I do know the circumstances of life. and life isnt always fair. that doesnt mean I should be forced to give 60% of my hard earned money to the unfortunate.
I have to say I admire your honesty. At this point in the argument, most people start some serious rationalizing because they're too embarrassed to come right out and say, "Hey, it's not my problem, I don't give a fuck about those people."
And please, let's not be ridiculous. Where does this 60% figure come from? Even if your taxes WERE 60% of your income, only a fraction of that would be going to the poor.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I doubt anyone would really even notice it, or perhaps the Pentagon is really just spending monopoly money.
The neo-con mindset seems to lean quite a bit toward the selfish side.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Countless studies have shown that worker productivity increases are not due to workers working harder but rather due to technology. Technology that requires significant investment by the company owners. What have the workers done to earn a bigger piece of the pie when productivity increases are not due to their own actions or risks with their own money?
Too many workers act like spolied rich kids. Kids who think that because their parents are working harder or making prudent investments that they should be pampered and spoiled just because of who they are. F-that. You work for your money, you make educated and prudent investments with your money, you continually invest in yourself through education or pooring money back into your own small business.
It's already been said earlier in the thread but if there is no one to run the technology then the investor may as well throw his money in the bin. It is my opinion that you share your profits with the people that helped you win these profits. That your share is higher because you took the risks is fine by me, but the differences here are not only indecent, they are becoming ludicrous. And it is getting worse.
As for everyone being able to be rich, I don't believe in the american dream. I find that view extremly naive, because the market cannot not allow everyone to become rich, it simply won't work.
It is all a matter of how you view the world, and obviously we have different views.
I believe that this market way of thinking has been taken too far, too extreme, and didn't prove to be the "best possible solution" that was to be provided. This is a point we will never agree on, the capitalist system we live in does not reflect the values I would like my society to show.
As for too much government, it's a problem. But I'd rather see an entity that (in theory) represents me take care of issues that are a concern to me than corporation I have absolutely no power on.
edit : As for the subject of the original post, obviously since the government is spending the people's money, the government should listen to the people's ideas on how and where to spend the money. If the majority wants health care rather than a war in the middle east, it's their choice (in theory once again).
Everyone is off topic here anyway. The story is about how the media tells of a booming economy yet politicians claim at the same time that we can't afford many of the social programs that already exist. It's not about fucking socialism here. It's about the rich and powerful cutting social security and medicare. Why? Because they obviously don't need it, that's why.
This is a prime example of why the government shouldn't have anything to do with social programs.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I've been in the workforce about 10 years. My income has ranged from pretty low to above average.
I've invested the maximum into 401Ks since day 1 and honestly could stop investing in it already and still have a million at retirement due to compound interest.
It's not difficult to be a millionaire. It just takes a bit of self-control.
I didn't read all of the pages of this thread, but I have a couple of thoughts... I can only imagine (and correct me if I am wrong), but you probably came from a family that wasn't poor, and have a college education. Assuming those facts, not everyone is in that position. There are plenty of people who do not go to college or even if they do, are so loaded with school loans after the fact that they cannot afford to invest money for 10+ years after they graduate. Coming out of school making $20-$25k a year and trying to pay several hundred dollars in school loans, rent, food, etc., can take up a large chunk of your paycheck.
I graduate college in '97, and my parents probably paid for half of my college, and I still had a bill for $200 a month for ten years. My wife recently graduated and she got next to no help from her parents, but they made too much for her to be eligible for most of the grants/aid, and we are paying about $700 a month is school loans. With our two incomes we can pay it, but I can't imagine someone on their own fresh out of college being able to afford that payment.
