Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Soda for Food StampsFollow

#352 Jan 18 2013 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,299 posts
Because that retired couple living on $180K/year investment income totally needs more SS checks.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#353 Jan 18 2013 at 11:24 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'm talking about a single flat tax. No exemptions. No deductions. Every single person pays the exact same percentage of their total income.
And pay the Medicare tax and Social Security on their whole income, too,right?


gbajirand wrote:
I was specifically talking about income tax. So, not capital gains, (which I believe should be lower or ideally zero), or payroll taxes (which have a different justification). But sure. I'd be fine with rolling medicare and social security into a completely flat income tax rate that every single person must pay.
Right; you do not want a flat tax, gotcha.

gbajirand wrote:
In other words, someone who earned $100k/year average over his life should receive twice the social security check as someone who earned $50k/year average if both of them are required to pay the same tax rate on their full income.

Cause that's fair, right?
If you're the kind of **** who thinks a nation shouldn't provide security for its weakest and poorest then, yes that seems totally fair.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#354 Jan 19 2013 at 4:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,950 posts
Kavekk wrote:
I'd favour a crushing 100% gbaji tax.


IRS agent wrote:
Shhhh.... No more words now. Only sleep.


____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#355 Jan 19 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Gbaji wrote:

But you just agreed that food stamps provided for food often actually result in other things being purchased because it frees the person from having to choose between buying food and buying something else. You even said this was a good thing. So I think it's more than fair to talk about the impact of helping people afford those other things.
....

So, it's not money for food. It is something more. WTF?
....

Of course it's relevant. It's relevant to anyone who isn't brain dead.
....

When people insist that any attempt to reduce food stamps allotments is wrong because "you'll be taking food out of people's mouths!", when those receiving the food stamps have enough extra money to pay for $800 cars, strippers, liquor, cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc, then the argument being used is absolutely deceptive. It's based on a false claim that if we reduce that person's food stamps, that they'll go hungry as a result. But that can't be true if that person has money to spend on any luxuries at all. That person *could* afford sufficient food to avoid hunger. If they choose not to in favor of hiring strippers, or buying lottery tickets, that is their choice. We should not feel sorry for their hunger at all. And we're certainly under no obligation to continue to reinforce their bad choices by simply giving them more money in the form of food stamps.

Yes. Which is what I've been saying all along. But for some bizarre reason you keep insisting that food stamps are for "buying food, nothing more, nothing less". That's absolutely false. For the vast majority of food stamps recipients, that money is "obviously" being spent elsewhere. So let's stop defending food stamps on the basis of them just being about buying food.

Sure. But when those people are maintaining $800/month cars? Or spending money on liquor, or cigarettes, or playing the lotto, or going to a casino, or buying a playstation, or any of hundreds of things that people spend money on that are not necessities? I have no problem with someone who receives food stamps, but if they are doing so, they should be so poor that they can't afford any luxuries at all (very few at least). They should at the very least meet the rest of us half way by making good choices about what little money they do have. Which is where this argument began. No one on food stamps should *ever* be choosing to buy soda at all anyway. They should not be buying chips, or crackers, or any form of snack food. If you are so poor that you require other people to help provide you with money to buy food, then you should be buying food, not junk.


We should not need to pass laws prohibiting what people spend their food stamps on. We should be limiting public assistance such that those who receive it will be forced to make good choices *or* go hungry (or end out on the street, etc). You yourself agree that people will do extreme things to avoid actual starvation (like committing crimes). But does this not also mean that they'll do something far less extreme (like not spending money on soda) long before reaching that extreme? If someone truly had a choice between soda and avoiding starvation, they'd choose to avoid starvation every single time. The reason why people on food stamps buy things like soda is because they are not remotely near that level of economic desperation. My argument is that we should be able to safely trim the benefit amounts to a point where people will make good choices while still being well above the "desperate" level economically. There has to be a point at which this will happen. We're way way way way way above it. The fact that so many people on assistance spend so much on luxuries is proof of this. The fact that differences between outcomes based on receipt of food stamps doesn't seem to change hunger rates at all is another bit of proof as well.


We can bury our heads in the sand and repeat rhetoric like "We must provide food stamps to people or they'll starve!", or we can look around at the real situation and make intelligent changes to our system. I'm simply suggesting the latter course.




So, I figured it out. This goes back to the "Tipping Thread" we previously had. You have no concept on how to manage money, so therefore, you don't understand that financially smart people categorize their spending into smaller budgets.

People have budgets for food, clothes, rent, etc., they just don't operate off of one giant budget. Therefore, if you pay for someone's lunch one day, you're covering down on that person's lunch. Just because that person later bought some cigarettes, doesn't mean that you bought that person cigarettes.


Your only counter argument would have to be that a person must be naked in the street with absolutely no access to anything before having access to food stamps.
If that's your argument, then fine, say it.

Else, it makes no sense to complain that a person is able to have something other than food and obtain food stamps. This isn't a 3rd world country, therefore, our level of "poor" shouldn't be the same.

Gbaji wrote:

WTF!? Take a language course some time. I honestly have no clue what you're trying to say here.


Yes, that was horribly worded. I even had a hard time rereading that. However, that doesn't necessitate a language course.

You insist that "something is left out" from my statement that people will commit a crime before starving to death and/or stuck in an ongoing cycle of "food insecurity". I'm telling you that there isn't anything left out because the topic is about people starving to death in the US and/or having "food insecurity". Anything else is irrelevant to the conversation, unless you have something else to add.

Gbaji wrote:
And you keep wobbling from one point to another. No one starves in the US as a result of lack of availability of food. Period. That has nothing to do with the fact that there are choices to be made between food insecurity and crime though.


Wobble between what? I've consistently agreed that people generally do not starve to death in the US, but will resort to crime before doing so. "Food insecurity" is a step above "starvation". So, if a person commits a crime at the "food insecurity" level to ensure sufficient food, wouldn't that prevent that individual from ever starving to death? There is simply too much food being thrown away everyday for people to starve to death, so people resort to crime. Unlike in a third world country where there simply isn't enough food regardless if you commit a crime or not.

Gbaji wrote:
That's great. But how do we determine if our current method of determining how much each case receives is correct or not? You say we should tailor the benefits to the cases, but then argue against someone like me simply pointing out that we're currently handing out more food stamps than we should because they're enabling people to buy other things than food. Then you insist that this is perfectly ok. Then you insist that if things aren't working we should adjust them. It's like you just run around in circles on this, never admitting that the other guy has a point, but never sticking to one yourself.



You're just so biased on the topic that now you're blaming me for your confusion. I've been consist this entire time and because I'm not a free-love tree hugging hippie who believes that anyone who wants something deserves something therefore should get it, you have no way to attack my stance. Furthermore, you can't compute how a person who is in so much support of food stamps can also be so strict on food stamps.

As I said to Belkira, I'm a centrist and not a "fake Romney wanting to win the Presidency" type of centrist, but a consistent one. I have changed and altered positions in the past, but through insight, not for judgement.

