. Stock Market 3. Real estate market. Tell me who is to blame for that?
@UphyXx Yes it does jackass, I had the procedure done it's called blended Lasik. One eye sees far and one sees near. You shouldn't spout off and call people names when you're CLEARLY the uninformed dumbass here.
Why is our debt growing and our roads, bridges, police, fire, and education getting cut? (not to mention medicare, medicaid and social security). Because those making over $250,000 a year are paying the lowest taxes in the last century. And now our media, owned by large corporations, continues to spread anti-tax sentiment while "less government" politicians legally take money under the table for their political campaigns from corporations and rich donors to continue these "austerity" measures.
@alvinme please stop lumping the people who make 250K with the ultra rich who qualify for loopholes. Most of their income is investment income and capital gains. The guy making 250K paycheck is paying the tax rate assigned to his income bracket. They are only lumped in with the millionaires because the government needs to generate more tax revenue. Good people who pay their fair share of taxes don't like being told that they are not paying their taxes.
The original US income tax was heaviest on the wealthy based upon the theory that, beyond a certain level of earnings, income was flowing to individuals as a result of public infrastructure (roads, electrical grid, etc.) and that the higher tax rate (over 90% for the uber wealthy) was a repayment, in part, for the use of that infrastructure. Even with these very high tax rates, the elite were still able to make enough money to corrupt government and gradually wrestle democracy from the people.
@0gods This is just a thought, but maybe, it is the theory that was wrong to begin with. Maybe that makes sense if one is referring to corporate tax, but Warren buffet didn't use a lot of infrastruction to make investments and live off of capital gains/ dividends...the primary source of his income.
@perrycm1 Governments increase taxes in times when they need revenue. The reasons are justifications, not theory projecting economic growth. Justifications that masquerade as economic theory are doomed to not hold up over time.
@0gods taxes, regulation, corruption. you can't use the tax system to stop corruption. Corruption is present on both sides. The wealthy give money as do powerful organizations, like the teachers union...all to influence politicians. All are working within legal guidelines. Increases in income tax won't curb corruption. To do that we need to change guidelines for political contributions and impose stiff penalities on corrupt politicians.
@perrycm1 oops correction... "All" refers to those on both sides of the aisle, not all contributions" We know that not all contributions are on the up and up.
@perrycm1 the debate over income tax has been a method of score keeping for both parties...and generates some governement revenue but not enough for what we need. It shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip. Our family courts recognized this to be issue... that is why in divorce proceedings, assets are always divided before custody is awarded, so the kids can't be used as bargaining chips for joint assets. We should have straight up or down votes on policies of this magnitude.
@0gods In addition, I have heard members of both parties agree that getting people back to work, is the best way to generate revenue for the government. So we find ourselves in a "which came first chicken or egg scenario." How do we come down hard on business and expect to create jobs in private sector? More jobs= more money spent in stores but people can't get work if employers aren't hiring. Creating govt jobs via infrastructure doesn't stop loss of jobs in private sector.
@0gods As far as neo-liberalism, there are very few purists out there. Even some famous (D) presidents engaged in neo-liberal methods...JFK decreased taxes to generate economic growth. Clinton supported NAFTA. An economic analysis I read once showed Regulation increased with election of (D)s during economic stress . Then economy stabilizes...until its not b/c later too much regulation. Then (R)'s elected, then deregulation, then stabilization...until not enough regulation. Pendulum.
@perrycm1 same study looked statistically at economic conditions during specific presidencies. The analysis showed historicall U.S. economies did best when a (D) was president with a (R) house. It makes sense, during those times no one party can swing pendulum to far in one direction. I recently read an article that pointed out that economic growth occurred when government enacted policies that were win/win for business/citzens. Sooo...so much for ideology.
@perrycm1 No pendulum. The US has moved hard right and, as wealth concentrates, that trend is accelerating. The actions of Clinton were and the actions of Obama are neo-liberal to the core--by philosophy or necessity is another question. At its core neo-liberalism strikes at anything and everything which reduces the direct power and influence of wealth. The prime target of neo-liberalsm is any functioning democracy where the will of the people counter wealth-based authoritarianism.
@0gods I do understand what you are saying, but it certainly did not refute the"pendulum" finding of the over 100 page historical analysis dating back to before the great depression that I took the time to read...it is a definition.
@perrycm1 Under the deregulation of the past thirty years--including right-wing tax liberalization--there has been a hallowing out of the middle class as real wages have remained stagnant for most workers. Instead of claiming 100 years of analytical data, why not name any significant legislation that has swung the pendulum back in the past thirty years. The most significant re-regulation I am aware of dates back to Nixon and the EPA. Every "middle class tax cut" has helped the rich.
@0gods Re. your advice, my backround is research and I welcome any data that adds to the debate, but I won't automatically disregard data as propaganda. Although tax decreases may spur the economy temporarily and tax increases increase revenue, they do little to ensure the "trickling down" of wealth. The theory is that a capable govt can use that revenue to sculpt policy to help the disparity of income while not hurting our ability to compete globally...both generate revenue.
@perrycm1 I didn't disregard it--I gave what I suspected was source. I have done extensive research myself, especially in employment trends. For example, I have found it ironic that most IT professionals in the US decry unions while being completely unaware that, when their jobs are outsourced to India, they are outsourced to a unionized workforce. The % wage increases for Indian workers is higher than that for their US counterparts, although the US workers typically make a higher salary.
@0gods The higher salary vs wage, is probably overtime and benefits. Admittedly, most of the reading I have done are in regards to wages in china. However, not sure how you are defining IT professionals. Liebermans analysis cited major problems in loss of IT jobs to a more educated, plentiful, lower paid candidate pool. He cited that China graduates a higher number and percentage of engineers and that an American company could get a qualified engineer for a $15,000 per year salary.
@perrycm1 1--To put the China labor market in perspective, there are more Chinese that speak English as a second language than Americans who speak English. Second, China has a larger contingent work force--that is, people unemployed but willing to work--than the entire US workforce. Clearly this is tremendous downward labor pressure on a globalized basis. It is dampened significantly because China does not observe the rule of law with respect to IP: anything that goes to China becomes China.
@perrycm1 2--As big a concern as wage differential is, a larger concern a big decrease in critical thinking skills in the US workforce. Historically, Chinese workers were unable to keep up with the rate of innovation of their US peers. This innovation gap is closing: US educated IT professionals, on average, are no more innovative than their counterparts. Why? A big factor is decades of passive, conformist propaganda; US IT professionals now seem to have much less intellectual curiosity.
@perrycm1 3--As late as the mid-90s, top software designers could be as much as 100x as productive as thier peers. As the state of the art for producing IT has improved, this gap has also closed (but still exists). When students ask me about becoming an IT professional, I ask if they think they can reach and stay in the top 20% of the field. If not, they need to consider their long-term prospects: IT "also rans" face constant outsourcing and wage pressure--if they can get a job at all.
@0gods I am curious what the wage differential is for IT customer service and software designers is, specifically. Leibermans analysis mentioned that although we have huge loss in manufacturing sector in respect to offshoring, the impact of the losses in IT and science/ engineering have greater economic consequences.
@perrycm1 1--That is a tough question outside of high-tech itself. In insurance, for example, customer service is typically part of the sales organization; IT is typically comprised of application design/maintenance, program/project management, quality assurance and application support. AD typically remains domestic, AM and AS are usually merged and outsourced 30/70, 70-80% of QA is typically merged with AS and outsourced. PM varies widely, but typically 60% if outsourced.