On another note, the issue that I have with the economy is the housing prices... My wife and I make decent money, we only have one car payment, but we both have school loans to pay. We would love to buy a house, but cannot realistically afford one. We want to start a family, so we would need at least a 2 bedroom starter house, but more like a 3 bedroom house that we could live in for several years. In our area, you can't get a 3 bedroom house for less than $300k... even a small 2 br fixer-upper is going to be close to $200k and at that point we wouldn't have the money needed to put the bare minimum necessity repairs into it (new roof, replace wiring, etc). So, for the time being we are stuck renting, and trying to save money as we go for a down payment.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I didn't read all of the pages of this thread, but I have a couple of thoughts... I can only imagine (and correct me if I am wrong), but you probably came from a family that wasn't poor, and have a college education. Assuming those facts, not everyone is in that position. There are plenty of people who do not go to college or even if they do, are so loaded with school loans after the fact that they cannot afford to invest money for 10+ years after they graduate. Coming out of school making $20-$25k a year and trying to pay several hundred dollars in school loans, rent, food, etc., can take up a large chunk of your paycheck.
I graduate college in '97, and my parents probably paid for half of my college, and I still had a bill for $200 a month for ten years. My wife recently graduated and she got next to no help from her parents, but they made too much for her to be eligible for most of the grants/aid, and we are paying about $700 a month is school loans. With our two incomes we can pay it, but I can't imagine someone on their own fresh out of college being able to afford that payment.
On another note, the issue that I have with the economy is the housing prices... My wife and I make decent money, we only have one car payment, but we both have school loans to pay. We would love to buy a house, but cannot realistically afford one. We want to start a family, so we would need at least a 2 bedroom starter house, but more like a 3 bedroom house that we could live in for several years. In our area, you can't get a 3 bedroom house for less than $300k... even a small 2 br fixer-upper is going to be close to $200k and at that point we wouldn't have the money needed to put the bare minimum necessity repairs into it (new roof, replace wiring, etc). So, for the time being we are stuck renting, and trying to save money as we go for a down payment.
I understand this predicament. My opinion is that even if you have loans to pay for, which my wife and I also do, and jobs that aren't high-paying, you (the general you) can pay down loans and save money quicker than you think.
My wife and I took a financial class together that covered every aspect of planning, budgeting, investing, etc. Best thing we ever did financially. We took the combined salary of a teacher and a non-profit fundraiser and started paying about $1,000 a month on our school loans. We just created a budget, USE CASH ONLY, and save money, too. I was lucky because my wife had saved some money before we met, which gave us a nice emergency fund. That should be the first step, according to the class we took.
It's not easy, but instead of 20 years of paying down student loan debt, we should have it paid off in less than 5. I am convinced that if people really understood budgets, used cash instead of check/debit cards, ignored the consumerism/buy-now culture of America, etc., we would have more wealth that would last for generations. People in this country assume you HAVE to be paying a student loan, car loan, mortgage, and multiple credit card bills to be enjoying life. In reality, if you start saving early in life and your career and stay out of debt, you can accumulate using compound interest much faster than you might think.
Again, I'm speaking generally here, not directly to blackredyellow.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
I didn't read all of the pages of this thread, but I have a couple of thoughts... I can only imagine (and correct me if I am wrong), but you probably came from a family that wasn't poor, and have a college education. Assuming those facts, not everyone is in that position. There are plenty of people who do not go to college or even if they do, are so loaded with school loans after the fact that they cannot afford to invest money for 10+ years after they graduate. Coming out of school making $20-$25k a year and trying to pay several hundred dollars in school loans, rent, food, etc., can take up a large chunk of your paycheck.
I graduate college in '97, and my parents probably paid for half of my college, and I still had a bill for $200 a month for ten years. My wife recently graduated and she got next to no help from her parents, but they made too much for her to be eligible for most of the grants/aid, and we are paying about $700 a month is school loans. With our two incomes we can pay it, but I can't imagine someone on their own fresh out of college being able to afford that payment.
