Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Obama's "New" plan to reduce the deficit

Page 7 of 10 [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

23 Sep 2011, 10:21 am

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
A society filled with resentment and hatred based on economic class is not healthy.


Neither is a society that penalizes the productive for being productive.

ruveyn


What the hell do you mean? Having universal labor standards does not penalize the productive. It prevents exploitation. Labor laws are part of modern democracy. Want to abolish labor laws? You'll have to organize a right-wing military coup/dictatorship a la Pinoche's takeover of Chile. The majority of Americans (even conservative ones) won't stand for that unless they are coerced by plutocrats with guns.


Taxing the rich, merely for being rich is class warfare and bigotry.

If it is the case that some of the rich become so by foul means, they THAT is the problem that should be attacked. Taxation purely on the basis of income should not be discriminatory. Nor should unequal treatment of workers vis a vis owners be discriminatory. Property must be respected or we will have a primitive society in no time flat.

ruveyn


Screwing the poor merely because they are poor and by extension poorly educated and lacking in social graces is also class warfare and bigotry.

Class warfare is what we have had since at least 1981. And the rich are winning.

Progressive taxation is by definition discriminatory. Just because there is a means of discrimination doesn't mean it's wrong.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

23 Sep 2011, 10:23 am

marshall wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
What has happened in American Samoa is well documented. There was actually a hearing going on about it on Capitol Hill as I typed this.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calen ... tID=260206

Minimum wages should be set based on the local cost of living and gradually raised with time. It looks like a dumb political feud lead to this result.


So does that mean you're against the federally mandated minimum wage? Half way there!



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

23 Sep 2011, 10:32 am

Jacoby wrote:
marshall wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
What has happened in American Samoa is well documented. There was actually a hearing going on about it on Capitol Hill as I typed this.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calen ... tID=260206

Minimum wages should be set based on the local cost of living and gradually raised with time. It looks like a dumb political feud lead to this result.


So does that mean you're against the federally mandated minimum wage? Half way there!


I'm in favor of a federally mandated formula to calculate minimum wage based on average cost of living and the calculated geography of the available pool of labor.

Which would make the minimum wage in Manhattan a lot higher than the minimum wage in Topeka.

And do note that I'm saying that the existing pool of labor is taken into account. Many people who work in Chicago live in Gary. Most service-sector workers in Aspen live in Glenwood Springs at best.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Sep 2011, 10:35 am

marshall wrote:

Are you literate? :roll: Quit changing the subject.


I am more literate than you. I read you loud and clear. You are out to get the rich because they are rich. It is class-warfare you are advocating.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

23 Sep 2011, 12:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

Are you literate? :roll: Quit changing the subject.


I am more literate than you. I read you loud and clear. You are out to get the rich because they are rich. It is class-warfare you are advocating.

ruveyn


You are not addressing my point regarding labor laws and minimum wages but instead changing the subject. Screw taxation. Do you or do you not support sweat shops and wage slavery?



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

23 Sep 2011, 12:07 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Neither is a society that penalizes the productive for being productive.

ruveyn


It might be nice rhetoric, but it's disingenuous. Coming from an intelligent source, it's a downright lie.

The basic rule of taxation is, "it never hurts you to earn an extra dollar." You might keep less of the last dollar that you earned this year than the first dollar, but that isn't penalizing you for being productive.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Sep 2011, 12:24 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Neither is a society that penalizes the productive for being productive.

ruveyn


It might be nice rhetoric, but it's disingenuous. Coming from an intelligent source, it's a downright lie.

The basic rule of taxation is, "it never hurts you to earn an extra dollar." You might keep less of the last dollar that you earned this year than the first dollar, but that isn't penalizing you for being productive.


Granted that. Now why should the rich pay at a higher rate than the not rich?

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

23 Sep 2011, 12:25 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Neither is a society that penalizes the productive for being productive.

ruveyn


It might be nice rhetoric, but it's disingenuous. Coming from an intelligent source, it's a downright lie.

The basic rule of taxation is, "it never hurts you to earn an extra dollar." You might keep less of the last dollar that you earned this year than the first dollar, but that isn't penalizing you for being productive.


I'd prefer to go for the jugular when faced with such hollow rhetoric. The amount of money you make is NOT always measure of your productivity. In many cases the pay of a CEO or someone in upper management is a measure of the person's ability to exploit the labor of others.

It's funny how so much exposure to capitalist dogma makes me more sympathetic to Marxist criticism, even if I don't support Marxist solutions.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Sep 2011, 12:33 pm

marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

Are you literate? :roll: Quit changing the subject.


I am more literate than you. I read you loud and clear. You are out to get the rich because they are rich. It is class-warfare you are advocating.

ruveyn


You are not addressing my point regarding labor laws and minimum wages but instead changing the subject. Screw taxation. Do you or do you not support sweat shops and wage slavery?


I object to your term "wage-slavery". If a person works for a wage without threat of physical harm then he is not subject to "wage-slavery". That is a Marxist Commie term and totally overlooks the fact that people work voluntarily except for laborers in prison.

Labor is a commodity and its price should be established by supply and demand. Nothing else.