@perrycm1 2--Customer service used to be a path to AM and AM a path to AD; however, as outsourcing partners have been able to increase knowledge acquisition/knowledge transfer (KA/KT), this path appears to be weakening with a higher percentage of AD being down by third-parties. Customer Service/AS roles typically paid $68K-120K, AD > $100K, with a median of $150K. The pressure in restructuring was to eliminate domestic AD work. [This is typical Insurance operation and is for example only.]
@perrycm1 The primary difference between the plutocratic accumulation of wealth in the US under (highly effective) neo-liberalism has been the uses of advanced political science and propaganda. Political science has been used systemically to target and diffuse popular action that could counter the hegemony of the corporate form. Propaganda (including mass distraction) have been used to coerce the ignorant (i.e. fundamentalist Christians) into voting against their economic interests.
@0gods I heard Bill Maher say the same thing last week....not as eloquently as you. I disagree that we have moved hard right...most think center right. I disagree that we live in a plutocratic society. We have an "equal opportunity to throw money at politicians" governement demonstrated by our many special interest groups. In addition, most rhetoric is aimed at reelection. The 95% of Americans who are not wealthy decide who is going win elections....in particular independents who swing.
@0gods We also have equal opportunity hegemony in this country. I just read a study looking at world economies from 1990 to 2000 which showed powerful trade unions had a negative impact on job creation. Or how about the hegemony of the lawyers in this country. In europe, non economic damages are capped and plantiffs are held financially responsible for frivolous lawsuits. Our country, in turn, becomes increasingly litigious.
@perrycm1 Sounds like a Chamber of Commerce study. As a corporate strategist, I have decades of experience representing management in globalization including outsourcing. I know first hand that the notion that unionism results in lost job creation is pure propaganda. The reality is simple and bleak: once a job--any job--is outsourced, it rarely makes operational sense to bring it back. In the US, most unions have utterly failed their members in an effort to remain business friendly.
@0gods I come from good union stock and am not anti-union. I can, however, look at them a see the good and the bad. Good: they fight for better wages/benefits. Bad: (my parent greatest complaint) they protect workers that should, even by their standards, be fired. This increases a business' cost (see data on money spent by the state of NY on the hundreds of teachers in the review process). I think this would make them more effective at fighting for better wages/ benefits.
@perrycm1 I have only represented management. I have no expertise on labor organizing but can only speak to the ineffectiveness of the unions at the table. If I had to sum it up, it would be that unions tend to fight for current members v. future workers and the work force as a whole. When a union sells out its future workers to protect voting members it is all but over and becomes a waiting game: wall off and shrink existing union members.
@perrycm1 Sounds like a Chamber of Commerce study. As a corporate strategist, I have decades of experience representing management in globalization including outsourcing. I know first hand that the notion that unionism results in lost job creation is pure propaganda. The reality is simple and bleak: once a job--any job--is outsourced, it rarely makes operational sense to bring it back. In the US, most unions have utterly failed their members in an effort to remain business friendly.
@0gods RE: study, I would not waste my time on a study that wasn't comprehensive. The study also looked at the effects of rapid advancement of technology during which time businesses invest in technology over people attempting in attempts to have 1 person do the work previously performed by 2. Plus advances in communication has made it easier for companies to move certain divisions offshore. Study showed that rapid advances in tech, increased unemployment and decreased job creation.
@perrycm1 This doesn't get to who funded the study. My work product is typically comprised of two parts: strategy and transformation. It is true, most labor reduction comes in the transformation phase (implementing a strategy) as business processes and the underlying technologies are optimized for effectiveness and efficiency. My point was this: unions are rarely the issue. If a core operation is profitable--even if it is unionized--most businesses will grow that operation.
@0gods That is true, but according to dept of LI stats on SEIU website, union workers get higher pay, better benefits, more vacation...not to mention previously stated debacle regarding difficulty of releasing incompetant workers. Why would a business from a profits perspective choose union run facility over non-union run facility. And if all states are "right to work states" (which is at this point consitutionally not feasible) doesn't that hurt even more our ability to compete by globally?
@perrycm1 In the same way most big businesses do not immediately relocate to avoid local taxes, they typically do not immediately shutdown profitable operations to avoid paying union wages. A more typical response is to efficiently shift new operations to more tax-friendly locations, to lower cost labor markets or both. The governments losing the business will often offer tax breaks, the unions losing members often accept concessions and give backs.
@0gods who funded a study is always a concern, which I am going to have to go back and find if you really want it, but one usually scrutinizes statistical confidence level, sample number, etc. to decide whether or not result can be considered valid. I'll get back to you on that.
@0gods What really puts pressure on the ability to see wage growth in times of recession (when job growth is decreasing/ unemployment high)... it limits the leverage of unions, workforces, individuals to use their leverage to improve wages with threat of lay-offs looming in the back of their minds. I have not developed my solutions for these problems yet but am currently reading a proposal by Joe Lieberman, which so far shows alot of promise.
@perrycm1 I am no union apologist but the anti-union rhetoric is designed primarily to eliminate the last organizing force labor has. The theory is simple: when the US is returned fully to "right to work" status (employers can terminate at will and for any reason), the contingent workforce can be used systemically against the active workforce to drive down wages by employing near constant turn over. It is a win/win for neo-liberalism: banks get low inflation, big business dirt cheap labor.
@0gods. A fundumentalist christian sees position on abortion as priority over economic politics. Many fundamentalist christian churches even frown on voting. They believe politics to be a distraction from a christian's mission to gain admittance into heaven. For those who do get involved in politics, they decide what is in their best interest... in my experience w/ FC, its not govt program expansion. That's not ignorance, its freedom of religion.
@0gods This recent trend of labeling FC's as ignorant or uniformed is bothersome. Since I have moved from the big city, I have had the privilage of meeting many. They come in all forms: doctors, lawyers, factory workers, the poverty stricken. Labels disappear as they unify in their faith that God will provide when they fall. They value pure charity, as opposed to charity via taxation, hence tithing. Ignorant or educated, they have as much right to vote their conscience as any.
@perrycm1 When I use the word ignorant to characterize FCs, I use it precisely and accurately: lacking knowledge or awareness. Specifically, there is overwhelming evidence in both the religious and secular communities that the bible is not an historical document. By ignoring this body of evidence, these individuals clearly demonstrate ignorance. A the same time, I do not argue that this ignorance is strongly correlated with either intelligence or station in life.
@0gods Euclid Logic? Your definition of ignorance is correct, there is another definition "arising from lack of knowledge or education" i.e. to make an "ignorant mistake"... which we have all done, without being characterized and ignorant (powerful nuance). Even if your premise, that the Bible is not a historical document is correct, them making the ignorant error does not make them ignorant (uneducated) or incapable of making decisions in their best interests.
@perrycm1 Yikes. Only to the extent that I view any supernatural claim as extraordinary and, as such, expect the claimant to support the claim, if to be accepted, with some evidence. If the "god said it, I believe it" reductio is the sole basis for any train of argument, I would rather not be in that discussion.
Ugly liberals agree with each other that they should be giving the government more of their hard earned. Ya know, no-one is stopping you. Write a check to the IRS, they won't send it back.