On another note, the issue that I have with the economy is the housing prices... My wife and I make decent money, we only have one car payment, but we both have school loans to pay. We would love to buy a house, but cannot realistically afford one. We want to start a family, so we would need at least a 2 bedroom starter house, but more like a 3 bedroom house that we could live in for several years. In our area, you can't get a 3 bedroom house for less than $300k... even a small 2 br fixer-upper is going to be close to $200k and at that point we wouldn't have the money needed to put the bare minimum necessity repairs into it (new roof, replace wiring, etc). So, for the time being we are stuck renting, and trying to save money as we go for a down payment.
Well, I don't think my family was poor, but we were probably lower middle class.
I started working when I was 15 (paper route) and I've never been without a job since. I've personally paid for every car (and all insurance) I've ever owned. I bought a $500 car with my paper route money and drove it until I finished college.
Regarding college, my parents paid for about 1/3 at most. I worked between 30 and 40 hours per week in addition to school and graduated in about 5.5 years with not too much debt. I rented a room in an old house and shared the bathroom and kitchen with other tenants. I realized early on that I was better off working very hard and living in poor conditions for a few years than taking out loans that would handcuff me for much longer.
My first job out of college was working a 7PM-7AM night shift in a plastic molding manufacturing plant for $8 an hour. Almost a year later, I got my first salaried job and that translated to $8.50/hr. It was 3rd shift from 10PM to 6:30AM. I moved into a very modest apartment (I'd been paying rent to my Dad since graduation) and that's when I started contributing to 401K.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I understand this predicament. My opinion is that even if you have loans to pay for, which my wife and I also do, and jobs that aren't high-paying, you (the general you) can pay down loans and save money quicker than you think.
My wife and I took a financial class together that covered every aspect of planning, budgeting, investing, etc. Best thing we ever did financially. We took the combined salary of a teacher and a non-profit fundraiser and started paying about $1,000 a month on our school loans. We just created a budget, USE CASH ONLY, and save money, too. I was lucky because my wife had saved some money before we met, which gave us a nice emergency fund. That should be the first step, according to the class we took.
It's not easy, but instead of 20 years of paying down student loan debt, we should have it paid off in less than 5. I am convinced that if people really understood budgets, used cash instead of check/debit cards, ignored the consumerism/buy-now culture of America, etc., we would have more wealth that would last for generations. People in this country assume you HAVE to be paying a student loan, car loan, mortgage, and multiple credit card bills to be enjoying life. In reality, if you start saving early in life and your career and stay out of debt, you can accumulate using compound interest much faster than you might think.
Again, I'm speaking generally here, not directly to blackredyellow.
Yep - I have a house loan, but no other debts whatsoever. I pay for everything in cash.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I have to say I admire your honesty. At this point in the argument, most people start some serious rationalizing because they're too embarrassed to come right out and say, "Hey, it's not my problem, I don't give a fuck about those people."
And please, let's not be ridiculous. Where does this 60% figure come from? Even if your taxes WERE 60% of your income, only a fraction of that would be going to the poor.
never once did I say I dont care about the unfortunate. I do. and I give to charity and volunteer my time as I see fit. FORCED is the main word I was using.
and for 60% i'm refering to business owners (who tend to be "rich") enter in the double taxation, 30% +30%
I should add that using cash and saving allows us to give much more than we would/could have as well. When you use cash that you have pre-determined in category, you know where every dollar goes. And you would be surprised how much you don't need when you do that.
As a result, we have been able to give consistently to a variety of causes in amounts that previous to this, I would have thought impossible.
Basically, I think poor people need to be informed on how to save money. People say it's impossible to do, but I am convinced that is not the case. It's hard, not impossible. Poor people spend more money than they have, and it's not always just to get by. (I'm generalizing here, but oh well.) Poor people that I've encountered are the first to buy cigarettes, beer, lottery tickets, and other items that handcuff them in the long run. I'd love to see a candidate champion a program that promotes financial education and is sponsored by the rich Republican businessmen who whine about the government. That would be putting their money where their mouths are, IMO. Don't want people on welfare? Show them how to use money/interest for their benefit on a massive scale.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
It's already been said earlier in the thread but if there is no one to run the technology then the investor may as well throw his money in the bin. It is my opinion that you share your profits with the people that helped you win these profits. That your share is higher because you took the risks is fine by me, but the differences here are not only indecent, they are becoming ludicrous. And it is getting worse.