My argument against you isn't that we are handing too much food stamps out, but that the food stamps don't pay for food. You're arguing that a person must be naked in the street with no access to anything as a prerequisite for obtaining food stamps. I'm arguing against that and countering that there are times in people lives where they just need some additional support from the government in order to get back on their feet. Furthermore, that additional support should be regulated to where it isn't being abused.


Gbaji wrote:
Do you think that food stamps are currently correctly managed? Yes or no?


I can't answer that question because I don't know how it's being managed and I believe that holds true for you as well. There will always be people attempting to cheat the system, that doesn't mean that the system is inherently broken. It's a constant "cat and mouse" game that applies to everything in life. To pretend that it only applies to food stamps is asinine.



Edited, Jan 19th 2013 6:03pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#356 Jan 21 2013 at 3:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Right; you do not want a flat tax, gotcha.


Yes, I do. I was just pointing out that those other taxes are different and should have different rates. You do understand that payroll taxes are already flat (more or less). And if income taxes are flat then so are capital gains (just the long term rate is different).

Sounds more like you're trying to weasel out of the idea of a flat tax in the first place.

Quote:
gbajirand wrote:
In other words, someone who earned $100k/year average over his life should receive twice the social security check as someone who earned $50k/year average if both of them are required to pay the same tax rate on their full income.

Cause that's fair, right?
If you're the kind of @#%^ who thinks a nation shouldn't provide security for its weakest and poorest then, yes that seems totally fair.


Except that the entire selling point of social security is that it's a government managed retirement fund. You pay into it over the course of your working career, and then you draw from it when you retire. The amount you can draw is related to the amount you put in. The amount you can draw is capped though, which is why the maximum you put in is also capped. I'll point out that right now this already massively benefits those who are in the lower income brackets.

You're the one who argued for a flat tax. A flat tax means everyone pays the same percentage. Currently our taxes significantly benefit those who earn the least money. When you argue for a flat tax, you are arguing for higher taxes on the poor. But you seem to want to use the fair sounding label "flat tax", but want to pretend that it's actually something else entirely, and that it somehow magically is more "fair" but just to poor people or something. The reality is that if we made our taxes and spending "fair" it would significantly disadvantage poor people because currently those things are "unfair" in a way which benefits the poor.


You don't want a flat tax. You don't want a fair tax. You want unfair taxes and unfair spending such that the poor are provided for by the rich. So why not be honest and just say that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#357 Jan 21 2013 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Right; you do not want a flat tax, gotcha.
Yes, I do.
No, you don't. You want a different type of tax structure for different "types" of income. To my mind ALL gross income should be taxed at the same rate.

As one example; if you make money on an investment in a fiscal year, then take the proceeds and then invest in something that goes belly-up, you should still be taxed on the original gain, not be allowed to "take the loss" as a tax break.

gbaji wrote:
You don't want a flat tax. You don't want a fair tax. You want unfair taxes and unfair spending such that the poor are provided for by the rich. So why not be honest and just say that?
I want those who can't help themselves to be helped by the country, yes. Why is it that you don't?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#358 Jan 21 2013 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,253 posts
Now I want soda, and it's all this thread's fault.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#359 Jan 21 2013 at 5:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Right; you do not want a flat tax, gotcha.
Yes, I do.
No, you don't. You want a different type of tax structure for different "types" of income. To my mind ALL gross income should be taxed at the same rate.


There's already a different tax structure for different types of income. It's not something I "want", but something that already exists. You mentioned the mortgage interest deduction, which applies to just one of the three major types of federal taxes most people pay. I said that I'd be perfectly willing to give up said deduction if we gave up all other deductions and made the tax flat. We were speaking about income taxes.

We can talk about what we should do with payroll and capital gains taxes as well, but those are additional separate taxes. We were talking about deductions to income taxes. I spoke of a flat tax within that context.

Quote:
As one example; if you make money on an investment in a fiscal year, then take the proceeds and then invest in something that goes belly-up, you should still be taxed on the original gain, not be allowed to "take the loss" as a tax break.


First off, you can't claim a future loss on today's taxes anyway (unless you can see the future, which the IRS tends to frown on). So if I gain in year 1, I will pay capital gains taxes on that gain in year 1. Period. If I then lose money in year 2, I can claim that loss in year 2. Why shouldn't I? I lost money. So if my total earnings is $80k, but I lost $15k on an investment, I absolutely should be allowed to reduce my earnings to $65k when calculating taxes because that's how much I actually earned that year (80-15=65).

That's not a special tax deduction. It's an actual deduction in the amount of money you made that year. That's completely different than say paying $12k in mortgage interest and claiming $12k less income that year. You didn't actually earn less money, you paid $12 in interest out of the money you earned. That payment is part of something you are buying and which (in theory) benefits you in the long run. It's not a straight loss, it's part of what you pay when you buy a house. We make a special exception in that case because our government wants to soften the blow of buying a home as much as possible. That still makes it a reasonable target if you want to eliminate deductions, but it's wholly different than capital gains and losses.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
You don't want a flat tax. You don't want a fair tax. You want unfair taxes and unfair spending such that the poor are provided for by the rich. So why not be honest and just say that?
I want those who can't help themselves to be helped by the country, yes.


So you don't want a flat tax. Remember back when I said that I do, but you don't? Can we now move past you claiming that you really do want one, even more than I do?

Quote:
Why is it that you don't?


I believe that in many cases, the country doesn't help people in the long run by doing this, and much of the money we spend it either wasted, or counter productive. It's not a matter of you caring for the poor and me not, but you and I disagreeing dramatically on the best methods to help the poor. I believe the best way to help them is to maximize their ability to move themselves out of poverty. You believe the best way is to provide them with sufficient goods and services so as to make poverty a more livable condition.


I think you're wrong because your method makes it easier for people to remain poor, thus increasing the odds of people remaining poor for a larger portion of their lives (and likely passing their poverty on to their children). You think I'm wrong because you think I don't care about the poor at all. Do you see how we're really arguing completely different things?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#360 Jan 21 2013 at 5:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
And since I know some knucklehead will jump on me for this: Yes. I'm fully aware that gains and losses can be spread over multiple years (in some cases). That's a more complex issue though, and well outside the scope of the discussion. At the end of the day a capital gain or loss is a direct increase or decrease to one's actual earnings. That's what makes them different than a deduction on something you spent money on over the course of a year.

And all that really is irrelevant, since a flat income tax would also make short term capital gains flat as well. Since long term gains is already flat, it's really a silly thing to go on about in the context of whether we should adopt a flat tax and what effect that has.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#361 Jan 21 2013 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
You can edit posts.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#362 Jan 21 2013 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
I spoke of a flat tax within that context.
And I'm talking about any and all income. There should be no separation. Income is income.

gbaji wrote:
First off, you can't claim a future loss on today's taxes anyway (unless you can see the future, which the IRS tends to frown on). So if I gain in year 1, I will pay capital gains taxes on that gain in year 1. Period. If I then lose money in year 2, I can claim that loss in year 2. Why shouldn't I? I lost money.
1. I was talking about within the same year.
2. You gambled and lost. You should not be rewarded for making a poor choice.



gbaji wrote:
So you don't want a flat tax. Remember back when I said that I do, but you don't? Can we now move past you claiming that you really do want one, even more than I do?
True. I want a tiered tax but a flat rate at that tier with zero deductions.

gbaji wrote:
It's not a matter of you caring for the poor and me not..
Yes, it really is. You got yours and you're done. Everyone else can just go **** off in your world. I've read your selfish bile for the last six years. Trying to convince me otherwise is fruitless, unless you have a pile of things to unsay.