@kropotkin2000, the standard republican party line you're spouting has been proved to be a lie. Trickle-down, supply-side, call it what you want, cutting taxes for the rich does NOT improve the lot of the rest of us. I'm always flabbergasted when people say that low taxes create wealth. It's ridiculous. Businesspeople create jobs in every kind of economy, even when taxes were higher. These stupid little mantras that cattle like you moo out are antithetical to common sense.
@bluescrubby I don't think anyone has talked about trickle down in a long time. Now, no one assumes that wealth is going to be passed down. The idea is that a business that is getting hit with high healthcare costs, falling stock value, low asset (real estate value) higher payouts in workers compensation, greater fiscal liability, tax increases, greater regualtion, difficulty borrowing money....doesn't exactly create a business environment where businesses want to expand and hire.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This Bill Gates and Warren Buffet duo are some sort of anti-American commie idiots who don't understand human nature. Why do they want to punish success?? If you taxed the successful people more, they'd have no incentive to create wealth!
Comment removed
Planetar17 1 week ago
Unless they enact some real spending cuts, raising income and capital gains taxes on the wealthy is not going to solve the budget crisis. If anything, they need to start looking at taxing consumption in the U.S. In the socialist Eurozone countries, everybody pays a VAT. The fact that some of these countries are teetering on default, just goes to show, taxation alone, will not solve the fiscal crisis. Real cuts in spending will have to be made along with increased taxes.
josephc28 1 week ago
Yet, Buffet owes a billion in back taxes; oh the hypocrisy.
willden15 2 weeks ago
In defense of the “flat tax” - The fact is that a “flat” income tax would tax my dollars exactly the same as Mr. Buffet’s dollars. Likewise, a true “flat” tax would already include nifty things like my payroll taxes. Also, a true “flat” income tax would also include (as income subject to tax) Mr. Buffet’s corporate jet, company limo, etc. Such a change would go a long way in leveling the playing field between rich and poor, which every American I’ve ever talked to deeply desires.
ChrisBussRealtor 2 weeks ago
Buffet makes his wealth from capital gains, unlike the vast majority of people. The US tax rate on capital gains is not particularly low compared with other countries.
xaviqaz 2 weeks ago
All while still fighting the IRS, because he does not want to pay his taxes. Go buy another Obama Warren.
workformine 3 weeks ago
LOL - Mr. Buffet is one slippery fellow! He's comparing apples to oranges! Listen carefully and you will find that the flat tax he is describing is not actually a flat tax at all. The big clue is that he takes your payroll taxes off the table! Then he does his % calculation on your income tax alone! Then he adds the payroll taxes back on top and says your worse off with a flat tax! I'll bet this guy could sell me a car without a motor and convince me I got a great deal on the gas mileage :-)
ChrisBussRealtor 4 weeks ago
@ChrisBussRealtor Mr Buffet is calling it straight. The fact that you cant understand this VERY SIMPLE issue tends to show you are a bit dense above the neck. The issue is the following. People that make a living off of capital gains and make MORE than $1 million a year are being taxes at a 15 % rate while people earning a paycheck are taxes anywhere from 24 -35 % depending on income. That you cant get this makes me believe you are a bit stupid.
Phillysoc 2 weeks ago
This country is wealthy enough to afford it and if you tax the poorest more, then more will require more assistance when health problems arise and can't feed their family properly. Tax over 1mil income and capital gains more.
ysdom 4 weeks ago
Tax brackets, we have tax brackets. We all pay the same taxes up to a certain amount of money, then as the amounts get larger, we pay more on that money. The poor are struggling and rather than take what we can from them, making the income tax equal, why not give them tax breaks? It's a lot better than giving them more entitlement programs.
ysdom 4 weeks ago
It's thoroughly depressing to see these super-rich folk pleading for the government to come and seize their money. If they want to spend it selflessly then why don't they use their own initiative!
I'd wager that the success of private philanthropy is far greater than anything that a wasteful, incompetent government could do.
They should take lessons from the great philanthropists of history and use their own creativity, rather than beg for state control like some brain-dead stooges.
kzearo 1 month ago
@kzearo
Look at their history. Both bill and warren donated billions to charity.
breakingdelaw 3 weeks ago
@breakingdelaw
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
NickNorie15 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@breakingdelaw
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
NickNorie15 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@breakingdelaw
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
NickNorie15 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@breakingdelaw
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
NickNorie15 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@breakingdelaw
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
NickNorie15 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@breakingdelaw
It doesn't matter. Don't you see how fundamentally wrong is that they still KEEP so much? I'm not against living a comfortable life but you don't need to be intelligent to see it's just wrong that someone can have that much while people are homeless. It's just so wrong and most people who don't agree with me only disagree because they can see THEMSELVES with that much money. It's just selfish beyond comprehension.
NickNorie15 3 weeks ago
@breakingdelaw
Yes and my point is that they should continue to do exactly that!
Private philanthropy is far more noble and creative than the coerced and incompetent redistribution of wealth conducted by the state. More importantly still, it is far more successful in getting results.
kzearo 3 weeks ago
@kzearo
I disagree. For every 1 warren buffet, there's 100 wall street crooks. The only way where the middle class gets equal opportunity to the super rich is when the government tax the rich. Right now they're paying way less tax. Just because we got ONE warren buffet, doesnt mean we dotn want to tax the shit out of the wallstreet people.
breakingdelaw 3 weeks ago
@kzearo You are either a great bullshit artist or a complete fucking dummy. The issue here is FAIRNESS...what part of that is foreign to you? There is NO reason for a person working and earning a paycheck to pay +30% in taxes while a person like Romney who earns his income via capital gains to be paying 13% INCOME IS INCOME. Its that simple. TAX IS AT THE SAME RATE......Through real estate and a paycheck I made a little over 200K a year. Why should my tax rate be around 30% while Romney
Phillysoc 3 weeks ago
@kzearo.... Romney that earned about 24 million last year via capital gain income, only pay 13%. INCOME IS INCOME. His tax rate should be THE SAME AS MINE. Thats the issue dude. If you cant comprehend that, you are one fucking dummy.
Phillysoc 3 weeks ago
@Phillysoc This is where the problem is. People *such as you* fail to understand capitalism and fail to think cognitively. Capital gains and income tax are two completely different things. Capital Gains is designed for 3 main purposes. First is to raise revenue, second is to encourage those with surplus beyond needs to invest those surpluses, and finally to reward those who have kept their surpluses invested for a minimum period of time. It's that simple. Get it now?
Sirafrican 2 weeks ago
@Sirafrican Ummm you dont get it ... INCOME IS INCOME. If I sit on my ass and make over a million a year and someone else is earning a paycheck and is paying a tax rate twice as much as me is NOT FAIR.....and by the way, your utopian view of this is quite immature. Mitt Romney for example has most of his money in OFF SHORT accounts. Those accounts do NOTHING to promote investment in the USA. as far as your argument goes on a higher rate deterring investment..His tax rate ZERO.
Phillysoc 2 weeks ago
@Phillysoc Your bullshit argument may make you think your smart with your buddies, but in the real world they HOLD NO WATER.
Phillysoc 2 weeks ago
@Phillysoc warren buffett goes his way to lie about the massive tax he pays, its' kind of hard to explain. watch this video mrctv.org/videos/cpac-interviews-peter-schiff, just watch the last 2 minutes, you will understand
trueconservatie33 1 week ago
@trueconservatie33 Why should I watch your video? I mean why would anyone who stands to lose MILLIONS if his taxes go up lie about something like this? I mean I could understand him saying he pays too much and wants a lower rate, but the other way around???, saying he doesnt pay enough and wants to pay more? Dude get real NO ONE would lie about that. The truth is that Buffett should not be paying a CAP DIV rate of 15 % while people that work for him and make MUCH LESS be paying 30% .