If you want to invest millions of your dollars and not get any real return for the risk and investment you've made and rather pay your employees more I applaud you. However, if this is not a risk you're willing to take, or you are not willing to work hard and smart enough to get to this point then please stop telling other people what they should be doing in order to meet your moral code.
If you own a house you have the option of taking out a second mortgage and starting your own business and paying your staff above market wages. Or you can work at night and run your own business by day and pay your staff above market wages. I'd venture to guess that these are not things you are willing to do.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
If you want to invest millions of your dollars and not get any real return for the risk and investment you've made and rather pay your employees more I applaud you. However, if this is not a risk you're willing to take, or you are not willing to work hard and smart enough to get to this point then please stop telling other people what they should be doing in order to meet your moral code.
If you own a house you have the option of taking out a second mortgage and starting your own business and paying your staff above market wages. Or you can work at night and run your own business by day and pay your staff above market wages. I'd venture to guess that these are not things you are willing to do.
uhhh ... since when are ceo's of big multi-nationals the one investing their own money?? ... it's all shareholder dollars ... chumps like you and me ... they aren't risking shit ...
uhhh ... since when are ceo's of big multi-nationals the one investing their own money?? ... it's all shareholder dollars ... chumps like you and me ... they aren't risking shit ...
yikes. you really know nothing about investing huh?
uhhh ... since when are ceo's of big multi-nationals the one investing their own money?? ... it's all shareholder dollars ... chumps like you and me ... they aren't risking shit ...
As a shareholder I care about my return on investment and ethical business and environmental practices being followed. It's a nice bonus if the company is a good corporate citizen and leader in environmental practices. As long as all laws are being met I see absolutely nothing wrong with a CEO earning 500 times or more than what the janitor makes.
The government has this great system called taxation to deal with income distribution. They should stay out of compensation matters when it comes to capping someones income. They should just use the mechanism they already have to deal with the issue.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
If you want to invest millions of your dollars and not get any real return for the risk and investment you've made and rather pay your employees more I applaud you. However, if this is not a risk you're willing to take, or you are not willing to work hard and smart enough to get to this point then please stop telling other people what they should be doing in order to meet your moral code.
If you own a house you have the option of taking out a second mortgage and starting your own business and paying your staff above market wages. Or you can work at night and run your own business by day and pay your staff above market wages. I'd venture to guess that these are not things you are willing to do.
Your examples have nothing to do with my original post. I'm not saying you should pay your workers more even if that means you go bankrupt and/or have to work 85 hours a week.
When a company does record profits year after year and manages to pay its ceo more and more every year while the common worker does not profit from all this, that bothers me. Not when a small business that has troubles making ends meet does not pay more its employees.
It doesn't have to be an evil society taking all the money from the poor business man struggling to keep his head out of the water vs the beautifully permissive free market. It's just that, today, some cases really are indecent, well at least imo.
yikes. you really know nothing about investing huh?
A ceo invests nothing. He his hired most of the time (and wether or not his company makes profit he will leave with a nice check), he doesn't create that business. With a few exception, it's always the same in most of the multi nationals.
As a shareholder I care about my return on investment and ethical business and environmental practices being followed. It's a nice bonus if the company is a good corporate citizen and leader in environmental practices. As long as all laws are being met I see absolutely nothing wrong with a CEO earning 500 times or more than what the janitor makes.
The government has this great system called taxation to deal with income distribution. They should stay out of compensation matters when it comes to capping someones income. They should just use the mechanism they already have to deal with the issue.
what does that have to deal with ceo's being the one risking the most and reaping the rewards?
i don't necessarily agree gov't should be regulating compensation (minimum wage for sure being one i agree with) ... however, there needs to be mechanisms in place to ensure there isn't fraud ...
we've seen what can happen when we let some people dictate their own worth ... it's not always pretty ...
