How's that taxation and socialism werkin' out fer ya?

[August]

Originally Posted by Fr8monkey

Republican controlled Senate in the fall of '08.

Dude the Dems have controlled both houses of Congress since 2006...

It was public outcry that has changed the way products have changed such practices in the past—remember all the PR crap Nike got, then they altered what they were doing?

Bad example, how many decades have Nike been getting bad PR for over that issue?
How many times have they been exposed and said they will change their ways and then got caught doing the same again?

OK maybe it wasn't a bad example, as clearly you was trying to make my point for me .

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Bad example, how many decades have Nike been getting bad PR for over that issue?
How many times have they been exposed and said they will change their ways and then got caught doing the same again?

OK maybe it wasn't a bad example, as clearly you was trying to make my point for me .

Well it's clearly a continuing concern for consumers, then. Do YOU buy Nikes, or do you not buy them because of this? Or are you merely waiting for it to be illegal for them to make them with child labor, and until then who cares?

I remember reading about it, and hearing that they said they'd do something about it. Most all my news comes from when I listen to NPR every morning, BTW.

Having travelled quite a lot in Asia (spent the better part of a year backpacking around central and SE Asia a long time ago), I'd suggest that kids not employed making sneakers, etc, would likely be doing something worse, or starving.

Before suggesting radical changes, I'd ned to see a cost-benefit analysis telling us what might become of these newly unemployed workers. Better to work 15 hour shifts in a factory than be forced into prostitution, for example.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by tater

Better to work 15 hour shifts in a factory than be forced into prostitution, for example.

Or better to, if there's only inhumane work like that available, let the rich people provide for them. They can miss a 2nd limousine or another villa. And many of them do nothing for it compared to the poor.

If a family can live a good life with, for example, €20.000 a year, and the CEO of some fancy company makes €20.000.000, that means he can miss €19.980.000 and still live a happy life.

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Or better to, if there's only inhumane work like that available, let the rich people provide for them. They can miss a 2nd limousine or another villa. And many of them do nothing for it compared to the poor.

If a family can live a good life with, for example, €20.000 a year, and the CEO of some fancy company makes €20.000.000, that means he can miss €19.980.000 and still live a happy life.

You're pretty free with other peoples money aintcha?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Or better to, if there's only inhumane work like that available, let the rich people provide for them. They can miss a 2nd limousine or another villa. And many of them do nothing for it compared to the poor.

If a family can live a good life with, for example, €20.000 a year, and the CEO of some fancy company makes €20.000.000, that means he can miss €19.980.000 and still live a happy life.

Yep, and if he gives up eighty thou he'll still have twenty to live on, just like everybody else. But the only way to make that happen is to use the wonderful benign government to force it to be that way. But then the CEO won't want to do that job anymore, so you'll have to use the wonderful benign government to force him to. Welcome to Utopia!

Another problem. Several years ago I pulled out my little pocket calculator and figured something out. At that time Bill Gates was listed as being worth $60,000,000,000.00. Yep, sixty billion dollars. What my calculator told me was this: if we took it all away and made him just like the rest of us, every man, woman and child in the US of A would receive a whopping $200. I think I said that before but it bears repeating - we would all be two hundred dollars richer. Microsoft has it's own separate worth, so the 93,000 people employed there would probably not be out of work, but then they wouldn't have a chairman anymore, so who knows what would happen.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

You're pretty free with other peoples money aintcha?

If that's how you want to call it, do so, I won't mind.
I'm from a middle-class family, studying at a university now, and have never in my life had any money problems. At the present I only receive money from the government, but when I've finished my study I'll earn MUCH more then the average John Doe, and thus will pay above average taxes. That's how it works, you receive when you need money, and pay when you don't.
With my job/salary prospects you can hardly point any accusing fingers to me for being "free with other peoples money". Yes I am, but I count myself to the "other people" too. Once my study is finished, I'll be glad to pay my taxes 'cause I can miss them then.


I don't see how it can possibly be fair that, in general, the rich guys don't have to do crap for their money, while the poor have to do hard work 24/7.
Just because they weren't lucky enough to be born in a millionaire family. Grew up in a bad neighbourhood. Were born in the wrong country. Or simply didn't have the brains to learn for a better job.

Yeah sure, there are people abusing the system. But blaming that on social security, would be like blaming your local supermarket for its high prices cause there are thieves stealing their goods and thus get it for free.

[tater]

Explains so much... when you have lived on handouts your whole life, you don't have any sense of the responsibility the people doing the handing out have.

Darkfish, since a FAMILY can easily live well on €20,000/year, I assume that you'll be donating ALL of your take home pay above that to 3d world charity. We'll all look forward to seeing the report from your accountant to prove it.

Or do you only think that that is "right" when forced by the government?

You live in a dream world. Wait til you have kids, and not handouts from the government or mommy and daddy.