Phillysoc 1 week ago
@Phillysoc he purposely choose to use a loophole to pay a lower tax. if he want to pay higher taxes just tell his firm to stop fighting IRS, or just simply write a check to the treasury, there's not a single law will prevent you or him doing that. why do think a lot of rich ceo choose to pay themslves a low salary
trueconservatie33 1 week ago
@trueconservatie33 Buffet and Gates have given away billions. The key is to change the tax laws so that it makes a real change for fairness in taxation. Buffet and Gates are giving the rest of us direction so that we will talk to our representatives about whether they want to be elected again. So I do not blame Gates or Buffet. Maybe doing so does not help the matter. You decide.
Johntkr 4 days ago
@Johntkr exactly you make my points, they are not giving their moneys to the government. every dollar government tax out of us is every dollar doesn't go to the private sectors. There's an illusion that back in the 50's and 70's rich paid more taxes, but there were a lot of tax shelters and deductions that didn't exist day.
trueconservatie33 4 days ago
@trueconservatie33 "illusion that back in the 50's and 70's rich paid more taxes, but there were a lot of tax shelters .."
==
Info. I have says tax evasion rapidly started growing in 1970s by means of offshore account.
Direct me to your source is not affiliated with right wing organization and what kind of evation they had in 1950s that we don't have today?
allgoo19 3 days ago
@allgoo19 1986 tax reform act signed by reagan, ted kennedy and dick gerphardt. the left refuse to admit this
trueconservatie33 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trueconservatie33 "1986 tax reform act signed by reagan,"
==
What was the improvement?
Unanswered question.
" and what kind of evation they had in 1950s that we don't have today?
allgoo19 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Phillysoc Your bullshit argument may make you think your smart with your buddies, but in the real world they HOLD NO WATER.
Phillysoc 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Phillysoc Your bullshit argument may make you think your smart with your buddies, but in the real world they HOLD NO WATER.
Phillysoc 2 weeks ago
@Phillysoc You still don't get it. You still think Capital Gains and Income tax rates are the same thing. Get that out of you're head. There's a difference if I make my money by investing in America as compared to working for a company. It's that simple. If you want to pay a 15% capital gains tax rate then you should start investing in America. If not then stop bitching. Instead of raising taxes on the rich why not just lower taxes on the poor?
Sirafrican 2 weeks ago
@Sirafrican So whats your point? Its till income. Just because someone that has the means to invest should be given a break? WHY? Because if the tax rate is higher he may stop investing? That bullshit doesnt hold water.......wanna know why? Because when the Cap Gains rates were higher in the late 1970s' the amount of ivestment capital goingf into companies WASNT any LOWER than is it today. Your argument fails sorry...but fairness wins here.
Phillysoc 2 weeks ago
@Sirafrican ZERO on the interest or investment income of those accounts. As for your bullshit argument that it will deter investment. Read this from Mr Buffett: “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off,” he said.
Phillysoc 2 weeks ago
the only problem of taxing the rich more is that all they'll do is give them selves pay rises and bonuses to offset the extra tax they pay. the poor will still be in the same position of not being able to afford housing, heating, food and the basics in life while the diff in low paid and high paid jobs just gets ever bigger £ for £. . the rich are too greedy thats the problem. . only way around it is to put a max income lvl
braunblender 1 month ago
WHAT DEGENERATE PIECES OF SHIT THESE TWO FUCKIN COMMUNISTS ARE !!!!!!!!!
tycoonfortune 1 month ago
Right then. Raise taxes to 80% on anyone earning anything and give it to the unemployed.
ericclaptonismygod31 2 months ago
of course this is a man who cannot be taxed to death, who will never pay -back taxes-. id listen to this shit if he were the leader of the upper middle class who has faced bankruptcy and foreclosure. if he was a machinist who, wanting to put his daughter through college, took twice the hours and was surprised that he was taxed to the point of having that action become nill - and STILL says that he's not being taxed too high. then id listen. they like their loop holes.
severrnijKGU 3 months ago
I will have an easier time believing Buffet if he's willing to write fat checks to the government (since he believes that he's not being taxed enough). Will he ever do that? Of course not.
ttiiyy 4 months ago
@ttiiyy which one of your favorite republican candidates refuses to cash their government paycheck? since they are against government spending....
or are you a massive hypocrite?
LiekABaus 4 months ago
@ttiiyy ya but thats totally diff than his general idea
, lol
OhAnnaAnnaAnna 3 months ago
It doesn't make sense to charge people different rates for the same services. So let's use not a progressive tax, not a flat tax, but an equal direct tax. No rates, everyone pays the exact same amount.
Now, I know what you are thinking. A tax scheme like that is regressive and favors the rich, but this is where the working people come in. Organize and take back the ill-gotten gain without the aid of the government. Stop taxing the rich and start reclaiming what is yours.
voltairinedecleyre66 4 months ago
@voltairinedecleyre66 I agree with you. However, can you be more specific about how working people can take back the ill-gotten gain without the aid of the government?
ttiiyy 4 months ago
@ttiiyy That's a good question. There are many things that can be done, some less savory than others. For instance, there is violent insurrection, to highlight one extreme, but it can be very unpredicable and often lead to disaster. Another might be secession. If successful, the secessionists could fortify their control over their resources and simply refuse to recognize the property claims of the usurers. This course is highly unpopular, especially for the Left, for some odd reason.
voltairinedecleyre66 4 months ago
@ttiiyy Even without secession, a well-organized workforce can occupy various properties and refuse to recognize the property rights. Of course, the capitalists and the government are not going to like this and will certainly use force to change that. If the workers can remain non-violent for long enough, more and more people will sympathize. These things might all be easier in the coming years when the government can no longer afford defense and security for their protected interests.
voltairinedecleyre66 4 months ago
@ttiiyy Now, I am a libertarian, as you can probably tell from the apolitical tactics I have outlined thus far, but there are certainly a few reformist ones I would consider productive. I am sure you are familiar with the Federal Reserve and efforts of politicians like Kucinich, Paul, and Sanders to abolish it. This central bank contributes greatly to the accumulation of capital in the hands of the elite. It's a valve that needs to be turned off.