Just so were clear, you may note that I have repeatedly written "those that cannot help themselves". As in: elderly, disabled, chronically ill, children, etc. Not "lazy people".
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#363 Jan 21 2013 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Kavekk wrote:
You can edit posts.


Don't worry. I'm the only person who can get banned for that.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#364 Jan 21 2013 at 8:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I spoke of a flat tax within that context.
And I'm talking about any and all income. There should be no separation. Income is income.


Ok. But that's a different argument than saying you're for a flat tax. You're arguing that all federal taxes should be treated as income tax, rolling payroll, income, and capital gains into one tax system. That's an entirely different argument and has massive ramifications far far beyond just how we divvy up the tax rates among income brackets within our income tax system.

You also don't really believe that income is income. You only want it treated as such when it fits into your "tax the rich more and the poor less" narrative.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
First off, you can't claim a future loss on today's taxes anyway (unless you can see the future, which the IRS tends to frown on). So if I gain in year 1, I will pay capital gains taxes on that gain in year 1. Period. If I then lose money in year 2, I can claim that loss in year 2. Why shouldn't I? I lost money.
1. I was talking about within the same year.


Then that makes no sense at all. We're taxed on money we earn over the course of a year. Key word "earn". You're attempting to create arbitrary differentiations between what counts as earnings and losses. As I said, it makes no sense at all. With regard to capital gains, it's all added together. You might gain X dollars in investments but lose Y dollars on other investments over the same period of time. The price of the gains is the cost of the losses. That's what "risk" is about.

You're painting yourself into a bizarre corner if you try to go down this line of reasoning.

Quote:
2. You gambled and lost. You should not be rewarded for making a poor choice.


Your problem is that you're looking a this as being rewarded in the first place. The correct way to look at it is that you are being taxed on the actual total amount of money you made. If you earn $100 and lose $50, then your net earnings are $50. That's what you should be taxed on. It's insane to try to do it the way you're saying. Attempting to do this would create massively horrible side effects which I'm not sure you really understand.


It also has nothing to do with the idea of flat taxes either.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
So you don't want a flat tax. Remember back when I said that I do, but you don't? Can we now move past you claiming that you really do want one, even more than I do?
True. I want a tiered tax but a flat rate at that tier with zero deductions.


Which is not a flat tax. A flat tax means that everyone the tax applies to pays the same rate. If you have different tiers of rates (presumably based on income), then it's not a flat tax. You used the wrong term.


But I'll bite on what you claim you want as well. Do you really want zero deductions? So no standard deduction, nor deductions for dependents? No Earned Income Tax Credit? No deductions for medical expenses? Do you understand that deductions also massively benefit those in the lower income brackets as well? Want to know why? Because no matter how you get around it the poor are either much more likely to spend a larger percentage of their total earnings on things which will qualify them for a deduction or are much more likely for standard deductions to make up a larger percentage of their earnings.

A set standard deduction clearly benefits someone who makes less money more than someone who makes more money. Same deal with deductions per dependent. And the EITC specifically applies to those who have low incomes.

Just as I don't think you really want a flat tax, I don't think you really want to eliminate deductions. You just want to eliminate those which benefit those people you think can/should pay more in taxes. Again though, that' not about fairness, it's about making our tax code increasingly unfair in order to fulfill a social agenda. I'm not saying it's wrong for you to want to do that, but again I'll ask that you be honest about what you really want instead of wrapping it in terms that don't really match what you really want.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not a matter of you caring for the poor and me not..
Yes, it really is. You got yours and you're done. Everyone else can just go @#%^ off in your world. I've read your selfish bile for the last six years. Trying to convince me otherwise is fruitless, unless you have a pile of things to unsay.


I'm not going to convince you. But I might convince someone else reading this just how irrationally and unfairly you are interpreting what I write. I have never said that the poor should just fuck off. I've been incredibly consistent (for over a decade now) in saying that I believe the best way to deal with poverty is to provide people with the maximum opportunities to avoid/escape it. Making poverty more comfortable is the exact wrong way to deal with it.

You're free to disagree with me, but it's somewhat counterproductive to just insist that I hold the positions I do because I'm some kind of vile and evil person who just loves to see other people suffer. At some point, that just gets to be a bit tiring and frankly the whole twirling mustache villain riff is overdone even in films and makes less sense in real life. There are many motivations for people doing things. Very very rarely is that motivation "I'm a bad guy and I like to do bad things". The real world isn't that simple.

Quote:
Just so were clear, you may note that I have repeatedly written "those that cannot help themselves". As in: elderly, disabled, chronically ill, children, etc. Not "lazy people".


And the day the left can come up with an even semi accurate method of objectively distinguishing between those two groups (which will work when implemented in a government social program), that argument will work as a general argument for social spending. You want to "help the poor" because that fills an emotional need. But who is "the poor"? Which of the poor actually need help, and which are just scamming you for a free lunch? Hard to tell. Again, I'm not saying don't help those in need. I'm saying that there are better ways of doing it than just handing out a free lunch to anyone who claims to be in need. That's just asking for abuse, and will dramatically decrease the help per dollar of cost.

While off topic, this is why I much prefer private charitable organizations to big government programs. They are much better able to ensure that those who really need their help receive it, and that those who are trying working the system are less likely to do so. They also tend to have very good track records of actually getting people in need back on their feet and back into being productive members of society (to the greatest extent possible), while also identifying those who are truly in need. Government bureaucracy is terrible at that. They fill out forms. People stamp them. Money flows. Everyone along the chain has near to zero interest in preventing abuses, and in many cases actual incentive to allow it.


But I'm sure you'll continue to assume that I just don't care about anyone but myself. Never mind that I want other people to succeed. I want them to live the American dream. I want to help them help themselves. I know that sounds like a silly slogan, but it's true. I have no problem helping those who are truly in need, but that's not what a whole lot of our social spending dollars do. Just like with food stamps, the bigger these programs get dollar wise, the more wasteful they become and the less they are helping compared to how much they are hurting. Ultimately, someone has to work to earn money to pay taxes for the "help" the government wants to provide. So it behooves us to have as many people working as possible. So an approach that attempts to maximize employment and advancement opportunities works well, and one that attempts to maximize the number of people who qualify for government benefits works poorly. If that's your goal. If the method is the end (ie: you want as many people dependent on government entitlements as possible as a means of political control), then the liberal approach is exactly what you'd want to do.


That's one of many reasons why I believe my position is better. It's better from the perspective of helping those who could be successful on their own. It's better for those who truly do need help. And it's better from a general personal liberty perspective as well (which is kinda what our whole system of government is based on ). I don't hold the positions I do because I hate poor people, but because I don't think that big government solutions are the best way to deal with their situation. And I happen to think that overly simplistic rhetoric doesn't help the issue at all.