Minimum Wage is an imposition on those who hire others. You might make a case for the maintenance of basic safety in the work-place. No more Triangle Shirt Factory disasters thank you.
Anything beyond that is imposition and tyranny.

Any enclosed area that is open to the public should have sufficient doors for exist in case of fire.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

23 Sep 2011, 12:34 pm

ruveyn wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Neither is a society that penalizes the productive for being productive.

ruveyn


It might be nice rhetoric, but it's disingenuous. Coming from an intelligent source, it's a downright lie.

The basic rule of taxation is, "it never hurts you to earn an extra dollar." You might keep less of the last dollar that you earned this year than the first dollar, but that isn't penalizing you for being productive.


Granted that. Now why should the rich pay at a higher rate than the not rich?

ruveyn


Look at it as a transaction charge that nobody was entitled to in the first place. The value earned is the take-home pay. The transaction charge discourages management from vastly overcompensating themselves at the expense of productive workers. Or do you honestly believe a CEO can "earn" an 8 figure salary?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Sep 2011, 12:39 pm

marshall wrote:

Look at it as a transaction charge that nobody was entitled to in the first place. The value earned is the take-home pay. The transaction charge discourages management from vastly overcompensating themselves at the expense of productive workers. Or do you honestly believe a CEO can "earn" an 8 figure salary?


Not really. So do not do business with companies that are so generous with their executives and managers. If you don't like a company's policy, do not do business with them.

It is not the government's place to limit wages. Governments exist for the following reasons:

1. To maintain an armed force against enemies foreign
2. To maintain a police force against enemies domestic
3. To maintain courts of law to punish crimes and to settle torts peacefully
4. To organize resources in case of natural disaster.

Anything in addition to that is tyranny and mischief.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

23 Sep 2011, 12:43 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

Are you literate? :roll: Quit changing the subject.


I am more literate than you. I read you loud and clear. You are out to get the rich because they are rich. It is class-warfare you are advocating.

ruveyn


You are not addressing my point regarding labor laws and minimum wages but instead changing the subject. Screw taxation. Do you or do you not support sweat shops and wage slavery?


I object to your term "wage-slavery". If a person works for a wage without threat of physical harm then he is not subject to "wage-slavery". That is a Marxist Commie term and totally overlooks the fact that people work voluntarily except for laborers in prison.

Labor is a commodity and its price should be established by supply and demand. Nothing else.

Minimum Wage is an imposition on those who hire others. You might make a case for the maintenance of basic safety in the work-place. No more Triangle Shirt Factory disasters thank you.
Anything beyond that is imposition and tyranny.

Any enclosed area that is open to the public should have sufficient doors for exist in case of fire.

ruveyn


Well, I think the Marxist Commies had a point. I'm sorry if free-market dogmatists like yourself don't want to hear that. If people are going to be treated as commodities they might as well be slaves.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

23 Sep 2011, 12:47 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

Look at it as a transaction charge that nobody was entitled to in the first place. The value earned is the take-home pay. The transaction charge discourages management from vastly overcompensating themselves at the expense of productive workers. Or do you honestly believe a CEO can "earn" an 8 figure salary?


Not really. So do not do business with companies that are so generous with their executives and managers. If you don't like a company's policy, do not do business with them.

It is not the government's place to limit wages. Governments exist for the following reasons:

1. To maintain an armed force against enemies foreign
2. To maintain a police force against enemies domestic
3. To maintain courts of law to punish crimes and to settle torts peacefully
4. To organize resources in case of natural disaster.

Anything in addition to that is tyranny and mischief.

ruveyn


Just because you proclaim it doesn't mean society will agree with you. If you want society to operate under your unjust standards you will have to build an army and take over the government with guns. In the mean time I'm moving out of this country.



Last edited by marshall on 23 Sep 2011, 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

23 Sep 2011, 12:48 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

Look at it as a transaction charge that nobody was entitled to in the first place. The value earned is the take-home pay. The transaction charge discourages management from vastly overcompensating themselves at the expense of productive workers. Or do you honestly believe a CEO can "earn" an 8 figure salary?
It is not the government's place to limit wages.
Says who? You?

ruveyn wrote:
Governments exist for the following reasons:

1. To maintain an armed force against enemies foreign
2. To maintain a police force against enemies domestic
3. To maintain courts of law to punish crimes and to settle torts peacefully
4. To organize resources in case of natural disaster.

Anything in addition to that is tyranny and mischief.

ruveyn
The Government's most basic role of monopolizing force is the exact same reason the most basic Government regulations are necessary. If force is monopolized, that is one less check and balance against corruption among the powerful.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

23 Sep 2011, 12:56 pm

I'd like to add that I don't think minimum wages are necessary for mom and pop shops or small businesses. They are however necessary for the massive faceless/soulless entities known as multi-national corporations. A massive faceless/soulless entity will always exploit because it has no connection to local communities.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Sep 2011, 1:07 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Says who? You?

.


There is not a single word, not a syllable in the U.S. Constitution that gives the government the power to regulate wages. And regulation of interstate commerce does not cut it. Regulation of interstate commerce at the time of the adaption of the constitution consisted of regulating tariffs and imposts interstate and preventing obstructions to commerce on the rivers. Wage control is not constitutional. It never has been. If you want wage control then an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is called for.

ruveyn