Google "Benjamin Tucker four monopolies"
voltairinedecleyre66 4 months ago
@ttiiyy Disband the fed - They run our leaders like puppets on a string. They play nation against nation and threatend to hit the kill switch on any country that does not comply. You might want to read about the types of strategies they use to do so. They have been behind every major war of this and the last century. Look up the PD strategy they use to ply us against each other.Look up Prisoner's Delima on wikipedia. Prisonplanet & infowars for more info
DMChoreographer 4 months ago
@voltairinedecleyre66 voltairine, that's a 'head' tax. head taxes are very dangerous, they start riots easily and usually the politician who puts it in place loses their position because of it. in 1989 it was called the "poll tax" on property in the UK. that is the reason that you don't see margaret thatcher any more. but i agree with your point that we should stop taxing the rich.
severrnijKGU 3 months ago
@severrnijKGU Then, it's settled. No taxes.
voltairinedecleyre66 3 months ago
@voltairinedecleyre66 i wouldnt mind paying lots of taxes, if only i could see proof that every single other of my fellow americans was paying the same exact high tax as myself. no higher, no lower. i want it transparent. i like our powerful military, i also like to see good roads. taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized state. you can tell cities that have extremely low taxes and strengths of government simply by the way they smell when you step off the plane.
severrnijKGU 3 months ago
@severrnijKGU warren buffet is full of it, he choose to pay his tax in form of capital gains instead of income tax, he still pays around 35 percent
trueconservatie33 1 month ago
The truth is that until we have some major stimulus to the economy..like the internet in the 90s...major world wars (horrible option)..or some strange fad craze that makes people want to spend money then we are going to need more Gov't spending. It is not this great evil everyone makes it out to be.
tenguhand 5 months ago
capitalist economies run on how fast dollars exchange hands. Money moves in 2 ways essentially 1. Consumer spending 2. Gov't Spending. Consumer confidence is shot...so people are more apt to save instead of spend. In that case the Gov't MUST SPEND MONEY. Money is the blood of capitalism--currently the blood is flowing too slowly.
tenguhand 5 months ago
Why is the answer always "higher taxes"? Why is "slashing Gov't spending" never an option on the table? It should be, the Gov't does more than it was ever Constitutionally allowed to do.
calebmallen 5 months ago
Why is Warren Buffett an anomaly in the rich end of the social spectrum? I understand wanting to keep as much of your money as possible, but why can't the super rich just say "hmm, you know, I pay less in taxes than anyone who works for me. This isn't right."
telemarker93 5 months ago
Here's the sad truth. If we tax the rich more the Govt. will simply spend at a higher rate on bullshit. Sorry...it will not make a bit of difference
JesusMakeUpMyDyinBed 5 months ago
Let the rich get unfair benefits and bare the bones on those who are making less. Am I the only one who is infuriated?
lamrof 5 months ago
@lamrof A lot of Americans are all upset about what's going in the country. I wish I could agree with you 100%, but I can't. First of all, how do we define unfair benefits that the rich enjoy? Look at the CEO of GE. GE has not been paying federal income taxes, and Obama is still in bed with them. Secondly, to be fair, rich Americans do pay taxes. It's not as if the rich were not paying any taxes at all. I read in USA today that they contribute to at least 40% of the nation's GPA.
ttiiyy 4 months ago
@lamrof I will have a much easier time supporting high taxes if our government can spend the money more responsibly. I read in newspapers that our government sends Israel and Palestine trillions of dollars every year. So does that our government can spend the money in any way that it wants? My point is even if we tax the rich to the full extent, if our gov't does not behave itself, the gov't will never have enough money to spend. That's just the way it is.
ttiiyy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perrycm1 "The popularity of demonizing the rich and increasing income tax is not science, its feelings"
But you just heard warren buffet say that the amount of tax he pays is an unfair contribution in comparison with the rest of the country
its not about demonizing the rich bro, if you disagree with raising income tax then suggest another solution instead of using the oppertunity to just slander your opposition
shandcunt 5 months ago
If you're seriously gentlemen why don't you put together a group to fight the Koch Brothers's Teabaggers ? it'll only cost you a few million that's pennies to you guys and you'll be sticking it to the competition. although I don't think Warren Buffet is in Oil or Bill Gates....?
METALMAN4Wii 5 months ago
berkshire has owed the IRS a billion for over 10 years...why not just pay up warren???
mike1111qq 5 months ago
CLASS WARFAREEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111eleven11
CallMeMrNameless 5 months ago
SOCIALISTTSSS!!!!!!!!!!1111111one1111
CallMeMrNameless 5 months ago
Fox News has actually come out and called Warrenn Buffet a socialist because of this.
Yep, Warrenn Buffet.
Ugh...
GiantSandles 6 months ago
One foot in the grave and NOW he finds God! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
frankz00 6 months ago
By the way, the tax of the "rich" people who make $200,000 goes directly to the ultra-rich. That's the part they leave out!
frankz00 6 months ago
Yeah sure. But you didn't fire the accountants and tax lawyers that helped you game the system you two hypocrites!
frankz00 6 months ago
I agree the tax code needs fixing but Mr Buffet has made all his money from these loop holes, its sweet to hear an 80 yr old man at the end of his earning life say o yea, now we should be taxing the heck out of the wealthiest americans. Again man is brilliant but if he has to much money he can pay the gov't what he feels he owes, I am sure the next Warren Buffets couldnt disagree more with him.
nick88m 6 months ago
@nick88m Also most dont like to hear this but if the Gov't start messing with rich investors money they are going to follow Big Businesses lead, take their money and run out the country.
nick88m 6 months ago
@nick88m WB actually has that option on his tax return, to make an extra payment to the federal govt. I wonder why he didn't do it. Maybe like the rest of us, he just doesn't trust our government to be good stewards of his hard earned money. Like I said in a previous post, if you are fortunate enough to make 365K you are paying the highest tax rate in the land because your income is not in the form of capital gains and investment income.
perrycm1 6 months ago
What's happening? I start loving Bill Gates !!
Thank you, guys, I really respect what you think.
ghune 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What I don't hear is "Millionaires shouldn't draw Medicare, Social Security, VA nor any other government assistance." It wouldn't be necessary to raise taxes so much if millionaires were cut off.
vechorik 6 months ago
You have to love these guys. 'We arent taxed enough' actually telling the truth, unlike these whiny bastards "taxed enough already"
GnomesAmok 6 months ago
payroll tax, ie social security, is not a tax - it is a mandated savings plan. like it or dislike it, but it's not the same as a normal tax.
booomhauer 6 months ago
My only problem with what both Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett said is that we already have a progressive income tax......and IT ISN'T WORKING. Upping the tax rate on the rich, while well-meaning, is putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound; it would have no effect. What I believe needs to be done is close the loopholes, and have anyone earning between 25k to 50k pay 10% in taxes, 50k up to 250k pay 20%, and anyone 250k and over pay 30% (people making under 25k shouldn't have to pay taxes). Opinions?
ATA030 6 months ago
@ATA030 That IS a origressive income tax, and not too far away from what we already have.
TheMagickseeker 6 months ago
@TheMagickseeker With all due respect, what the Federal income tax is now is a rate that goes up in increments according to the amount of taxable income, up to 35%. What I was proposing is to set 3 solid rates as I pointed to earlier (instead of someone who makes 45K paying 16.39% of their income, they would pay only 10%). If done correctly (maybe setting the rates at 15%, 25%, and 35%), it would bring in more revenue than the current system.
ATA030 6 months ago
@ATA030 Except you're missing out on the very point they were making: income tax itself is the loophole. It's all people think about because it hits home most for them. But for the wealthy like them, they barely pay income tax because it's only a small part of their earnings. Most of what they earn is in capital gains, which is taxed very modestly. So in the end, their "income" is taxed lower than you and I.
theeponym 6 months ago 5
@theeponym That is true from the total percentage of what they earn. However, even at their lower tax rates and their capital gains tax revenue, it would take me 20 years at what I get paid to put into the tax system for what they put in the system in 1 year. Do you see what I'm saying? The rich could pay more, but that doesn't really help the situation as a whole. Please understand, I'm not against the rich not paying taxes (which they should). It just isn't a long term solution.