Edited, Jan 21st 2013 6:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#365 Jan 21 2013 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,550 posts
Kavekk wrote:
You can edit posts.


QFT
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#366 Jan 21 2013 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
The point, gbaji, that you are utterly missing for the one millionth time is that all people are not equal.

Some are dumb.

Some are weak.

Some are crazy.

Some are inrcedibly ugly.

Point being, no matter you rhetoric on "striving for a better life/job" some just won't...ever.


What you consider a "starter job" (McD's, Wal-Mart, etc) is the best these folk will ever achieve. If they are paid a living wage, they won't need government assistance {{the full-time working poor, that is}}, now will they?

So, yeah. If any given job will pay enough for food shelter clothing and health care then, yes, I'm all for no government assistance, too.





ALSO: Your saying that you are not a cold-hearted @#%^ does not undo all you previous posts proving you are. Just sayin'.



ETA: I don't think you enjoy seeing people suffer. I think you just don't care at all.

EDIT: {{In}}

Edited, Jan 21st 2013 10:12pm by Bijou
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#367 Jan 21 2013 at 9:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Just for clarity:

I have a chronic, progressive disease. It is robbing me of my sight daily. It is treatable. I cannot afford to be seen.


Is it better for the country in the long run if I get preventative care NOW, or total care after I am too **** blind to continue to be a productive (TAXPAYING!) member of society?

If you answer is preventative care then you would naturaly support government paid health care, right?


____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#368 Jan 21 2013 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,564 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Just for clarity:

I have a chronic, progressive disease. It is robbing me of my sight daily. It is treatable. I cannot afford to be seen.


Is it better for the country in the long run if I get preventative care NOW, or total care after I am too @#%^ing blind to continue to be a productive (TAXPAYING!) member of society?

If you answer is preventative care then you would naturaly support government paid health care, right?

Private charity takes care of this, duh.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#369 Jan 21 2013 at 10:31 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
You do understand that payroll taxes are already flat

Aside from that part where I pay <1% of my income and most people pay 6%, yeah, they're perfectly flat. What we should do, really is just tax people on the first 200k and after that just call the rest "winner's spoils". Why punish success?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#370 Jan 21 2013 at 11:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,253 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I spoke of a flat tax within that context.
And I'm talking about any and all income. There should be no separation. Income is income.


Ok. But that's a different argument than saying you're for a flat tax. You're arguing that all federal taxes should be treated as income tax, rolling payroll, income, and capital gains into one tax system. That's an entirely different argument and has massive ramifications far far beyond just how we divvy up the tax rates among income brackets within our income tax system.



No, he is saying he is for a flat tax. As in all income is income. And all tax is tax on income. And you pay taxes according exactly to the amount of money (aka income) that you have. Including inheritances. Including capital gains.


Edited, Jan 21st 2013 10:01pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#371 Jan 22 2013 at 5:28 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
It costs me 2 bucks for 500ml which is about 15 bucks a gallon when all is said and done.
Milk prices vary across Canada, but there is no **** way Ontario is double NS. Stop buying 500ml cartoons moron and buy in bulk at 2L or 4L. 4L costs $6-8 here, depending on whether the store sells it at cost or not.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#372 Jan 22 2013 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,815 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:


gbaji wrote:
You don't want a flat tax. You don't want a fair tax. You want unfair taxes and unfair spending such that the poor are provided for by the rich. So why not be honest and just say that?
I want those who can't help themselves to be helped by the country, yes. Why is it that you don't?

They're just faking.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#373 Jan 22 2013 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
It costs me 2 bucks for 500ml which is about 15 bucks a gallon when all is said and done.
Milk prices vary across Canada, but there is no @#%^ing way Ontario is double NS. Stop buying 500ml cartoons moron and buy in bulk at 2L or 4L. 4L costs $6-8 here, depending on whether the store sells it at cost or not.


You be getting hosed son. Costs 5 bucks for 4L here, unfortunately I don't think it is functionally viable to show up with a 4L sac of milk at work. Ill continue buying my 500mL for breaks and lunch, ill leave my 4L bags at home.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#374 Jan 22 2013 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,950 posts
Quote:
2. You gambled and lost. You should not be rewarded for making a poor choice.


No, Gbaji is correct here. You aren't being rewarded with this mechanic, you already are punished by the investment losing value. If you had a job for 6 mo. and then lost it for 6mo. you don't pay tax on the last 6mo. (and have some subsidization via UEI), same thing is going on here. The part which has an unfair reward is the much lower and more easily fudge-able tax on investment returns, which makes certain compensation structures vastly more lucrative than standard wage-income.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#375 Jan 22 2013 at 4:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Point being, no matter you rhetoric on "striving for a better life/job" some just won't...ever.


Sure. And fewer will if you give them an easy choice like working the system for benefits. So is it better to provide easy access to benefits for those you've already concluded will not succeed no matter how hard they try if the cost is for many more people to fail to reach their potential because they foolishly fall into the trap of easy entitlements? If we assume the first group cannot possibly succeed then we don't do them any favors in terms of long term outcomes by handing them things. We do, however, significantly harm the second group.

I put myself in the "do no harm" category on that one. I'd rather risk failing to provide for someone who utterly cannot provide for himself than risk causing a harmful outcome to someone else.

Quote:
What you consider a "starter job" (McD's, Wal-Mart, etc) is the best these folk will ever achieve.


While I'm sure that may be true in some cases, I think you have far less faith in your fellow man and their ability to improve and advance than I do. I think a **** of a lot of people who think "I can't do it" actually could, if they were given the encouragement to do so. Certainly making it easy for them to not even try is not helping them at all.

Quote:
If they are paid a living wage, they won't need government assistance, now will they?


That's yet another argument though. There's no such things as paying a "living wage". It's an illusion sold to people who don't understand economics. The minimum wage is based on the relative value of the things produced by minimum wage labor to other things produced within the economy. Period. It does not matter what arbitrary dollar number you assign to it. If tomorrow you raise the minimum wage from $8.00/hour to $20.00/hour, then costs will rise to make $20.00 buy what $8.00 did before.

The only way to increase the real wages of a worker is for the output of the workers labor to be more valued to others in the market. And the best way for that to happen (from an individual standpoint) is through time and experience (and training/whatever). It's a good thing for minimum wage to pay as little as possible. I know that seems counterintuitive, but it's true.

Quote:
So, yeah. If any given job will pay enough for food shelter clothing and health care then, yes, I'm all for no government assistance, too.


All jobs? So the high school kid working part time at the local burger barn should earn enough money to pay for his own home, food, clothing, health insurance, transportation, etc? Again, while this may seem counterintuitive to most people, if your lowest wages are not lower than that need to pay entirely for a home, food, clothing, etc, then you actually make it harder for those who need to be able to pay for their own homes, food, clothing, etc to do so.