It's my belief that without billions of dollars as incentive, someone may have invented a more sound product than windows. And certainly in a more responsible and ethical manner. But maybe it would be someone who couldn't push their product in Microsoft fashion. I know I'm not the majority here but I don't believe socialism stifles innovation like most people believe. I think it encourages responsible innovation (which may actually take a little longer and be a little slower, but more responsible) because the people that are innovating don't catch the green disease.
If money weren't the sole motivator then those people that are innovating would be doing what they do for better reasons, hence they'd be more responsible about it. No need to fuck the environment or outsource to sweat shops because they're not trying to squeeze every penny out of everyone they possibly can. Isn't it obvious that capitalism has all but ruined this planet? People are too greedy and too anxious to get their hands on every little cent they can and they don't care who or what it's hurting in the process.
after going to bed last night i realized i could've sumed up my rant 2 posts back in one sentence. LOOK HOW YOU PEOPLE TREAT EACHOTHER. i'm from the woodstock generation where the spirit was brotherly love. people were worth saving back then. people helped eachother and worked to make the planet clean. i was one of the first people pushing for one day a year where nobody worked; nobody polluted; just one day a year for the earth. what we got was earthday which people turned into a way to make a profit. my point here is people don't act properly. and those of us who were on the cutting edge of the big technology era just gave up. we did what we had to secure our own futures. we're still here. look up green communities and you'll find us everywhere. we help eachother because we look out and see how people treat eachother and the way they live. this world isn't worth saving anymore. sad to say; the more people that die off the better this world will be.
as to inventions and other technologies; when they were first brought to the table we were told things like 'WERE YOU ON ACID WHEN YOU CAME UP WITH THAT" but now those things are a part of every day life. capitalizm did destroy the planet. i agree. but there wasn't another option. anything else requires the cooperation of everyone and we'll never have it.
"Only about 2% of all estates are subject to the estate tax."
"Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly traded securities, small amounts of other, easily valued assets and no special deductions or elections or jointly held property) with a total value under $1,000,000 and a date of death in 2002 or 2003, under $1,500,000 and a date of death in 2004 or 2005, and under $2,000,000 and a date of death in 2006 or 2007 do not require the filing of an estate tax return."
that's why i said it wouldn't effect 80% of the population. but it's a double edged sword. social security can now deny you based on the fact that you don't need your social security. so while the inheritence tax LOOKS like it's dropped the tiny estates; you'll pay in the end. i don't know about not having to file an estate return. i'm sure you're right. or maybe it's now considered income and taxed that way. all i know is we had a big family meeting with our lawyers to dance through a few loopholes to keep the government from getting any of the family money.
Comments
And please, let's not be ridiculous. Where does this 60% figure come from? Even if your taxes WERE 60% of your income, only a fraction of that would be going to the poor.
The neo-con mindset seems to lean quite a bit toward the selfish side.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It's already been said earlier in the thread but if there is no one to run the technology then the investor may as well throw his money in the bin. It is my opinion that you share your profits with the people that helped you win these profits. That your share is higher because you took the risks is fine by me, but the differences here are not only indecent, they are becoming ludicrous. And it is getting worse.
As for everyone being able to be rich, I don't believe in the american dream. I find that view extremly naive, because the market cannot not allow everyone to become rich, it simply won't work.
It is all a matter of how you view the world, and obviously we have different views.
I believe that this market way of thinking has been taken too far, too extreme, and didn't prove to be the "best possible solution" that was to be provided. This is a point we will never agree on, the capitalist system we live in does not reflect the values I would like my society to show.
As for too much government, it's a problem. But I'd rather see an entity that (in theory) represents me take care of issues that are a concern to me than corporation I have absolutely no power on.
edit : As for the subject of the original post, obviously since the government is spending the people's money, the government should listen to the people's ideas on how and where to spend the money. If the majority wants health care rather than a war in the middle east, it's their choice (in theory once again).