ATA030 6 months ago
@ATA030 The last ten years worth of cuts have cost your country nearly 2 trillion in revenue. Easy to see why:
In 1992, the top 400 reported incomes had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion ($227.4 million on average per person) but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
Income +437%. Taxes -26%.
theeponym 6 months ago
@theeponym The problem with the last 11 years (minus 2006 and 2007) is that the US government has routinely and enormously spent more money than it has taken in. Increasing taxes on the rich (which has already been done, since their taxes have gone up every year for 5 years) won't help unless the US Government (including Bush and the GOP 2004-2006 and Obama and the Democrats 2009-2010) puts a cap on spending and sticks to it. and applies significant cuts to programs.
ATA030 6 months ago
@theeponym I was saying the same thing. In the last election when obama brough up the buffet example of paying 17% marginal rate (less than his secretary's), I looked at my tax return and confirmed that I was paying exactly what I was supposed to be paying accorrding to the rate assigned to my income....because its just paycheck income. I did not know until I saw ben stein last night, most of WB's income is capital gains...taxed at 15%.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@ATA030 I am assuming that you mean that would be the tax rate on all income including investment income and capital gains. Under your plan, some people making over 250K would actually see a tax decrease. How about more tax brackets and closing loopholes. It seems silly that Warren buffet is in the same tax bracket as a small town lawyer, who actually has to worry about how he's going to generate enough income to pay his staff's salaries and benefits.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 although I had a friend who is a tax attorney tell me that the reason they put millionaires and billionaires in the same tax bracket as those making 365K is because there are not enough millionaires...the current tax code does not recoup enough of their money (loopholes); they need to extend it down to lower incomes to include more people and result in enough money to generate significant tax revenue. Politically speaking, no one is going to feel bad for someone making 365K
perrycm1 6 months ago
WHAT THE HELL
2:10
HIS HAIR IS ALIVE
TheSerialHex 6 months ago
Comment removed
TheSerialHex 6 months ago
Comment removed
TheSerialHex 6 months ago
Wake up people! The average U.S. Citizen is being sold a bill of goods by the right-wing noise machine. The Republicans are using propaganda to convince low and middle income earners to vote against their own interests. When this cynical strategy succeeds Democracy is lost and a revolution is needed. A revolution in thinking and how we self organize for the future of our species and planet. See Zeitgeist:Addendum for a new story of our future.
feralcamero 6 months ago
@feralcamero hahaha I think I read a post from a republican today that had the same sentiment. All politicians use propaganda. Leave the conspiracies at the door and join the conversation. You have said nothing, provided no solution.
perrycm1 6 months ago 2
@perrycm1 Actually, I thought I had said something... we clearly need a more empirical and science-based approach to our self organization and governance. The Republican party is anti science as evidenced by their complete preference for ideology over science. The Democrats support science and a more science-based/evidence-based approach to policy making. The Republicans want you to think that Dems are just as bad as Reps are and when we equate the two we make a fatal mistake.
feralcamero 6 months ago
What science are the dems using? and what is your solution to our economic problem. Contributing to the solution is talking tax code and how to fix it. Raising income tax rates for 250K+, the solution proposed by the dems, does not solve the problem of the ultra rich paying lower marginal rates, and doesn't make a dent in the deficit (see CNN money). The popularity of demonizing the rich and increasing income tax is not science, its feelings.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 Are you stupid? we need to raise the money to meet government spending. It's not science, its not feelings. It's a simple question of who we tax to meet these demands. The very rich or the very poor.
erzan 5 months ago
@feralcamero I can only imagine that the science to which you are referring is economic analysis over the course of history. I have seen science, then, to support both sides. A scientific approach is breaking down the problem, applying solutions, benchmarking them and tweaking for success. As a socially liberal fiscal conservative, I see myself as someone who doesn't follow the pack. The fatal mistake is picking the team you want to win and failing to see its misgivings.
perrycm1 6 months ago
it truly is amazing how Republicans/conservatives have brainwashed many Americans into thinking that the poor and those who benefit from government programs (welfare, disabled) are to blame for this country's ills. It is the ultra rich who continue to rip this country off. Listen to the YouTube's from Robert Reich. He is right on the mark
MsOxygengirl 6 months ago 2
@MsOxygengirl Sounds great in theory just not true in practice. People that sit and do nothing are much worse then those that create jobs. The problem is most people don't actually benefit those people as it rarely works as a temporary way to prop them up and instead becomes a way of life.
ak47523 6 months ago
@MsOxygengirl I have never heard my conservative friends say that the poor are to blame for this country's ills. Why are you not holding your elected officials responsible. Problems 1. Jobs 2. Stock Market 3. Real estate market. Tell me who is to blame for that?
perrycm1 6 months ago
IT IS NOT ABOUT MORE OR LESS GOVERNMENT, OTS ABOUT BETTER, MORE EFFICIENT GOVT.
goofyfoot100 6 months ago 3
trouble is taxing the rich gwts us only$50Bil. That's smaller than a rounding error. Its their wealth thats so big. That would be confiscation.
goofyfoot100 6 months ago
I have a great respect for Bill Gates right about now.
artisanrox 6 months ago
2 of the richest men on planet Earth & they wear glasses. You boy's ever heard of Lasik? They can now adjust your eyes to see close/far.
mginsel 6 months ago
@mginsel That doesn't treat presbyopia dumbass
UphyXx 6 months ago
@UphyXx Yes it does jackass, I had the procedure done it's called blended Lasik. One eye sees far and one sees near. You shouldn't spout off and call people names when you're CLEARLY the uninformed dumbass here.
mginsel 6 months ago
Why is our debt growing and our roads, bridges, police, fire, and education getting cut? (not to mention medicare, medicaid and social security). Because those making over $250,000 a year are paying the lowest taxes in the last century. And now our media, owned by large corporations, continues to spread anti-tax sentiment while "less government" politicians legally take money under the table for their political campaigns from corporations and rich donors to continue these "austerity" measures.
alvinme 6 months ago 4
@alvinme please stop lumping the people who make 250K with the ultra rich who qualify for loopholes. Most of their income is investment income and capital gains. The guy making 250K paycheck is paying the tax rate assigned to his income bracket. They are only lumped in with the millionaires because the government needs to generate more tax revenue. Good people who pay their fair share of taxes don't like being told that they are not paying their taxes.
perrycm1 6 months ago
The original US income tax was heaviest on the wealthy based upon the theory that, beyond a certain level of earnings, income was flowing to individuals as a result of public infrastructure (roads, electrical grid, etc.) and that the higher tax rate (over 90% for the uber wealthy) was a repayment, in part, for the use of that infrastructure. Even with these very high tax rates, the elite were still able to make enough money to corrupt government and gradually wrestle democracy from the people.