Here's an example which illustrates why: Let's assume a business is open 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and has 3 people on each shift. This gives us a total of 252 hours of labor that has to be paid. Let's assume that the profits on the store sales allow for an average pay of $8/hour ($2016/week in this case). Let's also assume that we're currently employing 10 part time students and 2 full time shift leaders/managers. So the breakdown is 80 hours for my managers and the remaining 172 hours for my part time students (average of 17.2 hours a week each). If minimum wage is $5/hour then we can pay the 10 students $5/hour each, for a total of (5*172) $860/week. This leaves us (2016-860) $1156 to divvy up among the remaining 80 hours, which works out to $14.45/hour for my two managers.

What this allows me to do is hire a couple of single moms, who are more responsible than the typical high school or college student (and will stick around longer) and pay them a "living wage". In this case, each of my two store managers are making about $30k/year. Not bad at all for managing at a small business, right? And the students are making far less than they can live on by themselves (17.2 hours/week average at $5/hour works out to $4500/year). But they're students. This is temporary labor. They'll move on (nearly all of them will).

What happens if we raise the minimum wage to $8/hour? Everyone makes $8/hour. The employer can no longer afford to pay his managers more. The students, most of whom this is just beer money, make more of it. But those who really needed a better paying job no longer have it. Raise minimum wage enough and you completely drown out the "unskilled professional" labor market.

Quote:
ETA: I don't think you enjoy seeing people suffer. I think you just don't care at all.


I do care. I care enough to look at what solutions actually work versus those that simplistically appear to do so (but don't actually work at all). I care enough to look at social statistics and realize that a whole lot of the recipients of our social spending don't ever seem to improve their lives. I look at studies like the one I linked to earlier showing not only no correlation between food stamps and decreased food insecurity but in fact an *increase* in food insecurity associated with food stamps. I look at what the actual outcomes are, not what the social engineers tell us they should be. And I notice the difference between the "should be" and the "actually are".

I care about the actual results. You care about appearing to care by following along with a politically correct solution. Doesn't matter that those solutions often don't work and that they sometimes cause more harm than good. You're in a crowd of people who all assume that "caring" equals agreeing with and supporting those specific solutions. So you all clap yourselves on the back for how much you "care", and never once notice that the people you care so much about seem to be worse off each year. And if you do happen to notice, it never occurs to you that maybe what you're doing to show you care isn't actually helping them.


Caring isn't enough. Doing the right thing matters even more. I don't believe that most of our social spending is the right thing. And that has nothing to do with me not caring. Quite the opposite. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother to argue the point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#376 Jan 22 2013 at 4:46 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
a 4L sac of milk at work...leave my 4L bags at home

That never gets old, no matter how many times I hear it.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#377 Jan 22 2013 at 4:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
You do understand that payroll taxes are already flat

Aside from that part where I pay <1% of my income and most people pay 6%, yeah, they're perfectly flat.


Which was the "(more or less)" part that you stripped out of the sentence when quoting me. It's flat up to a specific income level. You don't pay 1% payroll tax. You pay the same 6% that everyone else does on the first ~$100k of your income. And you know darn well that the reason for this is because of the vestment system. Once you've paid X dollars into the system, you are considered "fully vested" in the program and now qualify for full benefits. Any dollars beyond that is dollars paid to cover for other people who don't fully vest into the system. Anyone hitting that income cap has likely been fully vested for years, so 100% of the money they pay in at that point is money that goes to pay for other people's benefits, not theirs. Complaining that we don't take more money from them while giving them nothing in return is a bit strange.

This is why I said I'd have no problem with a flat tax with no income cap *if* benefits were not capped as well. Since they cap benefits based on dollars put into the system, it's completely fair to cap dollars taxed (it's actually still unfair to those paying more money after fully vested really). If you want to remove that cap on the tax, you need to remove the cap on the benefits. This obviously applies more to social security than medicare, but that's at least a starting point on making the benefits more proportional to the contribution.

Quote:
What we should do, really is just tax people on the first 200k and after that just call the rest "winner's spoils". Why punish success?


Again, different taxes for different things. Apples and oranges.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#378 Jan 22 2013 at 5:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
No, he is saying he is for a flat tax. As in all income is income.


Sigh. Those are two different things. What makes a tax "flat" is whether the tax rate changes based on the amount of earnings being taxed.

Treating all earnings the same is a separate issue which has absolutely nothing to do with whether a given tax is flat. I'm just not sure how much more clearly I can say this.

Quote:
And all tax is tax on income. And you pay taxes according exactly to the amount of money (aka income) that you have. Including inheritances. Including capital gains.


So no sales tax then? No import tariffs? What about corporate taxes? There are a host of different types of taxes, all with different rules. Arguing to scrap the whole system and just treat every dollar of economic activity exactly the same is a legitimate argument to make, but at the risk of repeating myself, has nothing to do with arguing for a flat tax within the context of a discussion about tax deductions on regular income.

Capital gains *is* taxed as regular income. Unless the gain is a "long term gain" (meaning the investment was held for at least a year before selling it). There are very good reasons why we tax long term capital gains at a lower rate than short term gains (and income itself). It encourages investors to actually invest in things that build and grow and make products rather than play quick gambles on the market trends. We want that. Eliminating the reduced tax rate for capital gains would hurt our economy and absolutely hurt job creation.

Payroll taxes are also managed separately, for their own reasons. We can have a discussion about this, but it's not the same as simply saying "I want a flat tax". A flat tax means you think every dollar of a given set of earnings should be taxed at the same rate. No deductions. No credits. No manipulation. No loopholes. Everyone pays X% on their earnings. I really don't think that's what most liberals actually want.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#379 Jan 23 2013 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
Treating all earnings the same is a separate issue which has absolutely nothing to do with whether a given tax is flat.

Not really. All "earnings" are "income". Different rules for income from different sources means a non flat income tax by definition. What you want, apparently, is "a flat tax rate on certain income, retaining the existing exemptions that are beneficial almost exclusively to high income groups" Which is a defensible position, but not in any way related to a "flat tax".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#380 Jan 23 2013 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
but at the risk of repeating myself
Here it's a risk, elsewhere it's a badge of honor. Only consistency seems to be is you do it no matter what.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#381 Jan 23 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Why punish success?


There's a better return on investment.

Besides if you take a rich person's money, they just go out and make more anyway. Take a poor persons money, and they get all protesty and demand food stamps and welfare babies and such.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#382gbaji, Posted: Jan 23 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No. I was interpreting the phrase "flat tax" within the context it's overwhelmingly and commonly used. You know, common language and all that. Bring up the subject of a flat tax and 99.9% of all people (who have an opinion about it in the first place) will respond as though you're talking about taking the current progressive tax brackets applied to federal tax on regular income and replace them with a single tax rate applied to every dollar that the tax itself applies to. If wanted to talk about consolidating income, capital gains, and payroll taxes into one single tax, you'd say that's what you wanted to do. You wouldn't say "I think we should implement a flat tax".
#383 Jan 23 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
If wanted to talk about consolidating income, capital gains, and payroll taxes into one single tax, you'd say that's what you wanted to do.


Well my arbitrary 99.9% of all people consider those sources of income...that are not taxed equally to income generated by employment ie. Not flat.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#384 Jan 23 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
If wanted to talk about consolidating income, capital gains, and payroll taxes into one single tax, you'd say that's what you wanted to do.