"Honey, don't buy those new shoes, they look like all your other black shoes—we should send that money to India, instead." That'll go over well.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

[...] But then the CEO won't want to do that job anymore, so you'll have to use the wonderful benign government to force him to. Welcome to Utopia!

well of course it has to come with *some* advantages. But does that mean they should make a tremendous amount more than other people who work just as hard, or physically seen usually even harder? Personally I'd say 2-3x the 'normal' wages should be the max.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

At that time Bill Gates was listed as being worth $60,000,000,000.00. [...] if we took it all away and made him just like the rest of us, every man, woman and child in the US of A would receive a whopping $200.

If you devide it equally, yeah. But not everyone should get as much as another, what would be the point of taking the money away from Gates then if you give it to other rich people?
If you'd spend it on the bottom 20%, they'd get $1000 a man. According to wikipedia, the personal income for the bottom 19,71% is around $5000 average. That makes a whopping 20% increase in income for 42.000.000 people!

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by tater

Darkfish, since a FAMILY can easily live well on €20,000/year, I assume that you'll be donating ALL of your take home pay above that to 3d world charity. We'll all look forward to seeing the report from your accountant to prove it.

1st - I don't believe in 3rd world charity. But that's another topic, if you want me to elaborate on my personal reasons for that just start another thread.
Besides, the Dutch government already pays for some degree of development aid to 3rd world countries from our taxes. So whether I like it or not, I will be spending a part of my salary to charity.

2nd - of course I'd keep as much as I can. I would be a huge hypocrite to say otherwise. Mankind likes money.
I'm just saying that it'd be fair if I had to pay lots of tax money. I'm not saying I'd like it.

Originally Posted by tater

You live in a dream world. Wait til you have kids, and not handouts from the government or mommy and daddy.

With the Dutch social welfare system, if you really need money you get it. Besides, parents get an income-dependent tax reduction.
Sure, with kids you won't be as wealthy as before. But I've yet to hear any stories about families here in the Netherlands who became poor because they got kids. Either they weren't poor before, and weren't poor after, or were poor both before and after.

[Catfish]

" ... Explains so much... when you have lived on handouts your whole life, you don't have any sense of the responsibility the people doing the handing out have. ..."

LOL
Handouts, well - when i studied, i also got some money from the government, not much but enough to finish the studies together with the money i earned. I worked almost every holiday to earn the money for the studies, and expensive excursions, let alone books, bus, train, and a room to sleep. It is a nice time because you are young, not because you have much money -
you just have enough to live, and that is what Darkfish meant.


" ... Or do you only think that that is "right" when forced by the government? ..."

So you prefer to give the money to companies, and people who run it, already have billions, and give a damn ? Exxon Mobil does not pay taxes in the US, does it ? Did ENRON ? Who changed the books, and who then did rescue Bush, and the other oil companies ?
Who paid the bankers, Leman Brothers, Goldman Sachs ? The government had to help the companies out because they are incompetent , greedy, feel no responsability and give a damn about the country they produce or sell their stuff in. I would have let them go bankrupt, and give the responsible managers a kick in the face. At least.

Living in a state with a goverment usually means that people help each other, othewise you can shoot anyone who is past 50 to 60, and cannot work as hard anymore as it is expected.
And i mean states with any kind of democracy, not Idi Amin's Uganda, or China.
It is a contract that collected taxes are spent for the better of the whole community, and common sense. I trust the ****tiest government more, than any of those company egoists.
If you do not like this kind of civilization and caring for other pepole go become Tarzan. Or live in an anarchy, or move to Texas, or even better, to China. I hear it's the morning of capitalism there, without health care insurance and loans of 65 cent per hour.

And when the hands of the children become too big for electronics or carpets, they can be used as prostitutes, before working in the coal mines. Golden times over there.
Don't think market economy in the US would be any other than that, without a government.

Don't you think something's wrong with the western perception, when buying shoes for 300 Dollars are preferred to feed someone and give him an education and a chance somewhere else in the world, with this amount of money ?

Greetings,
Catfish

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

well of course it has to come with *some* advantages. But does that mean they should make a tremendous amount more than other people who work just as hard, or physically seen usually even harder? Personally I'd say 2-3x the 'normal' wages should be the max.

But again, what you think they 'should' make, or what I think, or what Nancy Pelosi thinks, is irrelevant. It's what the people who pay him the money think. Limit it arbitrarily by government and he'll go somewhere that will pay him what he thinks he's worth, the company will get what they're forced to pay for and go down the tubes, and all the employees will now be out of work. Good job.

If you devide it equally, yeah. But not everyone should get as much as another, what would be the point of taking the money away from Gates then if you give it to other rich people?

Because if you take it away from all the rich people...hell, let's take it away from everybody and distribute it evenly. The estimated net worth of the whole country is about $60,000,000,000, sixty trillion.
http://alphavictim.blogspot.com/2006...net-worth.html

Divide that by 300,000 people (we're not going to subtract the National Debt) and everybody gets $200,000. That's a one-time deal, so everybody is stuck with it. What becomes of it is determined by personal habits. We've all read about people who have won this-or-that lottery and then blown it all, being poor again in two or three years (or less). So a lot of folks are going to spend it quickly and then be in big trouble. Some more are going to put it to good use and manage to survive on it. A few are going to know what to do and create something with it, and make more.