This is a prime example of why the government shouldn't have anything to do with social programs.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I didn't read all of the pages of this thread, but I have a couple of thoughts... I can only imagine (and correct me if I am wrong), but you probably came from a family that wasn't poor, and have a college education. Assuming those facts, not everyone is in that position. There are plenty of people who do not go to college or even if they do, are so loaded with school loans after the fact that they cannot afford to invest money for 10+ years after they graduate. Coming out of school making $20-$25k a year and trying to pay several hundred dollars in school loans, rent, food, etc., can take up a large chunk of your paycheck.
I graduate college in '97, and my parents probably paid for half of my college, and I still had a bill for $200 a month for ten years. My wife recently graduated and she got next to no help from her parents, but they made too much for her to be eligible for most of the grants/aid, and we are paying about $700 a month is school loans. With our two incomes we can pay it, but I can't imagine someone on their own fresh out of college being able to afford that payment.
On another note, the issue that I have with the economy is the housing prices... My wife and I make decent money, we only have one car payment, but we both have school loans to pay. We would love to buy a house, but cannot realistically afford one. We want to start a family, so we would need at least a 2 bedroom starter house, but more like a 3 bedroom house that we could live in for several years. In our area, you can't get a 3 bedroom house for less than $300k... even a small 2 br fixer-upper is going to be close to $200k and at that point we wouldn't have the money needed to put the bare minimum necessity repairs into it (new roof, replace wiring, etc). So, for the time being we are stuck renting, and trying to save money as we go for a down payment.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I understand this predicament. My opinion is that even if you have loans to pay for, which my wife and I also do, and jobs that aren't high-paying, you (the general you) can pay down loans and save money quicker than you think.
My wife and I took a financial class together that covered every aspect of planning, budgeting, investing, etc. Best thing we ever did financially. We took the combined salary of a teacher and a non-profit fundraiser and started paying about $1,000 a month on our school loans. We just created a budget, USE CASH ONLY, and save money, too. I was lucky because my wife had saved some money before we met, which gave us a nice emergency fund. That should be the first step, according to the class we took.
It's not easy, but instead of 20 years of paying down student loan debt, we should have it paid off in less than 5. I am convinced that if people really understood budgets, used cash instead of check/debit cards, ignored the consumerism/buy-now culture of America, etc., we would have more wealth that would last for generations. People in this country assume you HAVE to be paying a student loan, car loan, mortgage, and multiple credit card bills to be enjoying life. In reality, if you start saving early in life and your career and stay out of debt, you can accumulate using compound interest much faster than you might think.
Again, I'm speaking generally here, not directly to blackredyellow.
Well, I don't think my family was poor, but we were probably lower middle class.
I started working when I was 15 (paper route) and I've never been without a job since. I've personally paid for every car (and all insurance) I've ever owned. I bought a $500 car with my paper route money and drove it until I finished college.
Regarding college, my parents paid for about 1/3 at most. I worked between 30 and 40 hours per week in addition to school and graduated in about 5.5 years with not too much debt. I rented a room in an old house and shared the bathroom and kitchen with other tenants. I realized early on that I was better off working very hard and living in poor conditions for a few years than taking out loans that would handcuff me for much longer.
My first job out of college was working a 7PM-7AM night shift in a plastic molding manufacturing plant for $8 an hour. Almost a year later, I got my first salaried job and that translated to $8.50/hr. It was 3rd shift from 10PM to 6:30AM. I moved into a very modest apartment (I'd been paying rent to my Dad since graduation) and that's when I started contributing to 401K.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yep - I have a house loan, but no other debts whatsoever. I pay for everything in cash.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
never once did I say I dont care about the unfortunate. I do. and I give to charity and volunteer my time as I see fit. FORCED is the main word I was using.
and for 60% i'm refering to business owners (who tend to be "rich") enter in the double taxation, 30% +30%
As a result, we have been able to give consistently to a variety of causes in amounts that previous to this, I would have thought impossible.