0gods 6 months ago 8
@0gods This is just a thought, but maybe, it is the theory that was wrong to begin with. Maybe that makes sense if one is referring to corporate tax, but Warren buffet didn't use a lot of infrastruction to make investments and live off of capital gains/ dividends...the primary source of his income.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 Governments increase taxes in times when they need revenue. The reasons are justifications, not theory projecting economic growth. Justifications that masquerade as economic theory are doomed to not hold up over time.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@0gods taxes, regulation, corruption. you can't use the tax system to stop corruption. Corruption is present on both sides. The wealthy give money as do powerful organizations, like the teachers union...all to influence politicians. All are working within legal guidelines. Increases in income tax won't curb corruption. To do that we need to change guidelines for political contributions and impose stiff penalities on corrupt politicians.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 oops correction... "All" refers to those on both sides of the aisle, not all contributions" We know that not all contributions are on the up and up.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 the debate over income tax has been a method of score keeping for both parties...and generates some governement revenue but not enough for what we need. It shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip. Our family courts recognized this to be issue... that is why in divorce proceedings, assets are always divided before custody is awarded, so the kids can't be used as bargaining chips for joint assets. We should have straight up or down votes on policies of this magnitude.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@0gods In addition, I have heard members of both parties agree that getting people back to work, is the best way to generate revenue for the government. So we find ourselves in a "which came first chicken or egg scenario." How do we come down hard on business and expect to create jobs in private sector? More jobs= more money spent in stores but people can't get work if employers aren't hiring. Creating govt jobs via infrastructure doesn't stop loss of jobs in private sector.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@0gods As far as neo-liberalism, there are very few purists out there. Even some famous (D) presidents engaged in neo-liberal methods...JFK decreased taxes to generate economic growth. Clinton supported NAFTA. An economic analysis I read once showed Regulation increased with election of (D)s during economic stress . Then economy stabilizes...until its not b/c later too much regulation. Then (R)'s elected, then deregulation, then stabilization...until not enough regulation. Pendulum.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 same study looked statistically at economic conditions during specific presidencies. The analysis showed historicall U.S. economies did best when a (D) was president with a (R) house. It makes sense, during those times no one party can swing pendulum to far in one direction. I recently read an article that pointed out that economic growth occurred when government enacted policies that were win/win for business/citzens. Sooo...so much for ideology.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 No pendulum. The US has moved hard right and, as wealth concentrates, that trend is accelerating. The actions of Clinton were and the actions of Obama are neo-liberal to the core--by philosophy or necessity is another question. At its core neo-liberalism strikes at anything and everything which reduces the direct power and influence of wealth. The prime target of neo-liberalsm is any functioning democracy where the will of the people counter wealth-based authoritarianism.
0gods 6 months ago
@0gods I do understand what you are saying, but it certainly did not refute the"pendulum" finding of the over 100 page historical analysis dating back to before the great depression that I took the time to read...it is a definition.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 Under the deregulation of the past thirty years--including right-wing tax liberalization--there has been a hallowing out of the middle class as real wages have remained stagnant for most workers. Instead of claiming 100 years of analytical data, why not name any significant legislation that has swung the pendulum back in the past thirty years. The most significant re-regulation I am aware of dates back to Nixon and the EPA. Every "middle class tax cut" has helped the rich.
0gods 6 months ago
@0gods Re. your advice, my backround is research and I welcome any data that adds to the debate, but I won't automatically disregard data as propaganda. Although tax decreases may spur the economy temporarily and tax increases increase revenue, they do little to ensure the "trickling down" of wealth. The theory is that a capable govt can use that revenue to sculpt policy to help the disparity of income while not hurting our ability to compete globally...both generate revenue.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 I didn't disregard it--I gave what I suspected was source. I have done extensive research myself, especially in employment trends. For example, I have found it ironic that most IT professionals in the US decry unions while being completely unaware that, when their jobs are outsourced to India, they are outsourced to a unionized workforce. The % wage increases for Indian workers is higher than that for their US counterparts, although the US workers typically make a higher salary.
0gods 6 months ago
@0gods The higher salary vs wage, is probably overtime and benefits. Admittedly, most of the reading I have done are in regards to wages in china. However, not sure how you are defining IT professionals. Liebermans analysis cited major problems in loss of IT jobs to a more educated, plentiful, lower paid candidate pool. He cited that China graduates a higher number and percentage of engineers and that an American company could get a qualified engineer for a $15,000 per year salary.
perrycm1 5 months ago
@perrycm1 1--To put the China labor market in perspective, there are more Chinese that speak English as a second language than Americans who speak English. Second, China has a larger contingent work force--that is, people unemployed but willing to work--than the entire US workforce. Clearly this is tremendous downward labor pressure on a globalized basis. It is dampened significantly because China does not observe the rule of law with respect to IP: anything that goes to China becomes China.
0gods 5 months ago
@perrycm1 2--As big a concern as wage differential is, a larger concern a big decrease in critical thinking skills in the US workforce. Historically, Chinese workers were unable to keep up with the rate of innovation of their US peers. This innovation gap is closing: US educated IT professionals, on average, are no more innovative than their counterparts. Why? A big factor is decades of passive, conformist propaganda; US IT professionals now seem to have much less intellectual curiosity.
0gods 5 months ago
@perrycm1 3--As late as the mid-90s, top software designers could be as much as 100x as productive as thier peers. As the state of the art for producing IT has improved, this gap has also closed (but still exists). When students ask me about becoming an IT professional, I ask if they think they can reach and stay in the top 20% of the field. If not, they need to consider their long-term prospects: IT "also rans" face constant outsourcing and wage pressure--if they can get a job at all.
0gods 5 months ago
@0gods I am curious what the wage differential is for IT customer service and software designers is, specifically. Leibermans analysis mentioned that although we have huge loss in manufacturing sector in respect to offshoring, the impact of the losses in IT and science/ engineering have greater economic consequences.
perrycm1 5 months ago
@perrycm1 1--That is a tough question outside of high-tech itself. In insurance, for example, customer service is typically part of the sales organization; IT is typically comprised of application design/maintenance, program/project management, quality assurance and application support. AD typically remains domestic, AM and AS are usually merged and outsourced 30/70, 70-80% of QA is typically merged with AS and outsourced. PM varies widely, but typically 60% if outsourced.
0gods 5 months ago
@perrycm1 2--Customer service used to be a path to AM and AM a path to AD; however, as outsourcing partners have been able to increase knowledge acquisition/knowledge transfer (KA/KT), this path appears to be weakening with a higher percentage of AD being down by third-parties. Customer Service/AS roles typically paid $68K-120K, AD > $100K, with a median of $150K. The pressure in restructuring was to eliminate domestic AD work. [This is typical Insurance operation and is for example only.]
0gods 5 months ago
@perrycm1 The primary difference between the plutocratic accumulation of wealth in the US under (highly effective) neo-liberalism has been the uses of advanced political science and propaganda. Political science has been used systemically to target and diffuse popular action that could counter the hegemony of the corporate form. Propaganda (including mass distraction) have been used to coerce the ignorant (i.e. fundamentalist Christians) into voting against their economic interests.
0gods 6 months ago
@0gods I heard Bill Maher say the same thing last week....not as eloquently as you. I disagree that we have moved hard right...most think center right. I disagree that we live in a plutocratic society. We have an "equal opportunity to throw money at politicians" governement demonstrated by our many special interest groups. In addition, most rhetoric is aimed at reelection. The 95% of Americans who are not wealthy decide who is going win elections....in particular independents who swing.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@0gods We also have equal opportunity hegemony in this country. I just read a study looking at world economies from 1990 to 2000 which showed powerful trade unions had a negative impact on job creation. Or how about the hegemony of the lawyers in this country. In europe, non economic damages are capped and plantiffs are held financially responsible for frivolous lawsuits. Our country, in turn, becomes increasingly litigious.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 Sounds like a Chamber of Commerce study. As a corporate strategist, I have decades of experience representing management in globalization including outsourcing. I know first hand that the notion that unionism results in lost job creation is pure propaganda. The reality is simple and bleak: once a job--any job--is outsourced, it rarely makes operational sense to bring it back. In the US, most unions have utterly failed their members in an effort to remain business friendly.
