08-25-2015, 08:32 PM
(08-25-2015, 07:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Comical? Really?
The only thing comical is when you keep making stuff up.
Capitalism is a free-market economy that depends on private ownership of businesses. It is the best system because competition between private parties leads to higher profits, efficiency, and advancements in production.
Now post a link where I said something differnt or STFU. There comes a point where I actually have to call out people like you. I enjoy coming here for debates, but I can't spend all of my time dealing with liars and buffoons like yourself. So I am flat out saying that you are lying nd I challenge you to prove that I support communism.
(07-14-2015, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The generation that has not been duped into accepting exploitation at the hands of the wealthy elite.
(07-15-2015, 09:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is the first step.
We have to get past all the people who claim it doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter before we can do anything to address the problems.
Right now there are too many people who think poor people are living the high life with nice cars, plasma TVs, and cell phones without ever having to work. That type of rhetoric is what is preventing people from wanting to do anything about income inequality. The fact is that many people who work very hard live in poverty and die young because of it.
We have to convince the voters that poverty really is bad before we can ever do anything to help the situation.
(07-16-2015, 02:21 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have driven through a lot of government housing projects in my day (don't ask), and I didn't see ANY nice cars parked there.
I know that there is a lot of abuse going on, but usually unless people are involved in illegal activity they are still not getting by so well that people with jobs would quit to join them.
The problem is that people on the right and the programmers at Fox news convince people that EVERY person receiving government benefits is a lazy crook with tons of money. the fact is that there are a lot of people working hard at minimum wage jobs who struggle to get by from day to day.
(08-13-2015, 07:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. Living wage would be adjusted by location.
2. Costs of goods and services would not have to increase that much because...(1) Labor is only a fraction of the cost. (2) Only a fraction of the workers would get substantial raises. (3) Businesses have been able to give their highest management HUGE raises without driving up prices. Our economy worked just fine in 1965 when the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20 to 1. So why does it have to be close to 300 to 1 today? Instead of raising prices they could just spread around the money they have been pumping into the pockets of their highest paid employees.
3. Yes. the number one goal of mandating a living wage would be to reduce the burden of taxpayers. It isnb't fair for large corporations to make huge profits and not pay their employees enough to live on then expect the taxpayers to make up the difference.
(08-13-2015, 08:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: After you set a minimum wage then let the market decide what an employee is worth. Personally I don't see why CEOs now get paid 300 times what the average worker makes when things worked just fine back in 1965 when the CEOs only made 20 times more.
If minimum wage is $12 an hour that is only $24K a year. If a manger is twice as valuable as an entry level worker then pay him $48K a year, but if he really is not producing twice the profits of an entry level employee than don't pay him twice as much. If you are managing your store properly then he should not be able to leave and get paid a lot more for the same work some place else. Let the market set the wages above minimun wage instead of just letting people say "I am worth this much". Pay an employee what he is worth instead of what he thinks he is worth.
(08-13-2015, 08:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If every business pays a person what he is worth instead of what he thinks he is worth the market will balance out. Set a baseline and go from there.
Actually the liberal ideas are what have saved the middle classes. Before we had government regulation we had the wealthy barons of the industrial revolution amassing huge fortunes while the lower and middle classes struggled. We had children working in factories for pennies a day. We had coal minors working in poison air, and factory workers getting torn up in dangerous machinery.
And we are headed in that direction again. Over the last three decades the rich have gotten much richer while the middle and lower class wages have stagnated. And while our government gives millions of dollars of subsidies to corporate farmers, and spends millions to bail out financial institutions, and give millions of dollars of military aid to foreign countries just to protect corporate overseas interests there are still people who think it is insane to give money to poor children who don't have anything to eat.
(08-13-2015, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As long as their wealth is taxed when they acquire it then I don't care if they never have any more income.
But actually most wealthy people have investments that are generating income.
(08-14-2015, 09:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't care if everything is distributed equally, and it doesn't require any sort of magic. All I want is a tax structure and/or a minimum wage that makes sure that the lower and middle classes in our society are not living in abject poverty while all economic gains go to the people are the very top. That is where we are headed.
Why are you satisfied to see the wages of the middle class remain stagnate over the last 30 years while the people at the top have had massive gains in income? Don't you realize what that will mean in another 50 years?
And of course I understand the difference between income tax and capital gains. Do you? Do you know that capital gains are taxable? Do you understand that dividends and many other forms of investment income are not capital gains?
At some point Bill Gates received every dollar he has ever spent. If it is taxed when he acquires it then it is covered. Then the rest could be covered by estate taxes when he dies, or by wealth transfer taxes when he gives it to other people. The portion he donates to charity will not be taxed, but I am fine with that.
(08-14-2015, 06:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Raise minimum wage.
Remove certain deductions allowed for corporate taxes.
Increase tax rate on top bracket, or create a new higher tax bracket.
Raise the tax rate on capital gains.
Create a government run health care program for all citizens.
Use the additional tax revenue to help the lower classes through support programs instead of direct cash payments (education, health care, transportation, child care, etc)
These posts are all from one thread.
None of these posts suggest that you are a supporter of true capitalism, but keep saying that you're right. I suppose that counts for something.