Well my arbitrary 99.9% of all people consider those sources of income...that are not taxed equally to income generated by employment ie. Not flat.


No. You mean: Not equal. You're using the wrong word. The word "flat" in the phrase "flat tax" refers to the graph of rate versus volume. There is no equivalent concept of "flat" when comparing tax rates on payroll or tax rates on long term investment to tax rates on direct compensation. They really are completely different things. I get that some people use the phrase "flat tax" as a talisman to mean whatever ideal and fair tax system they'd like to implement, but that's more a matter of people misusing the phrase than any rational implementation of its actual meaning.


Look though. Having said all this, if we want to discuss tossing all our different taxes into one bucket, we can discuss that. However, I also don't think that most liberals really want that. The outcomes would be almost completely opposite of the kinds of tax policies that liberals push for. I just find it incredibly amusing because despite liberals constantly insisting that our current tax system is unfair, that system itself is largely the result of their own political agenda and desires. The very things that make our taxes "non-flat" (in whatever context you want to use), are things that overwhelmingly benefit the social agenda of the left over the last century. When liberals complain about our tax system, it's not because it's not flat, but because it's not "unflat" enough for them. They want more of the tax burden borne by the rich and more of the benefits of those taxes spent on the poor. Any argument for any sort of flat tax system would go in the opposite direction.


Payroll taxes are already "flat" (to a point). What liberals want isn't to make other income that poor people pay flat, but to make payroll taxes more like regular income (ie: progressive). That way the poor can reap the benefits of social security and medicare, without having to pay for it (or pay less for it). Liberals love our progressive tax rates on regular income. This is why I keep wondering why any liberal would argue for a "flat tax". That's not really what you want, no matter what language you use. You don't want all earnings consolidated into one lump and then taxed at the same flat rate regardless of volume and without any deductions. You want all earnings consolidated into one lump and then taxed progressively with as many deductions and credits for those in the lower income brackets as possible.

You can call that a "flat tax" but at that point the label ceases to have any meaning.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#385 Jan 23 2013 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,253 posts
Making money is making money. Whether you make it peddling lemonade on the side of the road or paying into a mutual fund, or cleaning toilets for minimum wage shouldn't matter if you are -truly- in favour of a flat tax. I see a lot of words up there, but I don't see any explanation of why, if you are in favour of a flat tax, you aren't in favour of treating all income equally.

Also... semi related to the original topic...tangentally at least... the NAACP is fighting New York's movement to curb soda sizes. I'm confused about how restricting the size of sodas sold is racist...

Quote:
Opponents also are raising questions of racial fairness alongside other complaints as the novel restriction faces a court test.

The NAACP's New York state branch and the Hispanic Federation have joined beverage makers and sellers in trying to stop the rule from taking effect March 12. Critics are attacking what they call an inconsistent and undemocratic regulation, while city officials and health experts defend it as a pioneering and proper move to fight obesity.

The issue is complex for the minority advocates, especially given that obesity rates are higher than average among blacks and Hispanics, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The groups say in court papers they're concerned about the discrepancy, but the soda rule will unduly harm minority businesses and "freedom of choice in low-income communities."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUGARY_DRINKS_LAWSUIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-23-06-18-52



Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 2:33pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#386 Jan 23 2013 at 4:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
Making money is making money. Whether you make it peddling lemonade on the side of the road or paying into a mutual fund, or cleaning toilets for minimum wage shouldn't matter if you are -truly- in favour of a flat tax. I see a lot of words up there, but I don't see any explanation of why, if you are in favour of a flat tax, you aren't in favour of treating all income equally.


Different axis of income though. I already explained this. There's a difference between the method of earning and the amount of earning. It's quite consistent to say you believe that we should not treat income differently based on volume, but we should treat it differently based on type. Why should the thousandth dollar I earn be taxed at a different rate than the first? If I provided the same amount of value to my customers/boss while earning that dollar, why does the government feel I should pay a higher tax rate on it?


I've also already explained why long term capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate then income taxes. While you may not agree, there really is a difference between the guy who invested money into some venture, which then increased in value by $10,000, versus the guy who worked at said venture and was paid $10,000. One is a return on direct labor, the other is a return on investment. We need both, obviously, but each is a different side of the equation. The guy who invested the money created wealth for others. That means that if his investment increased in value, it also had to provide other taxable economic events in addition to the gain itself. This is why some argue that capital gains should not be taxed at all (but that's a whole different discussion).


Put another way, lower taxes on capital gains is why we have an investment market accessible to more than just the already rich in the first place. If you tax gains as income, then there's no reason for the rich to use a public share based system to invest in business ventures. They'd just form partnerships with other rich people directly and reap all the benefits themselves. Now if you want to create an ivory tower with the rich on one side and the rest of us on the other, then by all means, tax capital gains the same as income. But I don't think that's what most people really want.


It's just simpler to look at people earning money and paying a lower rate of taxes on it and declaring it to be unfair. But the issue isn't that simple.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#387 Jan 23 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,253 posts
Oh so you believe people who don't work should get paid more.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#388 Jan 23 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
Oh so you believe people who don't work should get paid more.


I believe that's the wrong way to look at it. The value of what someone does is based on the benefit it provides to others, not the cost to the person doing it. You (and many people) have this strange idea that it's the other way around. If I could save 1 million people from hunger by pushing a button, would that minimal amount of work not be just as valuable as a host of relief workers handing out food? If the outcome is identical, then the "value" is the same.

How hard someone works is irrelevant to the equation. That sort of thinking is what leads some people to think that we can create economic growth by employing people just for the sake of creating jobs rather than for the value of what their labor produces. They think if we just increase wages for the same labor that this will magically improve people's economic fortunes. They think that the value of a executive signing papers in his office is less than that of a worker in his factory. Those are all grossly false assumptions though.

Dollars of wealth represent savings of past value assessment of labor. If I work for 20 years and save up a million dollars, when I invest that million dollars, I'm not doing "no work", I'm investing the fruits of a whole lot of work I already did and for which I've received nothing in return. While the action of investing it may not seem like it's something I should earn money on, that's because you're failing to see the whole picture. You're failing to see that in order to have the money to invest in the first place, I had to provide a million dollars more in value to others than I took for myself first. Also, in order to earn anything off that investment, the thing I invested in has to also increase in value (again to others) equal to the amount my investment grows. It's not magic. I only make money on investments if the value of the investment grows. This means that someone else has to be willing to pay more money for the thing after I invested in it, than they would have paid for it prior to my investment.

There's also a risk factor. The employee working a shift at his job doesn't risk anything. It's a straight exchange of labor for pay. The investor is risking past pay to invest. That's a choice. He could have taken that past pay and simply bought stuff for himself to enjoy. This is a choice anyone can make, but many simply choose to benefit themselves directly instead. That's also their choice. But don't suggest that the person who decided to invest is somehow cheating the system. He's not. The returns on his investment are as fairly earned as if he'd sweated at some labor. Again, the value is based on the benefit to others, not the cost to oneself. Thinking otherwise is completely backwards and will lead you to some bizarre and unworkable outcomes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#389 Jan 23 2013 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
There's also a risk factor. The employee working a shift at his job doesn't risk anything. It's a straight exchange of labor for pay. The investor is risking past pay to invest. That's a choice. He could have taken that past pay and simply bought stuff for himself to enjoy. This is a choice anyone can make, but many simply choose to benefit themselves directly instead. That's also their choice. But don't suggest that the person who decided to invest is somehow cheating the system. He's not. The returns on his investment are as fairly earned as if he'd sweated at some labor. Again, the value is based on the benefit to others, not the cost to oneself. Thinking otherwise is completely backwards and will lead you to some bizarre and unworkable outcomes.