And then what? The folks who can actually accomplish something are going to become rich and the folks who can't are going to become poor, and have to work for the rich ones all over again.

Like the old Blue Oyster Cult song said, "Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more."

If you'd spend it on the bottom 20%, they'd get $1000 a man. According to wikipedia, the personal income for the bottom 19,71% is around $5000 average. That makes a whopping 20% increase in income for 42.000.000 people!

The problem there is that $5000 number. It's an average. The minimum wage in this country is $7.25 per hour. If you work full time that comes to about $13,000 per year. So you have folks who work for minimum wage and folks who don't work at all, or work when the feel like it for beer money and sleep in the street. Nobody working even part time makes $5000, so those numbers are not real, just averages.

Actually I only made around $5000 last year. I worked for two months full time until I was laid off, and I worked some through a temp agency and I collected some unemployment. I would give my eye-teeth just to have a full-time job making minimum wage.

I'm afraid you still have a lot to learn about life that they don't teach in school.

What works fine in Europe will never work in the States. Failed states have ingrained problems that can't be solved from the outside. And also, the rest of the planet shouldn't suffer because of the US alone.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Catfish

" ... Or do you only think that that is "right" when forced by the government? ..."

So you prefer to give the money to companies, and people who run it, already have billions, and give a damn ? Exxon Mobil does not pay taxes in the US, does it ? Did ENRON ? Who changed the books, and who then did rescue Bush, and the other oil companies ?

The big word here is "give". If people make money it is either theirs to keep or someone else's to take. Taking without asking is stealing, whether it's done by a crook with a gun or the government. We allow the government to take some of ours to pay for roads, education, and everything else that needs to be handled publically, but Exxon making money is not "giving", it is "earning". If they don't pay taxes to the US, then they pay them to somebody else. Who? I don't know, and don't care enough to look it up. Why? Because whoever it is charges less. If the US got smart and lowered those taxes they would come back here. "Whatever the market can bear".

Who paid the bankers, Leman Brothers, Goldman Sachs ? The government had to help the companies out because they are incompetent , greedy, feel no responsability and give a damn about the country they produce or sell their stuff in. I would have let them go bankrupt, and give the responsible managers a kick in the face. At least.

So would I. If they screw people intentionally, they deserve the fullest punishment the law allows. If they do it accidentally, they deserve to go out of business. Government doesn't earn any income, they take it from the people. Bailing out some big company that screwed up is throwing away money they took from us. Better they give it back to us, or don't take it in the first place.

But what about the $170,000 per year each and every congressman "earns", and what about the extra $194,000 each one gets for "expenses", for what is supposed to be a public service?

Living in a state with a goverment usually means that people help each other, othewise you can shoot anyone who is past 50 to 60, and cannot work as hard anymore as it is expected.

Oops, that's me, thank you very much.

It is a contract that collected taxes are spent for the better of the whole community, and common sense. I trust the ****tiest government more, than any of those company egoists.

Unfortunately governments are made up of exactly the same "egoists", only they don't do anything to actually generate revenues. They just take whatever they think is appropriate and tell you it's for your own good.

Don't you think something's wrong with the western perception, when buying shoes for 300 Dollars are preferred to feed someone and give him an education and a chance somewhere else in the world, with this amount of money ?

Yes I do, but I also think something's wrong with the idea that you can take anything you deem proper and use it for what you think is a good cause. What keeps the next guy from taking what he deems proper and using for a bad cause?

People who run governments are just like any other people - good, bad, and everything in between. The difference is that they are much harder to control, because once they are there they can take whatever they want and there is pretty much nothing you can do about it if it gets out of hand.

Two quotes to end with:

"It is the natural tendency of things for Government to gain ground and Liberty to loose."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
-Gerald R. Ford

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So you have folks who work for minimum wage and folks who don't work at all, or work when the feel like it for beer money and sleep in the street. Nobody working even part time makes $5000, so those numbers are not real, just averages.

[...]

Actually I only made around $5000 last year. I worked for two months full time until I was laid off, and I worked some through a temp agency and I collected some unemployment. I would give my eye-teeth just to have a full-time job making minimum wage.

But does the fact that you made only $5000 make you someone who "works when you feel like it for beer money and sleep in the street?" I certainly hope that's not so. (and, knowing you as the subsim member you are, I don't think so)

There are people who do "work when they feel like it for beer money", sure. But that's not a problem caused by the system. There'll always be thieves, whether they steal a TV, or steal government money by abusing the system.

It's an argument I hear quite often, that because of those people social welfare expenses should be cut. But there are lots of people like you too, who want to work but for some reason or another can't find employment. Or people that do have a job, but very hard work for only minimum wages.