Basically, I think poor people need to be informed on how to save money. People say it's impossible to do, but I am convinced that is not the case. It's hard, not impossible. Poor people spend more money than they have, and it's not always just to get by. (I'm generalizing here, but oh well.) Poor people that I've encountered are the first to buy cigarettes, beer, lottery tickets, and other items that handcuff them in the long run. I'd love to see a candidate champion a program that promotes financial education and is sponsored by the rich Republican businessmen who whine about the government. That would be putting their money where their mouths are, IMO. Don't want people on welfare? Show them how to use money/interest for their benefit on a massive scale.
If you own a house you have the option of taking out a second mortgage and starting your own business and paying your staff above market wages. Or you can work at night and run your own business by day and pay your staff above market wages. I'd venture to guess that these are not things you are willing to do.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
uhhh ... since when are ceo's of big multi-nationals the one investing their own money?? ... it's all shareholder dollars ... chumps like you and me ... they aren't risking shit ...
yikes. you really know nothing about investing huh?
The government has this great system called taxation to deal with income distribution. They should stay out of compensation matters when it comes to capping someones income. They should just use the mechanism they already have to deal with the issue.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
yikes ... i forgot you were the smart one on the board
Your examples have nothing to do with my original post. I'm not saying you should pay your workers more even if that means you go bankrupt and/or have to work 85 hours a week.
When a company does record profits year after year and manages to pay its ceo more and more every year while the common worker does not profit from all this, that bothers me. Not when a small business that has troubles making ends meet does not pay more its employees.
It doesn't have to be an evil society taking all the money from the poor business man struggling to keep his head out of the water vs the beautifully permissive free market. It's just that, today, some cases really are indecent, well at least imo.
A ceo invests nothing. He his hired most of the time (and wether or not his company makes profit he will leave with a nice check), he doesn't create that business. With a few exception, it's always the same in most of the multi nationals.
what does that have to deal with ceo's being the one risking the most and reaping the rewards?
i don't necessarily agree gov't should be regulating compensation (minimum wage for sure being one i agree with) ... however, there needs to be mechanisms in place to ensure there isn't fraud ...
we've seen what can happen when we let some people dictate their own worth ... it's not always pretty ...
after going to bed last night i realized i could've sumed up my rant 2 posts back in one sentence. LOOK HOW YOU PEOPLE TREAT EACHOTHER. i'm from the woodstock generation where the spirit was brotherly love. people were worth saving back then. people helped eachother and worked to make the planet clean. i was one of the first people pushing for one day a year where nobody worked; nobody polluted; just one day a year for the earth. what we got was earthday which people turned into a way to make a profit. my point here is people don't act properly. and those of us who were on the cutting edge of the big technology era just gave up. we did what we had to secure our own futures. we're still here. look up green communities and you'll find us everywhere. we help eachother because we look out and see how people treat eachother and the way they live. this world isn't worth saving anymore. sad to say; the more people that die off the better this world will be.
as to inventions and other technologies; when they were first brought to the table we were told things like 'WERE YOU ON ACID WHEN YOU CAME UP WITH THAT" but now those things are a part of every day life. capitalizm did destroy the planet. i agree. but there wasn't another option. anything else requires the cooperation of everyone and we'll never have it.
The planet's been destroyed? I guess I missed the memo....
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
that's why i said it wouldn't effect 80% of the population. but it's a double edged sword. social security can now deny you based on the fact that you don't need your social security. so while the inheritence tax LOOKS like it's dropped the tiny estates; you'll pay in the end. i don't know about not having to file an estate return. i'm sure you're right. or maybe it's now considered income and taxed that way. all i know is we had a big family meeting with our lawyers to dance through a few loopholes to keep the government from getting any of the family money.
you and billions of others.