Whoa, that is some sideways thinking there. Workers all over the world work everyday for one reason...produce **** for other people and to line investors pockets with cash. If investors lose money people lose jobs case in point your countries current employment issues. If the rich folks are making less money then no one gets to make. Shut up shop, move it oversees, pay fractions on the dollar so robots can manufacture the same junk at fractions of the price.

Profits drive equity. People who work don't get paid in exchange for labor, they get paid in exchange for consumption. If no one buys the product, no one has a job. It is irrelevant whether you make 60K or 10K. Your entire economic health is decided by a panel of few men who invest monies they did not work for themselves.

Then the best part. These investors stash money in off shore accounts so they can skip paying taxes in America. Meanwhile the people the graciously provide employment to get taxed, extra fees, increasing cost. All lobbied by factions of these rich investors, the Big Pharm, the Financial Sectors. And why do they do this...to drive up the cost of living ensuring more profits for them and in turn more people to make more **** to line their pockets with more money.

Anyone who stashes money off shore should have their assest seized and their citizenship expunged, and be exiled to some **** so they can learn what life isn't like inheriting daddies silver spoon from blood money in Germany. This is what really happens in economic life any sideways thinking leads you into dead end corners where you can only be made to look like an illiterate moron who doesn't understand basic math or economics
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#390 Jan 23 2013 at 6:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,253 posts
gbaji wrote:
The employee working a shift at his job doesn't risk anything.


Of course. No one has ever died in a workplace accident, ever.

I'm sure a lot more people have died while dialing up their stock broker than in a mine, or in a factory... etc.

____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#391 Jan 23 2013 at 6:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The employee working a shift at his job doesn't risk anything.


Of course. No one has ever died in a workplace accident, ever.

I'm sure a lot more people have died while dialing up their stock broker than in a mine, or in a factory... etc.



Sorry. I thought it was clear what context I was speaking in. He doesn't risk anything economically. If a store goes belly up, the owner loses every dime he invested in his business, which may represent decades of his own savings (and perhaps those of his family as well), loans taken out on his house, property, etc. The employee loses a job, which cost him the time to fill out the application to get. Seriously. The employee is paid for every hour of labor as he works it (subject to pay schedule of course). Everything he "spends" (his labor) is rewarded. If the business goes down, no one reaches into his bank account and takes back all the paychecks he received while employed there or makes him pay it back if he doesn't have it any more.

That's why I say that he isn't risking anything.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 4:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#392 Jan 23 2013 at 6:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I believe that's the wrong way to look at it. The value of what someone does is based on the benefit it provides to others, not the cost to the person doing it.


So, you finally agree that the a waiter's tip is *supposed* to be based off of the service provided?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#393 Jan 23 2013 at 6:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Workers all over the world work everyday for one reason...produce sh*t for other people and to line investors pockets with cash.


No. They work in order to earn a paycheck. Talk about sideways thinking.

Quote:
If investors lose money people lose jobs case in point your countries current employment issues. If the rich folks are making less money then no one gets to make. Shut up shop, move it oversees, pay fractions on the dollar so robots can manufacture the same junk at fractions of the price.


And when investors make money, people get jobs, they get pay raises, they get stock options, they get improved quality of life in the form of new products and goods for sale. I'll also point out that if the investor loses money, he lost money. We were talking about capital gains. So what happens when the investor makes money?

Quote:
Profits drive equity. People who work don't get paid in exchange for labor, they get paid in exchange for consumption.


Correct. Their labor is valued based on the value of the goods or services they produce to those who consume them. I thought I was pretty clear about this.

Quote:
If no one buys the product, no one has a job. It is irrelevant whether you make 60K or 10K. Your entire economic health is decided by a panel of few men who invest monies they did not work for themselves.


Huh? Those guys don't make the decisions though. What's strange is you said it yourself: It's based on consumption. The profits for a company aren't based on some magical conclusion by a board of directors. The profits are based on the sales of the goods/services the company produces. This in turn is reflected in the stock price (meaning investors make money) *and* results in jobs and pay for the workers. All of that is drive by the perceived value of the goods/services the company produces. It's the value to others that matters, not how hard someone worked.

Quote:
Then the best part. These investors stash money in off shore accounts so they can skip paying taxes in America. Meanwhile the people the graciously provide employment to get taxed, extra fees, increasing cost. All lobbied by factions of these rich investors, the Big Pharm, the Financial Sectors. And why do they do this...to drive up the cost of living ensuring more profits for them and in turn more people to make more sh*t to line their pockets with more money.

Anyone who stashes money off shore should have their assest seized and their citizenship expunged, and be exiled to some sh*thole so they can learn what life isn't like inheriting daddies silver spoon from blood money in Germany. This is what really happens in economic life any sideways thinking leads you into dead end corners where you can only be made to look like an illiterate moron who doesn't understand basic math or economics


These two paragraphs show you have an understanding of the issue based solely on Hollywood movies and TV shows. That's seriously not how it works. I'd explain it to you, but I fear it would be a waste of my time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#394 Jan 23 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts


Sorry. I thought it was clear what context I was speaking in. He doesn't risk anything economically. If a store goes belly up, the owner loses every dime he invested in his business, which may represent decades of his own savings (and perhaps those of his family as well), loans taken out on his house, property, etc. The employee loses a job, which cost him the time to fill out the application to get. Seriously. The employee is paid for every hour of labor as he works it (subject to pay schedule of course). Everything he "spends" (his labor) is rewarded. If the business goes down, no one reaches into his bank account and takes back all the paychecks he received while employed there or makes him pay it back if he doesn't have it any more.


And master takes real good care of him. Why the employee would probably die left to his own devices. He needs master to shelter and feed him and the work master demands in exchange is a small small price to pay. Oh mammy. MAMMY!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#395 Jan 23 2013 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I believe that's the wrong way to look at it. The value of what someone does is based on the benefit it provides to others, not the cost to the person doing it.


So, you finally agree that the a waiter's tip is *supposed* to be based off of the service provided?


Seriously? No. It's based on how much the customer is willing to pay for the whole package he's receiving (both goods and services involved). The customer knows that in the US, he's expected to pay 15% of the base cost of the meal in the form of a tip. Thus, he will make his purchasing decisions by assuming that extra cost in addition to what is written on the menu. He may choose to increase or reduce that tip based on the actual received service level, but the base starting point will be 15% of the printed cost of the meal.