0gods 6 months ago
@0gods I come from good union stock and am not anti-union. I can, however, look at them a see the good and the bad. Good: they fight for better wages/benefits. Bad: (my parent greatest complaint) they protect workers that should, even by their standards, be fired. This increases a business' cost (see data on money spent by the state of NY on the hundreds of teachers in the review process). I think this would make them more effective at fighting for better wages/ benefits.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 sorry "Curbing that practice, would make them more effective at fighting for wages/ benefits"
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 I have only represented management. I have no expertise on labor organizing but can only speak to the ineffectiveness of the unions at the table. If I had to sum it up, it would be that unions tend to fight for current members v. future workers and the work force as a whole. When a union sells out its future workers to protect voting members it is all but over and becomes a waiting game: wall off and shrink existing union members.
0gods 6 months ago
@perrycm1 Sounds like a Chamber of Commerce study. As a corporate strategist, I have decades of experience representing management in globalization including outsourcing. I know first hand that the notion that unionism results in lost job creation is pure propaganda. The reality is simple and bleak: once a job--any job--is outsourced, it rarely makes operational sense to bring it back. In the US, most unions have utterly failed their members in an effort to remain business friendly.
0gods 6 months ago
@0gods RE: study, I would not waste my time on a study that wasn't comprehensive. The study also looked at the effects of rapid advancement of technology during which time businesses invest in technology over people attempting in attempts to have 1 person do the work previously performed by 2. Plus advances in communication has made it easier for companies to move certain divisions offshore. Study showed that rapid advances in tech, increased unemployment and decreased job creation.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 This doesn't get to who funded the study. My work product is typically comprised of two parts: strategy and transformation. It is true, most labor reduction comes in the transformation phase (implementing a strategy) as business processes and the underlying technologies are optimized for effectiveness and efficiency. My point was this: unions are rarely the issue. If a core operation is profitable--even if it is unionized--most businesses will grow that operation.
0gods 6 months ago
@0gods That is true, but according to dept of LI stats on SEIU website, union workers get higher pay, better benefits, more vacation...not to mention previously stated debacle regarding difficulty of releasing incompetant workers. Why would a business from a profits perspective choose union run facility over non-union run facility. And if all states are "right to work states" (which is at this point consitutionally not feasible) doesn't that hurt even more our ability to compete by globally?
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 In the same way most big businesses do not immediately relocate to avoid local taxes, they typically do not immediately shutdown profitable operations to avoid paying union wages. A more typical response is to efficiently shift new operations to more tax-friendly locations, to lower cost labor markets or both. The governments losing the business will often offer tax breaks, the unions losing members often accept concessions and give backs.
0gods 6 months ago
@0gods who funded a study is always a concern, which I am going to have to go back and find if you really want it, but one usually scrutinizes statistical confidence level, sample number, etc. to decide whether or not result can be considered valid. I'll get back to you on that.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@0gods What really puts pressure on the ability to see wage growth in times of recession (when job growth is decreasing/ unemployment high)... it limits the leverage of unions, workforces, individuals to use their leverage to improve wages with threat of lay-offs looming in the back of their minds. I have not developed my solutions for these problems yet but am currently reading a proposal by Joe Lieberman, which so far shows alot of promise.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 I am no union apologist but the anti-union rhetoric is designed primarily to eliminate the last organizing force labor has. The theory is simple: when the US is returned fully to "right to work" status (employers can terminate at will and for any reason), the contingent workforce can be used systemically against the active workforce to drive down wages by employing near constant turn over. It is a win/win for neo-liberalism: banks get low inflation, big business dirt cheap labor.
0gods 6 months ago
@0gods. A fundumentalist christian sees position on abortion as priority over economic politics. Many fundamentalist christian churches even frown on voting. They believe politics to be a distraction from a christian's mission to gain admittance into heaven. For those who do get involved in politics, they decide what is in their best interest... in my experience w/ FC, its not govt program expansion. That's not ignorance, its freedom of religion.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@0gods This recent trend of labeling FC's as ignorant or uniformed is bothersome. Since I have moved from the big city, I have had the privilage of meeting many. They come in all forms: doctors, lawyers, factory workers, the poverty stricken. Labels disappear as they unify in their faith that God will provide when they fall. They value pure charity, as opposed to charity via taxation, hence tithing. Ignorant or educated, they have as much right to vote their conscience as any.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 When I use the word ignorant to characterize FCs, I use it precisely and accurately: lacking knowledge or awareness. Specifically, there is overwhelming evidence in both the religious and secular communities that the bible is not an historical document. By ignoring this body of evidence, these individuals clearly demonstrate ignorance. A the same time, I do not argue that this ignorance is strongly correlated with either intelligence or station in life.
0gods 6 months ago
@0gods Euclid Logic? Your definition of ignorance is correct, there is another definition "arising from lack of knowledge or education" i.e. to make an "ignorant mistake"... which we have all done, without being characterized and ignorant (powerful nuance). Even if your premise, that the Bible is not a historical document is correct, them making the ignorant error does not make them ignorant (uneducated) or incapable of making decisions in their best interests.
perrycm1 6 months ago
@perrycm1 Yikes. Only to the extent that I view any supernatural claim as extraordinary and, as such, expect the claimant to support the claim, if to be accepted, with some evidence. If the "god said it, I believe it" reductio is the sole basis for any train of argument, I would rather not be in that discussion.
0gods 6 months ago
I have to admit. The only thing I really like about him is that he is honest about his and others income and taxes.
MonkeyBallZ214 6 months ago
Ugly liberals agree with each other that they should be giving the government more of their hard earned. Ya know, no-one is stopping you. Write a check to the IRS, they won't send it back.
quantumG 6 months ago
@quantumG I'm guessing by you're youtube pic that's you, who the fuck are you to talk?
Joshlamb17 6 months ago
@Joshlamb17 huh? It's their politics that is ugly.. I really don't have an opinion on the attractiveness of men.
quantumG 6 months ago
@quantumG actually, yes. They will.
FreakishDonQuixote 6 months ago
@kropotkin2000, the standard republican party line you're spouting has been proved to be a lie. Trickle-down, supply-side, call it what you want, cutting taxes for the rich does NOT improve the lot of the rest of us. I'm always flabbergasted when people say that low taxes create wealth. It's ridiculous. Businesspeople create jobs in every kind of economy, even when taxes were higher. These stupid little mantras that cattle like you moo out are antithetical to common sense.
bluescrubby 6 months ago 4
@bluescrubby I don't think anyone has talked about trickle down in a long time. Now, no one assumes that wealth is going to be passed down. The idea is that a business that is getting hit with high healthcare costs, falling stock value, low asset (real estate value) higher payouts in workers compensation, greater fiscal liability, tax increases, greater regualtion, difficulty borrowing money....doesn't exactly create a business environment where businesses want to expand and hire.
perrycm1 6 months ago
Youtube should really nest response comments
jrroelle 6 months ago
@jrroelle its really important that you read the post that came before this, because without it, only jrroelle and i understand its deeper meaning.
severrnijKGU 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This Bill Gates and Warren Buffet duo are some sort of anti-American commie idiots who don't understand human nature. Why do they want to punish success?? If you taxed the successful people more, they'd have no incentive to create wealth!
Kropotkin2000 6 months ago