You're really still going on about that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#396 Jan 23 2013 at 7:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,253 posts
gbaji wrote:

Sorry. I thought it was clear what context I was speaking in. He doesn't risk anything economically. If a store goes belly up, the owner loses every dime he invested in his business, which may represent decades of his own savings (and perhaps those of his family as well), loans taken out on his house, property, etc. The employee loses a job, which cost him the time to fill out the application to get. Seriously. The employee is paid for every hour of labor as he works it (subject to pay schedule of course). Everything he "spends" (his labor) is rewarded. If the business goes down, no one reaches into his bank account and takes back all the paychecks he received while employed there or makes him pay it back if he doesn't have it any more.

That's why I say that he isn't risking anything.



Workers are always taking economic risks. If a store goes belly up, they've lost all the gains they've made in terms of wages/working hours/seniority (if it applies) and often any pension they may have had, not to mention health insurance in America. Many workers "lose everything" when companies, for example, choose to move their operations offshore. I wouldn't have to look very hard to find people telling stories of losing their homes because of a decision made by a corporation to fire them all so they could pay someone else less somewhere else.

Every time a worker takes one job, they are foregoing the opportunity to work elsewhere or otherwise occupy themselves. Every single hour worked is a lost opportunity to do something else. I'd argue that time, which is irreplaceable, is a lot greater thing to risk than money, which can be made again.

So when a worker decides to commit to a company, especially if they make that a long term commitment, they are risking lots. If they lose that job, in all likelihood they are going to be in an economically worse position than they would have been if they had chosen to "invest" their career in a more successful/caring company.







Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 5:04pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#397 Jan 23 2013 at 7:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I believe that's the wrong way to look at it. The value of what someone does is based on the benefit it provides to others, not the cost to the person doing it.


So, you finally agree that the a waiter's tip is *supposed* to be based off of the service provided?



You're really still going on about that?


Nope, I just like to see you back peddle. I already countered that nonsense in which you didn't respond. Now you're saying the opposite, but making it somehow "different" in this scenario....

Have you no shame?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#398 Jan 23 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
Have you no sense?


FTFY
#399 Jan 23 2013 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The employee working a shift at his job doesn't risk anything.
Of course. No one has ever died in a workplace accident, ever. I'm sure a lot more people have died while dialing up their stock broker than in a mine, or in a factory... etc.
Sorry. I thought it was clear what context I was speaking in. He doesn't risk anything economically.
Because dead or disabled employees prosper economically, right?


Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:22pm by Bijou
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#400 Jan 23 2013 at 9:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
Workers are always taking economic risks. If a store goes belly up, they've lost all the gains they've made in terms of wages/working hours/seniority (if it applies) and often any pension they may have had, not to mention health insurance in America.


None of which even comes close to the economic risk by the employer. The worker does not lose all the gains they've made. If they advanced from entry level cart pusher to senior level machine operator while working at the job for 5 years, that goes on their resume and gives them good odds of getting another job in the same field with similar pay/benefits. They lose only the security of that job, not the experience they gained. Pensions and health care are different matters (and subject to a whole bunch of variables outside the scope of this discussion).

Quote:
Many workers "lose everything" when companies, for example, choose to move their operations offshore.


No. Very few workers lose much at all when this happens. The only workers that are significantly negatively impacted are those who didn't have the job skills to justify their pay in the first place. Do you understand that if your labor is actually worth what you're earning, then you can get another job somewhere else for the same/similar pay? If a company chooses to move their operations and were not forced to due to inefficient labor costs, then the labor should be able to relocate to other similar jobs easily. If the move wasn't a choice, but was due to external economic factors (like say that it's really not cost effective to pay someone $15/hour to do a job they could pay someone $5/hour to do), then that's not about the company failing, but the worker failing.

Quote:
I wouldn't have to look very hard to find people telling stories of losing their homes because of a decision made by a corporation to fire them all so they could pay someone else less somewhere else.


I'm sure you could find lots of people making that claim. Lots of people claim to see Elvis. But usually, when you dig into those stories you find out the person was a crappy worker, and they weren't let go because of some evil corporate plot to punish them for being them, but because the corporation took the first legal opportunity they could to let go of excess baggage.

And btw, this still has nothing to do with loses when a business actually fails. You're shifting the discussion to businesses not failing, but deciding to fire people. Well that can suck for the person fired, but still has nothing to do with the relative risk. Again, you losing your job means you need to go find another job. Assuming your labor was actually worth what you were being paid, that shouldn't be much of a problem. When the business goes belly up, the owner/investors lose everything. This is often millions of dollars lost. There's just no comparison.

Quote:
Every time a worker takes one job, they are foregoing the opportunity to work elsewhere or otherwise occupy themselves. Every single hour worked is a lost opportunity to do something else. I'd argue that time, which is irreplaceable, is a lot greater thing to risk than money, which can be made again.


I'm not sure how that's the employer problem, or how that somehow equates to an economic risk taken by the worker. I suppose you could argue that working at a low advancement low training job would cost the worker over time, but that's his choice. Surely you can't blame the employer for that. And that's not risking something you have in any case.

There's simply no comparison between those two in terms of economic risks.

Quote:
So when a worker decides to commit to a company, especially if they make that a long term commitment, they are risking lots. If they lose that job, in all likelihood they are going to be in an economically worse position than they would have been if they had chosen to "invest" their career in a more successful/caring company.


Same argument made above. Same response. I'm still not seeing it. If the owners company goes bankrupt, he also loses all the potential difference between having started a successful company versus an unsuccessful one. But he also loses all money he invested in it as well. To make the same comparison you'd have to have the worker pay the employer a half a million dollars before getting hired, then spend 10 years working there, and then if the company fails, he loses his job and the half million dollars. That would maybe make it equivalent. As it is, all he loses is the 10 years working there, during which he presumably got raises, promotions, and was paid money (which he gets to keep as opposed to the owner who's lost it all).

Additionally, that the worker still retains whatever experience he gained while working there. The business owner maybe learned some things as well, I suppose, but it's probably not as significant a gain. 10 years working in a field will give you a pay advantage with any new employer. 10 years running a business before failing probably wont increase your own marketability much at all, and if you're self employed anyway, who are you going to impress with that?


Sorry. I just don't see it. Workers receive constant and nearly immediate benefits in return for their labor. They don't have to pay anything up front go get this. To say that the time/training or whatever is risked is somewhat silly. He's got to work somewhere, right? The presumption is that the worker will try to find the best job he can, so what is he really risking? It's not like he could stay at home and not work and "save" his training/experience by not working. Working doesn't represent a risk to those things. It does represent the potential to increase those thing even beyond his pay though. So it's win/win for the worker.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#401 Jan 23 2013 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Also... semi related to the original topic...tangentally at least... the NAACP is fighting New York's movement to curb soda sizes. I'm confused about how restricting the size of sodas sold is racist...


I do find it fairly ironic that the NAACP (& the Hispanic Federation) would rather protect the soda industry than, you know, the people they're supposed to protect. Considering obesity (& its side effects of heart disease & diabetes) is such a killer of black people, why the NAACP would essentially support the "killing" of more people through large sodas is kind of beyond me.

Oh, wait, the soda industry is a big backer of the NAACP & the Hispanic Federation. So never mind.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 10:56pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Anonymous Guests (43)